Report of the 92nd

National Conference 

on Weights and Measures 

Salt Lake City, Utah – July 8 through 12, 2007 

as adopted by the 92nd National Conference on Weights and Measures 2007 

Editors: 

Linda Crown 

Lynn Sebring 

Technical Advisors to the Standing Committees 

Carol Hockert, Chief 

Weights and Measures Division 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Weights and Measures Division 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

National Institute of 

Standards and Technology 

James Turner, Acting Director 

NIST Special Publication 1070 

November 2007 

The National Conference on Weights and Measures is supported by the National Institute of Standards and Technology and is 

attended by officials from various states, counties, and cities, as well as representatives from the U.S. Government, other nations, 

industry, and consumer organizations. 
Abstract 

The 92nd Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held 

July 8 - 12, 2007, at the Snowbird Resort, Salt Lake City, Utah. The theme of the meeting was “United by common 

purpose we can and shall prevail in all that we do.” 

Reports by the NCWM Board of Directors, Standing Committees, and Special Purpose Committees constitute 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 of the Scale Manufacturers Association, Meter Manufacturers Association, 

Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association, American Petroleum Institute, National Association of State 

Departments of Agriculture, the Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling, and Associate Membership 

Committee. 

Key words: laws and regulations; legal metrology; meters; scales; specifications and tolerances; training; type 

evaluation; uniform laws; weights and measures. 

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 publication, however, recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees 

have been printed as they were submitted and, therefore, may contain references to inch-pound units where such 

units are commonly used in industry practice. 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. 

 Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Pub. 1070, 389 Pages (November 2007) 

WASHINGTON: 2007 

ii 
Table of Contents 

Page

Abstract .........................................................................................................................................................................ii 

Past Chairmen of the Conference .................................................................................................................................iv

Organization Chart ........................................................................................................................................................v 

General Session 

President’s Address – Dr. Belinda Collins, NIST, Technology Services Director............................................... GS - 1

New Chairman’s Address – Judy Cardin, Wisconsin Department of Agriculture & Consumer Protection ...... GS - 21

2007 Annual Meeting Honor Award Recipients ................................................................................................ GS - 23

Standing Committee Reports 

Report of the Board of Directors (BOD)........................................................................................................... BOD - 1

Appendix A. NCWM National Survey.................................................................................................... BOD - A1

Appendix B. National Random Market Survey 2006 ............................................................................. BOD - B1

Appendix C. Auditor’s Report for 2006.................................................................................................. BOD - C1

Appendix D. Report on the Activities of the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) 

 and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations ................................................................................. BOD - D1 

 Appendix E. Final Report of the NCWM Associate Membership Committee (AMC)............................BOD - E1

Report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations (L&R) .............................................................................. L&R - 1

Appendix A. L&R Committee Work Group on Moisture Loss .............................................................. L&R - A1

Report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) ...................................................................S&T - 1

Appendix A. Item 360-2: Developing Items ..........................................................................................S&T - A1

Part 1, Item 1, Scales: S.1.4.6. Height and Definition of Minimum Reading Distance, UR.2.10. 

Primary Indicating Elements Provided by the User, UR.2.11. Minimum Reading Distance, 

and Definitions of Minimum Reading Distance and Primary Indications .................................S&T - A1

Part 2, Item 1, Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems: UR.3.2.(c) Maintenance; Zero Load Tests..............S&T - A4

Part 3, Item 1, Liquid-Measuring Devices: T.5. Predominance – Retail Motor-Fuel Devices ........S&T - A5

Part 3, Item 2, Liquid-Measuring Devices: Price Posting and Computing Capability and 

Requirements for a Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser (RMFD) .......................................................S&T - A6

Part 4, Item 1, Water Meters: UR.2.1. Accessibility for Reading....................................................S&T - A8

Report of the Professional Development Committee (PDC)..............................................................................PDC - 1

Appendix A. Strategic Direction for the Professional Development Committee.....................................PDC - A1

Appendix B. Curriculum Package (Guideline for Creating a Basic Inspector Curriculum) ................... PDC - B1

Appendix C. National Training Curriculum Outline............................................................................... PDC - C1

Appendix D. NCWM Curriculum Work Plan.........................................................................................PDC - D1

Report of the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee............................................................NTEP - 1

Appendix A. NTEP Certification Mark License ....................................................................................NTEP - A1 

Appendix B. NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary ..........................................................NTEP - B1

Appendix C. NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary..................................................................NTEP - C1

Appendix D. NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary ...................................................................NTEP - D1

Appendix E. NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary .................................................................... NTEP - E1

2007 Annual Meeting Attendees ................................................................................................................ATTEND - 1 

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. Turnbull, 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 

68th 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 

74th 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 

81st 1996 Charles A. Gardner, NY 

82nd 1997 Barbara J. Bloch, CA 

83rd 1998 Steven A. Malone, NE 

84th 1999 Aves D. Thompson, AK 

85th 2000 G. Wes Diggs, VA 

86th 2001 L. Straub, MD 

87th 2002 Ron Murdock, NC 

88th 2003 Ross J. Andersen, NY 

89th 2004 Dennis Ehrhart, AZ 

90th 2005 G. Weston Diggs, VA 

91st 2006 Don Onwiler, NE 

iv 
Org Chart

National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc. 

Organization Chart 

2006/2007

Board of Directors 

Office Representation Name/Affiliation Term Expires 

Chairman: Michael Cleary, CA* 2007 

Chairman-Elect: Judy Cardin, WI* 2007 

NTEP Committee Chair: Don Onwiler, NE* 2007 

Treasurer: Will Wotthlie, MD 2007 

Active Membership/Northeastern: Charles Carroll, MA* 2009 

Active Membership/Central: Steven Malone, NE 2010 

Active Membership/Southern: Randy Jennings, TN* 2008 

Active Membership/Western: Joe Gomez, NM 2007 

At-Large: Christopher Guay, Procter & Gamble 2008 

At-Large: Jack Kane, MT 2011 

Associate Membership: Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo 2007 

*National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee Member 

Honorary NCWM President: 

NCWM Executive Secretary: 

NCWM Executive Director: 

BOD Advisor: 

NTEP Director: 

NTEP Committee Technical Advisor: 

Dr. William A. Jeffrey, NIST Director 

Carol Hockert, Chief, NIST W&M Division 

Beth Palys, CAE, NCWM Headquarters 

Gilles Vinet, Measurement Canada 

Stephen Patoray, NCWM Headquarters 

Steven Cook, NIST W&M Division 

Committees 

Laws & Regulations Committee Specifications & Tolerances Committee 

Position Name/Affiliation (Term Ends) Position Name/Affiliation (Term Ends) 

Chair: James Cassidy, Cambridge, MA (2007) Chair: Michael Sikula, NY (2007) 

Members: Vicky Dempsey, Montgomery Co., OH 

(2008) 

Roger Macey, CA (2009) 

Stephen Benjamin, NC (2010) 

Joe Benavides, TX (2011) 

Members: Carol Fulmer, SC (2008) 

Todd Lucas, OH (2009) 

Brett Saum, San Luis Obispo, CA 

(2010) 

Kristin Macey, CO (2011) 

Associate 

Member Rep: 

O.R. “Pete” O’Bryan, Foster Farms 

Canadian Tech 

Advisors: 

Doug Hutchinson Canadian Tech 

Advisor: 

Ted Kingsbury 

NIST Tech. 

Advisors: 

Thomas Coleman NIST Tech. 

Advisors: 

Richard Suiter 

Steven Cook 

v 
Org Chart

Committees (continued)

Professional Development Committee Metrology Committee 

Position Name/Affiliation (Term Ends) Position Name/Affiliation (Term Ends)

Chair: 

Agatha Shields, Franklin Co., OH 

(2007) Chair: TBD 

Members: 

Safety Liaison: 

Staff Liaison: 

Kenneth Deitzler, PA (2007) 

Ross Andersen, NY (2007) 

John Sullivan, MS (2011) 

Stacy Carlsen, Marin Co., CA 

(2011) 

Tina Butcher, NIST/W&M 

 Division (2011) 

Charles Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY 

Linda Bernetich, NCWM 

Co-Chair: 

Members: 

TBD 

Associate Member 

Rep: 

TBD 

NIST Tech Advisor: Tina Butcher NIST Tech Advisor: Val Miller 

Nominating Committee Legislative Liaison 

Chair: Don Onwiler, NE Chair: TBD 

Members: Dennis Ehrhart, AZ 

Ross Andersen, NY 

Maxwell Gray, FL 

Thomas Geiler, Barnstable, MA 

Steven Malone, NE 

James Truex, OH 

Members: TBD 

Credentials Committee Appointed Officers 

Chair: Mark Buccelli, MN (2008) Parliamentarian: Lou Straub, Fairbanks Scales 

Members: Jeff Humphreys, CA (2007) 

Raymond Johnson, NM (2011) 

Chaplain: F. Michael Belue, Belue 

Associates 

Coordinator: Linda Bernetich, NCWM Staff Sergeants-at-Arms: Mitzi Hansen, UT 

Bill Rigby, UT

Presiding Officers: Kirk Robinson, WA 

Manuel Villicana, Kern Co., CA 

Brett Gurney, UT 

Tim Chesser, AR 

Associate Membership Committee

Chair: Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scale (2007) 

Vice Chair: Christopher Guay, Procter and Gamble (2008) 

Secretary/Treasurer: Paul Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems (2009) 

Members: 

William Sveum, Kraft Foods (2007) 

Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo (2008) 

Cary Frye, International Dairy Foods Assoc. (2008) 

Michael Gaspers, Farmland Foods, Inc. (2009) 

Thomas Herrington, Nestlé USA (2010) 

vi 
Org Chart

National Type Evaluation Technical Committees (NTETC) 

Weighing Sector Measuring Sector 

Chair: Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo Chair: Michael Keilty, Endress & Hauser 

Flowtec AG

Technical 

Advisor: 

Steven Cook, NIST/W&M Division Technical 

Advisor: 

Richard Suiter, NIST/W&M Division

Public Sector 

Members: 

Ross Andersen, NY 

Tina Butcher, NIST/W&M Division 

Jerry Butler, NC 

Gary Castro, CA 

Steve Hadder, FL 

Ted Kingsbury, Measurement Canada 

John Makin, Measurement Canada 

Steven Malone, NE 

Don Onwiler, NE 

Dan Reiswig, CA 

Richard Wotthlie, MD 

Public Sector 

Members: 

Cary Ainsworth, GIPSA 

Ross Andersen, NY 

William Bates, GIPSA 

Andrea Buie, MD 

Luciano Burtini, Measurement Canada 

Tina Butcher, NIST/W&M Division 

Gary Castro, CA 

Terry Davis, KS 

Ken Jones, CA 

Jack Kane, MT 

Don Onwiler, NE 

James Truex, OH 

Juana Williams, NIST/W&M Division 

Russ Wyckoff, OR 

Private 

Sector 

Members: 

Steven Beitzel, Systems Associates, Inc. 

Doug Biette, Sartorius North America 

John Elengo, Contractor 

Robert Feezor, Norfolk Southern Corp. 

William GeMeiner, Union Pacific 

Railroad 

David Hawkins, Thurman Scale Co. 

Scott Henry, NCR 

Rafael Jimenez, Association of American 

Railroads 

Gary Lameris, Lameris Consulting 

Stephen Langford, Cardinal Scale Mfg. 

Paul Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing 

Systems 

L. Edward Luthy, Brechbuhler Scales, 

Inc. 

Nigel Mills, Hobart Corporation 

Naresh Puri, NMB Technologies, Inc. 

David Quinn, Weighing Consultants, Inc.

Louis Straub, Fairbanks Scales, Inc. 

Jerry Wang, A&D Engineering, Inc. 

Otto Warnlof, Consultant 

William West, Consultant 

Nathaniel Wieselquist, Sick, Inc. 

Walter Young, Emery Winslow Scale 

Private 

Sector 

Members: 

F. Michael Belue, Belue Associates 

Marc Buttler, Emerson Process 

Management - Micro Motion 

Joe Buxton, Daniel Measurement & 

Control 

Rodney Cooper, Actaris Neptune 

Maurice Forkert, Tuthill Transfer 

Systems 

Mike Gallo, Clean Fueling Technologies 

Paul Glowacki, Murray Equipment 

Alex Gutierrez, MEGGITT Fueling 

Products, Whittaker Controls 

Gordon Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc. 

Yefim Katselnik, Dresser Wayne, Inc. 

Douglas Long, RDM Industrial 

Electronics 

Wade Mattar, Invensys/Foxboro 

Daniel Maslowski, LTS Scales 

Richard Miller, FMC Measurement 

Solution 

Robert Murnane, Jr., Seraphin Test 

Measure 

Andre Noel, Neptune Technology 

Charlene Numrych, Liquid Controls, 

LLC 

Johnny Parrish, Brodie Meter Company, 

LLC 

David Rajala, Veeder-Root Company 

Otto Warnlof, Consultant 

vii 
Org Chart

National Type Evaluation Technical Committees (NTETC) (continued) 

Software Sector Grain Analyzer Sector

Chair: Jim Truex, OH Chair: Cassie Eigenmann, DICKEY-john Corp.

Technical 

Advisor: 

Stephen Patoray, NCWM Technical 

Advisors: 

G. Diane. Lee, NIST/W&M Division 

John Barber, J. B. Associates

Public Sector 

Members: 

Dennis Beattie, MC 

Andrea Buie, MD 

Bill Fishman, NY 

Mike Frailer, MD 

Norman Ingram, CA 

Todd Lucas, OH 

Don Onwiler, NE 

John Roach, CA 

Wayne Stiefel, NIST 

Public Sector 

Members: 

Randy Burns, AR 

Tina Butcher, NIST/W&M Division 

Don Onwiler, NE 

Richard Pierce, GIPSA 

Edward Szesnat, Jr., NY 

Cheryl Tew, NC 

Robert Wittenberger, MO 

Private Sector 

Members: 

Doug Bliss, Mettler-Toledo 

George Brazis, Avery Weigh-Tronix 

André Elle, Endress & Hauser Flowtec 

AG 

Travis Gibson, Rice Lake Weighing 

Systems 

Teri Gulke, Liquid Controls LLC 

Keith Harper, Gencor Industries, Inc. 

Bryan Haynes, Liquid Controls 

Tony Herrin, Cardinal Scale Mfgr. Co. 

Robert Hoblit, IBM 

Gordon Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc. 

Gary Lameris, Lameris Consulting 

Paul Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing 

Systems 

Mike McGhee, Actaris US Liquid 

Measurement 

Richard Miller, FMC Measurement 

Solutions 

Tim Morrison, KJM Software 

Charlene Numrych, Liquid Controls, 

LLC 

Michael Parks, Vulcan Materials Co. 

Jim Pettinato, FMC Measurement 

Solutions 

Mike Roach, Verifone 

Robin Sax, CompuWeigh Corp. 

Jim Sexton, Rice Lake Weighing 

Systems 

Chris Scott, Gilbarco, Inc. 

David Vande Berg, Vande Berg Scales 

Roland Wagner, Flow Measurements 

& Engineering GmbH 

Kevin Williams, Gilbarco, Inc. 

Nathaniel Wieselquist, Sick, Inc. 

Private Sector 

Members: 

James Bair, NA Miller’s Association 

Martin Clements, The Steinlite Corp. 

Victor Gates, Shore Sales Company 

Andrew Gell, Foss North America 

Charles Hurburgh, Jr., Iowa State 

University 

David Krejci, Grain Elevator & 

Processing Society 

John Kennedy, Perten Instruments 

Thomas Runyon, Seedboro Equipment 

viii 
Org Chart

National Type Evaluation Technical Committees (NTETC) (continued)

Belt Conveyor Sector 

Chair: TBD 

Technical Advisor: Steven Cook, NIST/W&M Division 

Public Sector Members: Andrea Buie, MD 

Private Sector Members: Rafael Jimenez, Association of American Railroads 

Lars Marmsater, Merrick Industries 

Bill Ripka, Thermo Electron 

Peter Sirrico, Thayer Scale - Hyer Industries, Inc. 

Thomas Vormittag, Sr., SGS Minerals Services 

Otto Warnlof, Consultant 

Regional Weights and Measures Associations 

Regional Weights and Measures Contacts 

Northeastern Weights and Measures Assn. 

(NEWMA): 

Annual Meeting 2007: May 14 - 17 

Springfield Marriott 

Springfield, Massachusetts 

Bill Timmons 

City of Medford 

(781) 393-2463 

mwtimmons@medford.org

Southern Weights and Measures Assn. (SWMA): 

Annual Meeting 2007: October 21 - 24 

Doubletree Hotel Little Rock 

Little Rock, Arkansas 

Tim Chesser 

Arkansas Bureau of Standards 

(501) 570-1159 

tim.chesser@aspb.ar.gov

Central Weights and Measures Assn. (CWMA): 

Annual Meeting 2007: April 29 - May 2 

Crown Plaza North 

Minneapolis, Minnesota 

Julie Quinn 

Minnesota Department of Commerce 

(615) 215-5823 

julie.quinn@state.mn.us 

Western Weights and Measures Assn. (WWMA): 

Annual Meeting 2007: September 9 - 13 

Harveys Lake Tahoe 

Lake Tahoe, Nevada 

Steven Grabski 

Nevada Division of Measurement Standards 

(775) 688-1166 

sgrabski@agri.state.nv.us

ix 
Org Chart

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 

x 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-1 

President’s Address 

National Conference on Weights and Measures 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

July 12, 2007 

Dr. Belinda Collins 

NIST, Technology Services Director 

Dr. Belinda Collins addressed the National Conference on Weights and Measures Annual Meeting attendees in Salt 

Lake City, Utah, on July 12, 2007. Dr. Collins presented the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

mission to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement sciences, standards, 

and technology in ways that enhance economic security and improve the quality of life. 

The presentation gave an overview of NIST and its pivotal role in the U.S. economy, covering key points such as the 

American Competitiveness Initiative, details of planned research, the U.S. measurement system, and NIST’s 

partnership with the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) in standards development and the 

newest area of enabling a hydrogen economy. The slides presented here cover some of the broad areas of research 

and contributions made by NIST and give an idea of the impact the agency has in domestic and worldwide arenas. 

This presentation ended on a note of cooperation for a continued successful collaboration between NIST Weights 

and Measures and the NCWM. 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-2 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-3 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-4 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-5 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-6 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-7 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-8 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-9 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-10 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-11 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-12 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-13 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-14 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-15 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-16 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-17 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-18 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-19 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-20 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-21 

New Chairman’s Address 

92nd National Conference on Weights and Measures 

Salt Lake City, Utah 

July 12, 2007 

Judy Cardin 

Wisconsin Department of Agriculture & Consumer Protection 

Good morning, everyone, and thank you all for being here. I am honored to accept the responsibilities of Chair and 

the trust you have placed in me to lead the National Conference. What a great organization this is! As difficult as 

some of our work was this week, we’ll leave here friends, ready to continue the work of the Conference. 

Thanks to the standing committees for the long hours and fortitude you displayed this week. With your continuing 

involvement and determination, we’ll handle the challenges before us as we always do—seeking balance to provide 

equity and making the correct technical decisions. 

My theme this year is “Seeking Balance.” All issues and proposals we consider require us to seek balance. We 

determine the best science and measurement available, at a cost the market and consumers can bear. Temperature 

compensation is a tremendous challenge and opportunity that will require a focus on seeking balance during the next 

year and beyond. Together we will find that balance. 

My other goals for the year include: 

1. continuing to build our partnerships with NIST and Canada, and our work on OIML agreements; 

2. involving and supporting our standing committees and the membership in continued improvement of 

standards development; 

3. improving the efficiency and cost effectiveness of NCWM; 

4. improving and communicating the value of NCWM; and 

5. retaining and increasing membership. 

Please let me know what is important to you. Feel free to call, email, or tap me on the shoulder when you see me. I 

want to hear from you, and I’ll need your help to improve and grow the Conference. 

At this time I would like to make the following appointments: 

To the Board of Directors, to fill the vacancy caused by Jack Kane’s advancement to Chair-elect: Tim Tyson, 

Kansas. 

To the NTEP Committee: Don Onwiler, Nebraska, as Chair. 

 

To the Laws and Regulations Committee: John Gaccione, Westchester County, New York. 

To the Specifications and Tolerances Committee: Rick Fogal, Pennsylvania 

To the Professional Development Committee (PDC): Ken Deitzler, Pennsylvania 

In addition, I am announcing some corrections and changes to the term expirations of the members of the PDC. 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-22 

Agatha Shields’ term expiration was listed incorrectly in Publication 16. Agatha’s term will expire in 2008. Ken 

Deitzler will serve until 2009; Ross Anderson, 2010; John Sullivan, 2011; and Stacy Carlsen, 2012. 

Nominating Committee: 

Don Onwiler, Chair, Nebraska 

Thomas Geiler, Massachusetts 

Ross Andersen, New York 

Steven Malone, Nebraska 

Dennis Ehrhart, Arizona 

Maxwell Gray, Florida 

Jim Truex, Ohio 

Chaplain: 

F. Michael Belue, Belue Associates 

Parliamentarian: 

Lou Straub, Fairbanks Scales, Inc. 

Credentials Committee: 

David Pfahler, South Dakota 

 

Presiding Officers: 

Jerry Butler, North Carolina 

Kurt Floren, Los Angeles, California 

Tim Chesser, Arkansas 

Mike Sikula, New York 

Sergeants-at-Arms will be Vermont officials. 

Thank you again for your trust. I also appreciate the support and friendship so many of you have offered. I’ll do my 

best to fulfill your expectations and leave NCWM an even stronger organization at the end of my term. 

 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-23 

NCWM 2007 Annual Meeting Honor Award Recipients 

Full Name Organization State No. of Years 

Stacy Carlsen Marin County Weights & Measures CA 10 

Kurt Floren Los Angeles County Weights & Measures CA 10 

Joe Gomez New Mexico Department of Agriculture NM 10 

Bob Murnane Seraphin Test Measure/Pemberton NJ 10 

Bill Ripka Thermo Electron MN 10 

Lawrence Stump Indiana Weights & Measures IN 10 

Norman Brucker Precision Measurement Standards, Inc. MN 15 

Tina Butcher NIST, Weights & Measures Division MD 15 

Michael Keilty Endress & Hauser Flowtec AG IN 15 

Don Onwiler Nebraska Division of Weights & Measures NE 15 

Robert Reynolds Downstream Alternatives Inc. IN 15 

Will Wotthlie Maryland Department of Agriculture MD 15 

Carol Fulmer South Carolina Department of Agriculture SC 20 

Louis Straub Fairbanks Scales Inc. NC 20 

F. Michael Belue Belue Associates AL 30 

 
General Session 2007 Final Report 

GS-24 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
BOD 2007 Final Report 

BOD - 1 

Report of the Board of Directors 

Michael Cleary 

Special Assistant Law Enforcement Coordinator 

California Department of Food and Agriculture 

Reference 

Key Number

100 INTRODUCTION 

The Board held its quarterly Board of Directors (BOD) meeting on Saturday, July 7, 2007, and continued that 

meeting during work sessions throughout the remainder of the Annual Meeting. The Board of Directors and the 

NTEP Committee invited members to dialogue with the BOD on the following issues: Conformity Assessment, 

Improving Standards Development, Marketplace Surveys, Membership Marketing, Mutual Acceptance 

Arrangements, Increasing the Value and Attendance at Meetings, and participation internationally, i.e., OIML, 

CFTM, APLMF, and USNWG. 

Table A 

Table of Contents

Subject Page 

100 INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................................................1

1. Improving Standards Development......................................................................................................................2

2. Marketplace Surveys............................................................................................................................................2

3. Meetings...............................................................................................................................................................2

4. Membership Marketing........................................................................................................................................2

5. NCWM Website – www.ncwm.net......................................................................................................................3

6. Participation in International Standard Setting ....................................................................................................3

7. Increasing the Value and Attendance at Meetings ...............................................................................................3

8. Treasurer’s Report................................................................................................................................................4

Table B 

Appendices 

Appendix Title Page 

A NCWM National Survey of Prepackaged Meats and Poultry ...........................................................................A1 

B National Random Market Survey 2006............................................................................................................. B1 

C Auditor’s Report for 2006................................................................................................................................. C1 

D Report on the Activities of the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) and Regional 

Legal Metrology Organizations.................................................................................................................D1 

E Final Report of the NCWM Associate Membership Committee (AMC).......................................................... E1 
BOD 2007Final Report 

Details of all Items 

(In order by Reference Key Number) 

1. Improving Standards Development 

Judy Cardin continued her efforts with instructing members on the use of Form 15 and made presentations to the 

remaining regional associations. The Board reviewed this item in an effort to ensure that the process is simple, 

clear, and transparent. The next step in the process is to incorporate the feedback received from the regional 

associations into a “How To” submit a Form 15. The intent is also to develop an online form for submittal. 

In addition, the Board is recommending to the standing committees that they encourage members to submit written 

comments to the appropriate standing committee chair. The standing committee chair, if appropriate, will read the 

comments during the open hearing. This would include comments from members who are uncomfortable speaking 

at the microphone. 

Since the Interim Meeting, the online overview and how to submit a proposal has been completed. In addition, the 

online form to submit a proposal has been completed. These items have been posted on the NCWM website under 

“Submit a Proposal” under the “About NCWM” topic. Editorial changes will also be made to the introduction 

sections of NIST Handbooks 44 and 130. 

2. Marketplace Surveys 

At the Interim Meeting, Roger Macey, Branch Chief, California Division of Measurement Standards, gave a 

PowerPoint presentation of the basic initial data from the recent national marketplace survey. Additional in-depth 

data will be presented at a later time. The Board welcomes any input from the general membership on the use of the 

data. The PowerPoint presentation and survey results are contained in Appendices A and B of the Board report. 

Once the work on this survey is completed, the Board will consider future surveys. 

The information from the recent marketplace survey will be put on the website as well as an explanation of the 

methodology used and the findings. Future survey topics will be selected by the NCWM chairman. 

3. Meetings 

Interim Meetings 

January 27 - 30, 2008 Hyatt Regency Albuquerque, Albuquerque, New Mexico 

January 11 - 14, 2009 Hilton Daytona Beach Hotel, Daytona Beach, Florida 

Annual Meetings 

July 13 - 17, 2008 Sheraton Burlington Hotel & Conference Center, Burlington, Vermont 

July 12 - 16, 2009 Marriott Plaza Hotel, San Antonio, Texas 

July 11 - 15, 2010 Crowne Plaza St. Paul Hotel, St. Paul, Minnesota 

4. Membership Marketing 

The outreach efforts have begun to pay dividends. Membership is at its highest point in over four years. The Board 

has been involved in the following activities: 

- Lapsed member letter sent by Mike Cleary 

- E-mail campaign 

- New membership application has been developed. It is available on the NCWM website as a downloadable 

PDF or in hard copy from the NCWM office. 

- First-timer mentoring by Board at 2006 and 2007 Annual Meeting 

- Redesigned presentation for first-timer’s orientation at the Annual Meeting was developed and presented in 

Salt Lake. 

BOD - 2 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

- Online membership applications and renewals 

- The Board developed a first-timer’s information packet and at-a-glance guide to the conference. 

- Dreaded first-timer ribbons have been banished. 

Mike Cleary reported that his goal for the past year was membership recruitment, retention and awareness of the 

significance of the Conference. Chairman Cleary indicated that membership is the highest that it has been since 

2003. 

5. NCWM Website – www.ncwm.net 

The following website enhancements have been completed: 

- Online meeting registration 

- Online membership application and renewal 

The Board would like to thank the AMC for a generous financial donation to help defray the cost of the website 

enhancements. 

New enhancement suggestions include: 

- Photo library 

- Online NTEP applications 

- Posting presentations from the Interim and Annual Meetings. 

Chairman Cleary reviewed the enhancements made to the website. In addition to the items mentioned in the report, 

the information on how to submit a proposal has been developed and posted as has the information on the Annual 

Meeting process. The Board would like to see Annual and Interim Meeting presentations archived on the website. 

The Board has formed a committee to continually assess and make recommendations to enhance the usability of the 

website and newsletter. 

6. Participation in International Standard Setting 

Chuck Ehrlich briefed the Board on key activities of OIML and regional legal metrology organizations (see 

Appendix D). 

7. Increasing the Value and Attendance at Meetings 

Continued Use of Training Sessions: The Board recognized the value training sessions bring to the Annual Meeting 

and would like to continue to facilitate these during any available time. To accomplish this, the process will be that 

the PDC make recommendations to the chairman for topics. The chairman will select the presenters. 

The use of Roundtables: The Board recognizes the value of a roundtable discussion format and will try to 

incorporate it into the first-timers’ orientation session at the Annual Meeting. 

Specifications & Tolerances Committee (S&T) – The S&T Committee will go first during the open hearings. Their 

addendum sheet will not be due until 6:00 p.m. on Tuesday. 

The Board has recognized the value of posting electronic versions of the presentations made at the Interim and 

Annual Meetings on the NCWM website. These presentations will be posted on the Conferences page. 

Chairman Cleary reviewed the information contained in the Interim Report under this section. There was discussion 

on whether Thursday’s agenda should be moved to Wednesday if the voting moves more quickly. It was decided to 

follow the schedule as published in the conference agenda. The Board will work in the coming year to make the 

Annual Meeting schedule more efficient and effective. 

BOD - 3 
BOD 2007Final Report 

8. Treasurer’s Report 

A brief treasurer’s report will be included in the Board’s agenda during the Annual Meeting. The 2006 Audit 

Report is included in Appendix C of this report. 

Treasurer’s Report 

Income (percentage of total income) 

Dues 22 % 

NTEP 62 % 

Conferences 11 % 

Publications 3 % 

Direct Expense (percentage of direct expenses) 

Membership 2 % 

NTEP 72 % 

Publications 2 % 

Conferences 24 % 

Overhead Expenses (percentage of overhead expenses) 

Staff 43 % 

BOD 24 % 

Website 9 % 

Charge Card Fees 8 % 

Other 16 % 

Reserves 

 NCWM currently has $612,000 in Certificates of Deposit. 

Michael Cleary, California, NCWM Chairman 

Judy Cardin, Wisconsin, NCWM Chairman-Elect 

Don Onwiler, Nebraska, NTEP Chair 

Charles Carroll, Massachusetts 

Joe Gomez, New Mexico 

Jack Kane, Montana 

Randy Jennings, Tennessee 

Steven Malone, Nebraska 

Richard Wotthlie, Maryland 

Christopher B. Guay, Procter & Gamble Co. 

Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, Inc. 

NCWM Staff: Beth Palys, CAE 

NIST: Carol Hockert, Chief, Weights and Measures Division 

Board of Directors 

BOD - 4 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NCWM National Survey – Prepackaged Meat and Poultry 

Appendix A 

NCWM National Survey 

Survey of Prepackaged Meat and Poultry 

BOD - A1 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NCWM National Survey – Prepackaged Meat and Poultry 

BOD - A2 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NCWM National Survey – Prepackaged Meat and Poultry 

BOD - A3 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NCWM National Survey – Prepackaged Meat and Poultry 

BOD - A4 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NCWM National Survey – Prepackaged Meat and Poultry 

BOD - A5 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NCWM National Survey – Prepackaged Meat and Poultry 

BOD - A6 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NCWM National Survey – Prepackaged Meat and Poultry 

BOD - A7 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NCWM National Survey – Prepackaged Meat and Poultry 

BOD - A8 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NCWM National Survey – Prepackaged Meat and Poultry 

BOD - A9 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NCWM National Survey – Prepackaged Meat and Poultry 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

BOD - A10 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – National Random Market Survey 2006 

Appendix B 

BOD - B1 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – National Random Market Survey 2006 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

BOD - B2 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – Auditor’s Report for 2006 

Appendix C 

Auditor’s Report for 2006 

The Board reviewed the Auditor’s report from the 2006 audit year ended September 30, 2006. 

Statement of Activities Ending September 30, 2006 

2006 Actual AMC Fund 2006 Budget 

Revenue & Support 

 Government Dues $102,450 $102,210 

 Associate Dues $ 67,740 $ 66,215 

 National Type Evaluation Program $458,100 $462,750 

 Interim Meeting Fees $ 18,374 $ 21,250 

 Annual Meeting Fees $ 64,783 $ 69,600 

 Publications $ 22,428 $ 24,200 

 Advertising $ 750 $ 850 

 Investment Return $ 28,094 $ 7,500 

 Associate Member Fund _______ $ 13,440 _______ 

 Total Revenue & Support $762,719 $ 13,440 $754,575 

Expenses 

 Programs 

Membership $ 13,091 $ 12,101 

 National Type Evaluation Program $443,826 $455,739 

 Interim Meeting $ 45,324 $ 50,488 

 Annual Meeting $ 85,800 $ 90,556 

 Publications $ 11,847 $ 16,140 

 Newsletter $ 14,927 $ 15,107 

 Refunds $ 625 _______ 

 Total Programs $615,440 $640,131 

 Management & General 

Management Fees $ 51,267 $ 51,267 

 Board of Directors $ 24,121 $ 29,700 

 Bank Fees $ 10,897 $ 10,200 

 Website $ 12,350 $ 10,679 

 Legal & Accounting $ 5,861 $ 6,525 

 Committee Contingency Fund $ 4,227 $ 5,500 

 Committee Travel $ 1,691 $ 0 

 Insurance $ 2,057 $ 2,500 

 Office Supplies $ 2,455 $ 1,800 

 Telephone $ 576 $ 1,200 

 Technology Fee $ 1,960 $ 0 

 Printing & Duplicating $ 1,443 $ 650 

 Marketing $ 311 $ 0 

 Miscellaneous $ 600 $ 0 

 Postage $ 87 $ 50 

 Broadcast e-mail $ 33 $ 0 

 Associate Member Fund $ 13,991

 Total Management & General $119,936 $120,071 

 Total Expenses $735,376 $ 13,991 $760,202

 Change in net assets $ 27,343 (551) 

BOD - C1 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – Auditor’s Report for 2006 

2006 Actual AMC Fund 2006 Budget 

 Net Assets, beginning of year $604,928 $5,425 

 Net Assets, end of year $632,271 $4,874

Assets

Current Assets 

 Cash & Cash Equivalents $210,511 

 Certificates of Deposit $584,992 

 Accounts Receivable $ 736 

 Prepaid Expenses $ 2,165 

 Interest Receivable $ 3,997 

 _______ 

 Total Assets $802,401 

Liabilities & Net Assets 

 Accounts Payable $ 8,271 

 Deferred Dues Revenue $156,985 

 _______ 

 Total Liabilities $165,256 

Net Assets _______ 

 Unrestricted $637,145 

 Total Liabilities and Net Assets $802,401 

Michael Cleary, California, NCWM Chairman 

Judy Cardin, Wisconsin, NCWM Chairman-Elect 

Don Onwiler, Nebraska, NTEP Chair 

Charles Carroll, Massachusetts 

Joe Gomez, New Mexico 

Jack Kane, Montana 

Randy Jennings, Tennessee 

Steven Malone, Nebraska 

Richard Wotthlie, Maryland 

Christopher B. Guay, Procter & Gamble Co. 

Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, Inc. 

NCWM Staff: Beth Palys, CAE 

NIST: Carol Hockert, Chief, Weights and Measures Division 

Board of Directors

BOD - C2 
 BOD 2007 Final Report 

 Appendix D – Report on the Activities of the OIML 

Appendix D 

Report on the Activities of the 

International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) 

and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations 

Weights and Measures Division, NIST 

The Weights and Measures Division (WMD) of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is 

responsible for coordinating U.S. participation in OIML and other international legal metrology organizations. 

Learn more about OIML at the OIML website at http://www.oiml.org and the WMD website at 

http://www.nist.gov/owm on the Internet. Dr. Charles Ehrlich, Group Leader of the International Legal Metrology 

Group (ILMG), can be contacted at charles.ehrlich@nist.gov or at (301) 975-4834 or by fax at (301) 975-8091. 

Please note: OIML publications are available without cost at http://www.oiml.org. 

Table A 

Table of Contents

Subject Page 

I. Report on the Activities of the OIML Technical Committees..........................................................................D2

II. Report on the 41st CIML Meeting in Cape Town, South Africa, October 18 - 20, 2006 ..................................D4

III. Future CIML Meetings .....................................................................................................................................D6

IV. Regional Legal Metrology Organizations .........................................................................................................D6

Table B 

Glossary of Acronyms

BIML International Bureau of Legal Metrology IR International Recommendation 

CD Committee Draft1 MAA Mutual Acceptance Arrangement 

CIML International Committee of Legal Metrology OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology 

CPR Committee on Participation Review PTB Physikalisch-Technischen Bundsanstalt 

DD Draft Document2 R Recommendation 

DR Draft Recommendation2 SC Technical Subcommittee 

DV Draft Vocabulary2 TC Technical Committee 

DoMC Declaration of Mutual Confidence WD Working Draft3

1

 CD: a draft at the stage of development within a technical committee or subcommittee; in this document, 

successive drafts are numbered 1 CD, 2 CD, etc. 

2

 DD and DR: draft documents approved at the level of the technical committee or subcommittee concerned and 

sent to BIML for approval by CIML. 

3

 WD: precedes the development of a CD; in this document, successive drafts are number 1 WD, 2 WD, etc. 

BOD - D1 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – Report on the Activities of the OIML 

 

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

I. Report on the Activities of the OIML Technical Committees 

This section reports on recent activities and the status of work in OIML Technical Committees (TCs) and Technical 

Subcommittees (SCs) of specific interest to members of NCWM. Also included are schedules of future activities of 

the Secretariats, the U.S. National Work Groups (USNWGs), and the International Work Groups (IWGs) of the 

Committees and Subcommittees. 

TC 3/SC 1 “Pattern Approval and Evaluation” (United States) 

The subcommittee approved the U.S. proposal for a combined revision of OIML D 19 “Pattern evaluation and 

pattern approval” and D 20 “Initial and subsequent verification of measuring instruments and processes” into a 

single document entitled “Principles of metrological control of measuring instruments: type approval and 

verification.” Key elements of OIML D 3 “Legal Qualification of Measuring Instruments,” R 34 “Accuracy Classes 

of Measuring Instruments,” and R 42 “Metal Stamps for Verification Officers” will also be incorporated into the 

combined revision of OIML D 19 and D 20. The revised documents will incorporate recent developments such as 

the OIML certificate system, D 27 “Initial verification of measuring instruments utilizing the manufacturer's quality 

management system,” and the “Framework for a mutual acceptance arrangement (MAA) on OIML type 

evaluations.” Consideration will be given to the appropriate conformity assessment options developed by the ISO 

Council Committee on Conformity Assessment (ISO CASCO), including quality systems, product certification, and 

accreditation. Consideration will be given also to information technology and statistical methods to increase or 

decrease verification intervals based upon proven instrument performance. For more information on this activity, 

contact Dr. Ambler Thompson at (301) 975-2333 or at ambler@nist.gov. 

TC 5/SC 2 Software (Germany and BIML)

All OIML Documents and Recommendations published since 1990 have been reviewed for terms and requirements 

related to software. The ILMG submitted U.S. comments on a working draft of the document “Software in Legal 

Metrology” in June 2006. When complete, this document will serve as guidance for OIML technical committees 

addressing software requirements in Recommendations for software-controlled instruments. The ILMG participated 

in meetings of the NCWM Software Sector in Annapolis, Maryland, in October 2006. Most recently, the cosecretariat distributed the 1 CD of this document for subcommittee comment in June 2007. Please contact 

Dr. Ambler Thompson at (301) 975-2333 or at ambler@nist.gov if you would like a copy of the OIML CD or to 

participate in this project. 

TC 8/SC 1 “Static Volume and Mass Measurement” (Austria and Germany) 

The Secretariat submitted 2 CD revisions in January 2006 for OIML R 71 “Fixed Storage Tanks,” R 80 “Road and 

Rail Tankers,” and R 85 “Automatic Level Gages for Measuring the Level of Liquid in Fixed Storage Tanks.” U.S. 

comments, including those of the American Petroleum Institute, on all three of these documents were sent in 

April 2006. The Secretariat held a subcommittee meeting in May 2006 in Hamburg, Germany. The United States 

provided a “no” vote with comments on the 2 CD for R 71 and comments on the 2 CDs of R 80 and R 85. The 

Secretariat circulated a 3 CD for R 80 in November 2006 and a 3 CD of R 85 in December 2006. U.S. vote and 

comments on R 80 and R 85 were returned in February 2007, and a subcommittee meeting was held in March 2007 

in Vienna, Austria. All three documents were discussed in Vienna. A 3 CD of R 71 was received in July 2007. The 

next drafts of R 80 and R 85 are expected later in 2007. Please contact Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or at 

ralph.richter@nist.gov if you would like copies of the documents or to participate in these projects. 

TC 8/SC 3 “Dynamic Volume and Mass Measurement for Liquids other than Water” (United States and Germany)

OIML R 117 “Measuring Instruments for Liquids other than Water” has undergone an extensive revision, 

incorporating new instrument technologies and merging the document with OIML Recommendations R 86 “Drum 

Meters” and R 105 “Mass Flowmeters.” This is a high priority project for OIML. ILMG is working with the 

USNWG on flowmeters, Germany, and the Netherlands on this effort. Meetings of the USNWG on flowmeters 

were held during the NCWM Interim Meeting in January 2007 in Jacksonville, Florida, and the NCWM Annual 

Meeting in July 2007 in Utah. Measurement Canada has been a strong contributor to this effort. A 2 CD of R 117 

BOD - D2 
 BOD 2007 Final Report 

 Appendix D – Report on the Activities of the OIML 

was circulated to the two international subcommittees and received over 90 % international “yes” votes. In October 

2006, the CIML approved the merger of TC 8/SC 3 and TC 8/SC 4; the United States and Germany are now the cosecretariats of the combined TC 8/SC 3. Following the merger, the old subcommittee TC 8/SC 4 was disbanded. 

Work on R 117-2 “Test Methods” and R 117-3 “Test Report Format” has begun. 

OIML member nations have voted on the DR of R 117-1 by postal ballot with over 90 % approval of the 34 nations 

that voted. Full CIML approval on R 117-1 is expected at the CIML meeting in October 2007. If you have any 

questions, would like a copy of the R 117-1 DR, or would like to participate in the next phases of this project, please 

contact Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov. 

TC 8/SC 7 “Gas Metering” (Belgium and France) 

In April 2007, the Secretariat circulated a DR of the Recommendation “Measuring Systems for Compressed Natural 

Gas (CNG) for Vehicles” and annexes covering performance tests for electronic devices and basic test procedures. 

The postal ballot on this recommendation failed, but it is anticipated that recommendation will be approved by the 

CIML in October 2007. 

Also in April 2007, a postal ballot was circulated on the DR “Measuring Systems for Gaseous Fuel” and U.S. 

comments were submitted in June 2007. This Recommendation is intended for large pipelines with large flowrates 

and high operating pressures, or systems not fitted with diaphragm gas meters. Different types of measuring 

systems are covered by the Recommendation: measuring systems providing indications of volume at base 

conditions or mass converted from a volume of gas determined at metering conditions, measuring systems providing 

directly the mass of gas, and measuring systems providing indication of energy corresponding to a volume at base 

conditions or a mass of gas. The postal ballot on this recommendation failed, but it is anticipated that 

recommendation will be approved by the CIML in October 2007. Please contact Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or 

ralph.richter@nist.gov if you would like to obtain a copy of these documents or if you would like to participate in 

future work involving gas measurement systems. 

TC 8/SC 8 “Gas Meters” (Netherlands) 

Three recommendations in this subcommittee: R 6 “General provisions for gas volume meters,” R 31 “Diaphragm 

Gas Meters,” and R 32 “Rotary Piston Gas Meters and Turbine Gas Meters” have been combined into a single 

revised Recommendation. The United States voted “yes” with comments on the 3 CD of this document in 

January 2006. The final DR was approved by the CIML at their October 2006 meeting in Cape Town, South Africa, 

and will be published with the new designation of R 137-1 “Gas Meters.” Development of R 137-2 “Test Methods” 

is now underway. Please contact Ralph Richter at (301) 975-3997 or ralph.richter@nist.gov if you would like to 

participate in the R 137-2 project. 

TC 9 “Instruments for Measuring Mass” (United States) 

Now that the revision of R 76 “Non-automatic Weighing Instruments” is complete, the United States will send an 

inquiry in 2007 to TC 9 members about revising R 60 “Load Cells.” If you would like to participate in the revision 

of R 60, please contact Steve Cook at (301) 975-4003 or steven.cook@nist.gov.

TC 9/SC 1 “Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments” (Germany and France) 

The revision of R 76 “Non-automatic Weighing Instruments” is of major importance to U.S. interests because the 

Recommendation serves as the foundation for a majority of the laws and regulations that govern weighing 

instruments around the world. The revision includes new language addressing metrological controls for type 

evaluations, conformity, initial and subsequent inspections, suitability of separable components and requirements for 

metrological software. The USNWG is being consulted concerning proposals to harmonize Handbook 44 and R 76. 

The DR of R 76-1 was approved by the CIML in October 2006. Most recently, the United States voted “yes” on the 

DR of R 76-2 “Test Report Format.” For more information on these efforts, please contact Steve Cook at 

(301) 975-4003 or steven.cook@nist.gov. 

TC 9/SC 2 “Automatic Weighing Instruments” (United Kingdom) 

The Recommendation R 134-1 “Automatic Instruments for Weighing Road Vehicles in Motion – Total Load and 

Axle Weighing” was approved by CIML in October 2006 with the agreement that U.S. comments concerning 

terminology and document scope were to be incorporated before publication. The test report format of this 

document, R 134-2, has been approved by the subcommittee and is going through a final editorial process at the 

BOD - D3 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – Report on the Activities of the OIML 

 

BIML. Two other documents in this subcommittee are now under revision. The United States returned comments 

on the 2 CD of R 106 “Automatic Rail-weighbridges” in November 2006. The subcommittee approved a revision of 

R 107 “Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments (Totalizing Hopper Weighers),” and votes and 

comments on the DR are due in September 2007. If you would like to receive copies of these documents or work on 

these projects, Richard Harshman is the contact at (301) 975-8107 or at harshman@nist.gov. 

TC 17/SC 1 “Humidity” (China) 

The Secretariat (China) is working closely with the United States and a small IWG to revise OIML R 59 “Moisture 

Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds.” All drafts have been distributed to the USNWG, which for the most part is 

a subset of the NTEP Grain Sector. In October 2003, China hosted a meeting of the TC 17/SC 1 subcommittee in 

Beijing, China, to review and discuss this revised document. A 2 CD that incorporated U.S. comments was 

circulated in May 2004 by the Secretariat. A meeting of the IWG was held in Paris, France, in September 2004 to 

resolve conflicts on the document. U.S. comments on the 3 CD of R 59 were returned to the Secretariat in 

August 2005. A 4 CD was circulated to the IWG in August 2006. U.S. comments on the 4 CD were returned to the 

Secretariat in November 2006. A TC 17/SC 1 meeting is being hosted by NIST in September 2007 to discuss the 

5 CD. Please contact Diane Lee at (301) 975-4405 or at diane.lee@nist.gov if you would like to participate in this 

work group. 

TC 17/SC 8 “Quality Analysis of Agricultural Products” (Australia) 

A new subcommittee has been formed to study the issues and write a working draft document “Measuring 

Instruments for Protein Determination in Grains.” Australia is the Secretariat for this new subcommittee. A work 

group meeting was held in May 2004 in Sydney, Australia. A 2 WD of this document was received in August 2004, 

and a 3 WD was received in May 2005. A work group meeting was held in June 2005 in Berlin, Germany, to 

discuss the latest round of comments on the 3 WD. A 1 CD was circulated to the IWG in May 2006. U.S. 

comments on the 1 CD were returned to the Secretariat in August 2006. A work group meeting was held in 

September 2006 in Ottawa, Canada, to discuss comments on the 1 CD. A TC 17/SC 8 meeting is being hosted by 

NIST in September 2007 to discuss the 2 CD. Please contact Diane Lee at (301) 975-4405 or at diane.lee@nist.gov

if you would like to participate in this work group. 

OIML Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) 

Note: The report on the OIML Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) has moved; it can now be found in Item 1. 

Test Data Exchange Agreements of the NTEP Section of the NCWM Annual Report. For further information on the 

MAA and its implementation, please contact Dr. Charles Ehrlich at charles.ehrlich@nist.gov or at (301) 975-4834 or 

by fax at (301) 975-8091. 

II. Report on the 41st CIML Meeting in Cape Town, South Africa, October 18 - 20, 2006 

The CIML gave final approval to the following Recommendations in South Africa: 

• R 39 Rockwell hardness machines; 

• R 49-1 Water meters intended for the metering of cold, potable water and hot water: 

- Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements; 

• R 49-2 Water meters intended for the metering of cold potable water and hot water: 

- Part 2: Test methods; 

• R 51-1 Automatic catchweighing instruments: 

- Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements – Tests; 

• R 65 Force measuring system of uniaxial material testing machines; 

• R 76-1 Non-automatic weighing instruments: 

- Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements – Tests; 

• R 82 Gas chromatographic systems for the measuring pollution from pesticides and other toxic substances; 

• R 83 Gas chromatograph/mass spectrometer systems for the analysis of organic pollutants in water; 

• R 116 Inductively coupled plasma atomic emission spectrometers for the measurement of metal pollutants 

in water; 

• R 134-1 Automatic instruments for weighing road vehicles in motion and axle-load measuring: 

- Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements – Tests; 

BOD - D4 
 BOD 2007 Final Report 

 Appendix D – Report on the Activities of the OIML 

• R 137-1 Gas Meters: 

- Part 1: Requirements (new Recommendation). 

The Committee also approved the withdrawal of R 74 Electronic weighing instruments. 

The CIML approved the following new work projects: 

• New projects of TC 3/SC 5: 

- Revision of B 3 OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments; 

- Revision of B 10-1 Framework for a Mutual Acceptance Arrangement on OIML Type Evaluations 

(MAA); 

- Revision of B 10-2 Checklists for Issuing Authorities and Testing Laboratories Carrying Out OIML 

Type Evaluations; 

• New projects to be allocated by the CIML President to the appropriate TC or SC, based on BIML 

proposals: 

- Guide for the application of ISO/IEC Guide 62 to the assessment of quality system certification bodies 

in the field of legal metrology; 

- Guide for the application of ISO 9001 to legal metrology controls; 

• New project of TC 16/SC 1: 

- Revision of ISO 3930/OIML R 99 Instruments for measuring vehicle exhaust emissions. 

The following work project was withdrawn: 

• Project P 6 of TC 3/SC 5: OIML procedure for the review of laboratories to enable mutual acceptance of 

test results and OIML Certificates of Conformity; 

The Committee approved the following proposals: 

• When a revision of a publication is published, the previous version remains available on the OIML website, 

but with an indication that this version has been superseded; 

• As long as all the parts of a revised Recommendation included in the Certificate System have not been 

published, the version referenced in the Certificate System remains applicable; 

• When the Certificate System references a revised Recommendation, Certificates may still be issued by 

reference to the previous version provided the application for a Certificate has been lodged before the 

publication of the revised version. 

MAA Resolutions approved by the CIML in South Africa:

• MAA Resolution 2006-1: The BIML will bear the costs of peer assessments and will subsequently invoice 

the peer-assessed bodies with a lump sum equal to 1500 € per assessor-day. 

• MAA Resolution 2006-2: During the period of transition to the MAA for R 60 and R 76 (provisionally set 

to end December 31, 2008), Issuing Authorities under the OIML Certificate System for Measuring 

Instruments (OIML Document B 3) are authorized to continue to issue OIML Certificates of Conformity 

according to OIML B 3. 

- Issuing Participants in the R 60 and R 76 DoMCs are not authorized to continue to issue basic OIML 

Certificates for OIML type evaluations unless the application was received before the publication of 

the DoMC (September 2006). 

- The termination date of this transition period will be reviewed by the CIML at its 43rd Meeting based 

on a BIML report on operation, experience, and feedback from industry. 

• MAA Resolution 2006-3: The R 49 DoMC will continue to move forward despite the fact there is only one 

potential Issuing Participant. 

The CIML instructed TC 3/SC 5 to consider the rules for appointing new Issuing Authorities after the transition 

period mentioned in the MAA Resolution 2006-2 above, and to propose an appropriate solution for approval by the 

Committee. 

BOD - D5 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – Report on the Activities of the OIML 

 

Report of the Work Group on “Conformity to Type”

The Committee took note of the report given by Mr. Grahame G. Harvey, WG Convener, on the meeting held on 

October 14, 2006, and instructed the WG to continue its work as proposed during the meeting. 

The Committee instructed the Bureau and the TC 3 Secretariat (Metrological control) to review the work and 

organizational structure of TC 3, including that of its subcommittees and the WG on Conformity to Type. 

Positions filled:

The Committee elected Mr. Grahame Harvey (Australia) as CIML Second Vice-President. He will take over his 

duties immediately. 

On the proposal of the CIML President, the Committee appointed Mr. Willem Kool as BIML Assistant Director to 

fill the position of the retiring Mr. Szilvássy in 2007. 

III. Future CIML Meetings 

The 42nd CIML Meeting will be hosted by the People’s Republic of China in October 2007 in Shanghai, China. The 

CIML accepted Australia’s invitation to hold the 13th Conference and 43rd CIML Meeting in Sydney, Australia, in 

2008. 

IV. Regional Legal Metrology Organizations 

SIM Workshop on Fuel Dispensers

Wayne Stiefel participated in the workshop and made presentations on audit trail security and software 

developments in OIML and the NWCM. The workshop was held September 15, 2006, at INMETRO Brazil and was 

attended by 32 representatives from 16 countries: Antigua & Barbuda, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Haiti, Honduras, 

Jamaica, Mexico, Nicaragua, Paraguai, St. Kitts & Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Trinidad & Tobago, United States, 

and Uruguay. Other topics covered included The Mercosul Draft Directive on Fuel Dispensers – based on 

OIML R 117 and the Mexican process for prototype fuel dispenser hardware and software approval by CENAM.

Meeting of the SIM General Assembly

ILMG participated in the SIM General Assembly which convened September 16 - 17, 2006, in Rio de Janeiro, 

Brazil. Dr. Huberto S. Brandi, Director of Scientific and Industrial Metrology at INMETRO Brazil, was elected 

President. The next SIM General Assembly meeting will be held in September 2007 in Ottawa, Canada. 

APLMF Meeting

The 13th APLMF Meeting was held November 15 - 17, 2006, in Singapore. The United States was represented by 

Dr. Charles Ehrlich, who serves as Chairman of the APLMF Work Group on Mutual Recognition Arrangements. 

APLMF conducted six training courses/seminars in 2006, including one on the verification of CNG Fuel Dispensers 

at which the two instructors were from the California Division of Measurement Standards. A seminar on the 

Singapore Authorized Verifier Scheme was held to announce and describe this new program in Singapore, where 

private organizations are empowered to conduct verifications under the supervision of the Singapore regulatory 

authority, SPRING Singapore. A workshop on Metrology of Agricultural Products and Foods was held 

February 7 - 9, 2007, in Thailand. The Peoples Republic of China announced that it would take over the Presidency 

and Secretariat of APLMF in 2007. The next meeting of APLMF will be in late October 2007 in Shanghai, China. 

BOD - D6 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – Meeting Minutes of the AMC 

Appendix E 

Final Report of the 

NCWM Associate Member Committee (AMC) 

Salt Lake City, UT

Minutes, July 9, 2007 

CALL TO ORDER: 

Chairman Langford called the meeting to order at 12:12 p.m.

APPROVAL OF JANUARY 21, 2007, MINUTES: 

The minutes of the January 21, 2007, meeting were read, Cullen Casey made a motion to approve the minutes, and 

Bob Reinfried seconded it. A vote was taken, and the minutes were approved. 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS REPORT: 

Darrell Flocken, the Associate Membership Representative on the NCWM Board of Directors, gave a report about 

Board activities: 

• Automatic temperature compensation is the hot topic of this meeting. Mike Cleary represented the NCWM in a 

congressional hearing in Washington, DC, a few weeks ago. Since then the NCWM has received several letters 

from various state representatives voicing their support or opposition to the item. 

• Judy Cardin reported that an electronic version of Form 15 is now available on the NCWM website. The form 

can be completed and submitted online. A few cleanup items are left to complete this task, but they do not 

impact the use of this form now. 

• NIST WMD reported that they have established two directors’ workshops to be conducted this year. NIST has 

also scheduled a Handbook 133 Train-the-Trainer class for later this year. 

• The Board has decided to move ahead with a second marketplace survey. While not 100 % complete with the 

past survey, it was believed they could do the initial development work for the second survey to keep the 

process moving. 

• Management Solutions (Beth) was happy to report that membership levels are up, with current membership of 

just over 2600. This is the highest level since 2003. 

• The Board was asked to develop a position on individual companies or organizations sponsoring NCWM events 

or individual events occurring at the same time and location as the NCWM conference. The reason for this 

issue was based on the NCWM’s liability and perceived influence - real or not. The Board of Directors did not 

believe it was their responsibility to limit or prevent such events but agreed these events would not be included 

in the NCWM agenda and the Conference agenda should include a statement something to the effect that a 

meeting or event not mentioned in the agenda is not sanctioned by the NCWM. If additional discussions are 

required, this should be the responsibility of the AMC. 

• On a sad note, Darrell Flocken reported that Sam Chappell passed away last week. 

BOD - E1 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – Meeting Minutes of the AMC 

• To end his report Darrell had some good news; this is his last report as his 3-year term representing the AMC on 

the Board of Directors ends at the end of this Conference. He would like to thank the AMC for providing him 

with this opportunity and hopes he met our expectations. Darrell leaves the AMC in the very capable hands of 

Bob Murnane, our new Board of Directors AMC representative. 

FINANCIAL CONDITION

Chairman Langford reported the following fund balance: 

Income: 

 Balance 1/31/07 $17,999.91 

 Revenue: 2/1/07 - 6/30/07 345.00 

135.00 

120.00 

75.00 

Total Income: $18,674.91 

Disbursements: 

 2/27/07 Website enhancements $2,500.00 

 6/6/07 - 6/30/07 

 CO Dept of Agriculture training 1,500.00 

Total Disbursements: $4,000.00 

Ending Balance 6/30/07 $14,674.91 

$10,000 was set aside for the special event. 

AMC FUND DISBURSEMENT REPORTS:

2007 TRAINING FUNDS REPORT

Chairman Langford mentioned a letter from Kristin Macey, Chief, CO Department of Agriculture Measurement 

Standards, thanking the AMC for the $1500 funds for training. A copy of this letter was made available for 

anyone to review. (A copy of this letter is printed at the end of the AMC Report, Appendix E.) 

TRAINING REQUEST

There were three requests submitted: 

1. Craig Leisy, Consumer Affairs Unit, Seattle, WA 

Requested $500 to be used for travel and per diem expenses for training and certification for two new 

weights and measures inspectors. 

2. Kirk Robinson, Washington Department of Olympia, WA 

Requested $2084 for the following: $1400 for lodging (per diem); $434, travel costs for instructor; $100, 

training facility rental; and $150, training materials. 

3. Charles Carroll, MA Division of Standards 

Requested $1000 to be used for training school held in conjunction with the NEWMA Annual conference. 

Chairman Langford suggested that: 1) Craig Leisy’s $500 request be denied; however, Craig would be 

contacted to notify him why his request was denied and give him a chance to resubmit his request for funds for 

training only; 2) Kirk Robinson’s request for $2084 be reduced to $684 for the instructor, training facility rental 

and training materials; 3) Charles Carroll’s $1000 request be approved. Mike Gaspers put Chairman Langford’s 

suggestion in the form of a motion, and Bob Murnane seconded the motion. A vote was taken and the motion 

passed. 

BOD - E2 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – Meeting Minutes of the AMC 

SPECIAL EVENT

A discussion for increasing the Association Membership dues and for increasing the amount given to the special 

event function was discussed. Darrell Flocken informed the AMC of the number of members for the previous 

years which were: 

Year Members 

2003 953 

2004 837 

2005 829 

2006 837 

2007 863 

Rich Davis made a motion to increase the Association Membership dues by $10, which would raise the 

Association Membership dues to $25 above the annual dues. Darrell Flocken seconded the motion and the 

motion passed. Rich Davis made another motion to increase the AMC maximum contribution for the special 

event from $10,000 to $12,000 or 60 % of the cost, whichever is less. Bob Murnane seconded the motion. A 

vote was taken and the motion passed. 

OLD BUSINESS: 

No old business.

NEW BUSINESS: 

Dave Wankowski, Kraft Foods Inc., volunteered to fill the vacancy of the AMC member representative on the PDC. 

Bob Murnane, Seraphin Test Measures, will be the AMC member representative on the BOD. 

Non-sanctioned events was discussed. Mike Gaspers make a motion to strongly discourage hospitality suites, and 

Bob Murnane seconded this motion. A vote was taken and the motion passed by a vote of thirteen to three. 

Mike Gaspers was elected to the position of Secretary/Treasurer of the AMC. 

Dave Wankowski and Doug Biette were elected to five-year terms on the AMC Board. 

ADJOURNMENT: 

The meeting was adjourned at 1:00 p.m. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Stephen Langford, Chair, 

Paul Lewis, Secretary-Treasurer 

BOD - E3 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – Meeting Minutes of the AMC 

Members in Attendance at the 

Associate Membership Committee (AMC) Meeting 

July 9, 2007 

Stephen Langford - Cardinal Scale, Chairman 

Chris Guay - Procter & Gamble, Vice Chairman 

Paul Lewis - Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Secretary-Treasurer 

Doug Biette – Sartorius North America 

Cullen Casey – Walz Sclaes 

Richard Davis – Georgie-Pacific 

Darrell Flocken - Mettler-Toledo 

Mike Gaspers – Farmland Foods, Inc. 

Jim Hewston – Scale Source 

Zina Juroch – Pier 1 Imports 

Monica Hammond – DHL Express, Inc. 

Tom Herrington - Nestle Foods 

Dennis Kolsun – H.J. Heinz Co. 

Monte Martinson – Norac, Inc. 

Bob Murnane - Seraphin Test Measures 

Pete O’Bryan - Foster Farms 

Dan Okon – United Parcel Service 

Bob Reinfried – Scale Manufacturers Association 

Mike Rude – Norac, Inc. 

Mark Schwarte – Accu-Sort 

Lou Straub - Fairbanks Scales 

Dave Wankowski – Kraft Foods Inc. 

Nate Wieselquist – Sick, Inc. 

*Beth Palys – NCWM Headquarters also attended this meeting 

BOD - E4 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – Meeting Minutes of the AMC 

Letter from Kristin Macy

Kristin J. Macey 

Measurement standards Chief 

Colorado Department of Agriculture 

3125 Wyandot St 

Denver, CO 80211 

May 15, 2007 

Dear NCWM AMC Members: 

 

Thank you for your support to Colorado Measurement Standards for our Grain Moisture Meter 

(GMM) and Handbook 44 Scales Code/Retail Computing classes held in Denver last week. It 

was an incredible opportunity to receive general training on Handbook 44, the Scales and GMM 

codes, the devices themselves and GMM laboratory practices. I have received numerous 

comments from attendees about the detail and quality of content.

 

We are fortunate that NIST has such competent staff to assist state and local jurisdictions 

achieve uniformity in their regulatory work. We are also most grateful to the AMC Committee; 

the $1,500 we received helped offset our training costs immensely. Forty (40) attendees 

representing four weights and measures jurisdictions (AZ, CO, KS and WY) and numerous 

scale service companies attended one or both classes. That’s a big bang for the training buck!

 

Sincerely,

 

Kristin Macey

BOD - E5 
BOD 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – Meeting Minutes of the AMC 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 

BOD - E6 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Final Report of the 

Laws and Regulations Committee 

James P. Cassidy, Jr., Chairman 

Cambridge, Massachusetts 

Reference 

Key Number 

200 INTRODUCTION 

This is the report of the Laws and Regulations Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee”) for the 92nd

Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). It is based on the Interim Report 

offered in the NCWM Publication 16, “Committee Reports,” testimony at public hearings, comments received from 

the regional weights and measures associations and other parties, the addendum sheets issued at the Annual 

Meeting, and actions taken by the membership at the voting session of the Annual Meeting. The Informational 

items presented below were adopted as presented when this report was approved. 

Table A identifies the agenda items in the Report by Reference Key Number, title, and page number. The first three 

digits of the Reference Key Numbers of the items are assigned from the subject series listed below. Voting items 

are indicated with a “V” after the item number. Items marked with an “I” are informational. Items marked with a 

“D” are developing items. The developing designation indicates an item has merit; however, the item is returned to 

the submitter for further development before any further action is taken by the Committee. Items marked “W” have 

been withdrawn from consideration. 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. 

This report contains recommendations to amend National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Handbook 130, 2008 Edition, “Uniform Laws and Regulations,” or NIST Handbook 133, “Checking the Net 

Contents of Packaged Goods,” Fourth Edition (January 2005). Proposed revisions to the handbook(s) are shown in 

bold face print by striking out information to be deleted and underlining information to be added. New items 

proposed for the handbooks are designated as such and shown in bold face print. Text presented for information 

only is shown in italic print. When used in this report, the term “weight” means “mass.” 

Subject Series 

INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 200 Series 

NIST Handbook 130 – General .................................................................................................................... 210 Series 

 Uniform Laws.......................................................................................................................................... 220 Series 

 Weights and Measures Law (WML) ................................................................................................ 221 Series 

 Weighmaster Law (WL)................................................................................................................... 222 Series 

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

 Uniform Regulations ............................................................................................................................... 230 Series 

 Packaging and Labeling Regulation (PLR)...................................................................................... 231 Series 

 Method of Sale Regulation (MSR)................................................................................................... 232 Series 

 Unit Pricing Regulation (UPR) ........................................................................................................ 233 Series 

 Voluntary Registration Regulation (VRR)....................................................................................... 234 Series 

 Open Dating Regulation (ODR)....................................................................................................... 235 Series 

 Uniform National Type Evaluation Regulation (UNTER)............................................................... 236 Series 

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

 Examination Procedure for Price Verification......................................................................................... 240 Series 

L&R - 1 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

 Interpretations and Guidelines................................................................................................................. 250 Series 

NIST Handbook 133..................................................................................................................................... 260 Series 

Other Items ................................................................................................................................................... 270 Series 

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items 

Reference 

Key Number Title of Item Page 

200 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................1

232 METHOD OF SALE REGULATION ............................................................................................................3

232-1 V Permissive Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products and Other Fuels..............3

232-2 V Fuel Ethanol Labeling.....................................................................................................................10

232-3 I Biodiesel Labeling ..........................................................................................................................11

260 NIST HANDBOOK 133 “CHECKING THE NET CONTENTS OF PACKAGED GOODS”................12

260-1 W 2.6. Drained Weight for Glazed or Frozen Seafood.......................................................................12

260-2 W Worksheet for Liquid Volumes.......................................................................................................13

270 OTHER ITEMS – DEVELOPING ITEMS..................................................................................................16

270-1 W Add to NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation Section 1.14. 

Labeling Requirement of Drained Weight for Commodities Packed in a Liquid Medium 

(foods other than meat or poultry products under USDA jurisdiction)...........................................16

270-2 W Amend NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation Section 2.13.4. Declaration of 

Weight.............................................................................................................................................17

270-3 W Add Section 2.1.6. to NIST Handbook 130, Interpretations and Guidelines ..................................18

270-4 W Amend Handbook 133, Chapter 4.7 Polyethylene Sheeting – Test Procedure ...............................23

270-5 I Amend Section 2.2.1. in Handbook 130 Uniform Engine Fuels Regulation – Premium 

Diesel Lubricity ..............................................................................................................................24

270-6 I Amend Handbook 130 Interpretations and Guidelines Section 2.3.2. Guidelines for the 

Method of Sale of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables..............................................................................26

270-7 D Amend Handbook 133 Section 2.3, Moisture Allowances to Provide Clearer Guidance ...............30

270-8 D Laws and Regulations Committee WG on Moisture Loss..............................................................30

270-9 D Petroleum Subcommittee ................................................................................................................31

Table B 

Appendices 

Appendix A. L&R Committee Work Group on Moisture Loss..................................................................................A1

L&R - 2 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Table C 

Voting Results 

House of State Representatives House of Delegates Reference Key Number 

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays 

Results 

232-1 23 16 24 16 Returned to 

Committee 

232-2 40 0 42 0 Passed 

Details of all Items 

(In order by Reference Key Number) 

232 METHOD OF SALE REGULATION 

232-1 V Permissive Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products and Other Fuels 

(This item was not adopted and was returned to the Committee) 

Sources: The Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA), the Western Weights and Measures 

Association (WWMA), and the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA). 

Note: This or similar proposals, which have been on the Committee’s agenda for several years, were reviewed by 

each of the regional weights and measures associations. The review process resulted in the submission of several 

different proposals and numerous comments and suggestions for the Committee to consider. Everyone expressed 

concern over the scope, cost and impact of establishing a method of sale for petroleum products which required 

temperature compensation. This subject was widely discussed by the NCWM at public forums dating back more 

than 30 years. A similar proposal was made by NEWMA as recently as 2000, but the Committee withdrew it in 

2001. NEWMA noted at that time that Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, and Canada permit temperaturecompensated sales of products like home heating fuel and retail gasoline. Additional historic and background 

information is available in previous editions of the Committee’s agenda. For recent discussions on this subject see 

Item 232-1 in the report of the 91st NCWM Annual Meeting in 2006 at www.nist.gov/owm on the Internet. It is also 

available on a searchable DVD format on NIST Special Publication 979 “Reports of the National Conference on 

Weights and Measures 1905 to 2006,” (November 2006) which is available from the NCWM.

Recommendation: At its 2007 Interim Meeting the Committee received correspondence from consumer groups 

and other organizations and heard testimony from weights and measures officials, the petroleum industry (including 

the American Petroleum Institute (API)), consumers and others regarding temperature compensation of refined 

petroleum products. The Committee appreciates all of the data, discussion and especially the high level of interest. 

The Committee acknowledges the media attention this item has drawn, and the members were pleased to learn that 

some agricultural commissioners and other policy makers, as well as some governors and state attorneys general, 

have expressed interest in temperature compensation. 

Proponents for the item spoke of a need to improve the accuracy of measurements of petroleum products because of 

their cost and of the need to improve accountability, while opponents spoke to the cost of implementing temperature 

compensation and the potential for confusion in the marketplace. The Committee also was made aware of 

legislation under consideration in Missouri and Texas that would establish different definitions for a gallon based on 

the ambient temperature in varied areas of the states. The Committee was especially sensitive to concerns expressed 

by weights and measures inspectors about the potential cost and increased inspection time they may expend if 

temperature compensation is allowed in all applications, especially at the retail level. 

L&R - 3 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

The Committee duly considered the presentations, discussions, letters, data, media stories, comments received at 

public hearings and in hallways, and the proposed legislation. The NCWM posted this information at: 

http://www.ncwm.net/events/index.cfm?fuseaction=interimagenda07 

Following is a list of justifications for adopting a standard that will facilitate the implementation of an orderly yet 

permissive approach to allowing broader use of temperature compensation in the marketplace: 

• Cost of fuel has led to increased consumer and business interest in better methods of measurement, 

inventory control and accountability. By now everyone has realized or should realize that ambient 

temperatures are but one factor which impacts the volume of any liquid. Thus, basing a state’s 

temperature-compensation program on regional ambient temperatures is not a technically valid approach to 

addressing the issue. 

• The use of dual-wall storage tanks and deliveries of fuel directly from refineries result in higher 

temperature product. 

• Awareness and concerns over the impact of temperature on the cost of fuel has come about at the same time 

advances in technology such as electronics and software have made compensation possible in both new and 

existing measuring devices at lower costs. 

• Increased consumer requests that temperature compensation be used, especially in high volume deliveries 

for improved measurement accuracy. 

• The dramatic growth of public interest in recent years is evidenced by articles in many newspapers and 

widely read magazines such as Scientific America. This national conversation about energy has led to 

greater consumer awareness, as well as interest on the part of political leaders, of energy issues and has 

contributed to creating an opportunity for change. 

After a thorough discussion and polling by its chairman, the Committee was unanimous that it would recommend to 

the NCWM the adoption of a method of sale for refined petroleum products and other fuels. This would allow 

industry the option of selling these products on the basis of temperature-compensated sales. While the decision to 

submit the permissive temperature-compensated method of sale for NCWM consideration was unanimous, the 

representative from the CWMA supported going forward with the recommendation but did not agree with including 

retail sales in the scope of the regulation. The Committee ultimately decided it was in the best interest of the U.S. 

commercial measurement system if the NCWM adopted a standard that would provide guidance to states 

considering legislation in this area, thus supporting the work of the Specifications and Tolerances Committee, the 

National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) and others to develop technical requirements and test procedures for 

both type approval and field testing for devices equipped with temperature compensation. The Committee believed 

those efforts were critical to facilitating the introduction of temperature compensation to the marketplace, especially 

in NTEP states as the NCWM learned there were no retail motor-fuel dispensers available with Certificates of 

Conformance that included temperature compensation functions. 

The following topics/considerations were addressed by the Committee: 

1. Temperature compensation was already legal for use in trade unless prohibited by state or local 

requirements. 

The Committee was aware that temperature compensation was already required or permitted in a number of states 

for vehicle-tank meters, liquefied petroleum gas, and wholesale deliveries to retailers and that it had been used in the 

marketplace in these applications for decades. At the WWMA Annual Meeting, the State of California reported that 

for transactions involving 5000 gal or more, purchasers may request temperature compensation; Idaho said that for 

transactions involving 8000 gal or more, the purchaser had an option to buy, on a yearly basis, temperaturecompensated product and that all terminal transactions were temperature compensated; Arizona responded that any 

transactions involving more than 5000 gal must be compensated for temperature; and currently the State of Hawaii 

was the only jurisdiction which has taken some action to account for temperature variations in retail sales. The 

Committee heard enough supportive comments from a broad base of weights and measures directors, inspectors and 

metrologists to recognize that temperature compensation may find broad acceptance in the marketplace, especially 

once the potential benefits it offers were realized and implementation costs fall. 

L&R - 4 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

The Committee also believed that, unless prohibited by state law, temperature compensation at retail dispensers was 

already legal in most states. Additionally, the Committee believed it would be difficult to argue against a 

measurement practice that could only improve the accuracy and reproducibility of a volumetric measurement. The 

Committee position was that legal metrology must not stand in the way of the marketplace striving to change the 

way fuels and other products were marketed and sold. 

2. Under a permissive approach consumers and businesses will decide where and when to implement 

temperature compensation. 

The Committee was convinced that the marketplace will best determine where and when the benefits from 

temperature compensation should be implemented to improve accuracy. The Committee recommended the adoption 

of a method of sale that would allow temperature compensation to be used in sales of petroleum products on a 

permissive (voluntary) basis, allowing the marketplace (e.g., industry, consumers and other government agencies) to 

decide if and when it was appropriate to use temperature compensation in specific commercial applications (e.g., 

sales at truck stops). This recommendation was proposed solely for the purpose of ensuring the delivery of an 

accurate volume of petroleum at a specific reference temperature. It was not the intent of the Committee to attempt 

to define a standard energy content of a liter or gallon of gasoline or other engine fuel with this recommendation. 

3. Temperature compensation would be permissive, but controlled. 

Although the Committee’s recommendation allowed for permissive use of temperature compensation, it included 

mandatory provisions requiring compensation be made by automatic means to ensure the measured quantity was 

accurately determined. It also defined a temperature-compensated volume for both liters and gallons, requiring the 

posting of information on dispensers, street signs and on documents to ensure full disclosure and fair competition. 

Additionally, it required a business location to have all of the devices operating on temperature compensation on a 

year-round basis unless a written waiver was granted by the Director. 

4. The basis of Committee’s recommendation was the proposal from the WWMA. 

The Committee’s recommendation was based on the proposal submitted by the WWMA, which was developed at its 

2006 Annual Meeting in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Committee made several amendments to the proposal but found 

it represented a well-reasoned foundation for the recommendation presented below. The CWMA L&R Committee 

supported the WWMA's proposal and supported submitting it to the NCWM for a vote. The CWMA agreed with 

the WWMA that temperature compensation is the most equitable method of sale, which is currently utilized at every 

step of distribution except for retail sales. Additionally, the CWMA believed the proposal should not be restricted 

only to petroleum products, but should also include alternative fuels such as E-85, biodiesel and biodiesel blends. 

The Committee’s recommendation incorporated some of the CWMA’s suggestions and included additional 

requirements to address many of the concerns raised issue at the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting open hearings and 

discussions. For the purpose of this recommendation the Committee used the definition for “refined petroleum 

products” as presented in Handbook 130 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants 

Inspection Law which reads, “products obtained from distilling and processing of petroleum (crude oil), unfinished 

oils, recycled oils, natural gas liquids, refinery blend stocks, and other miscellaneous hydrocarbon compounds” with 

the understanding that its intent was that the requirements would apply when petroleum was blended with other 

products such as ethanol. 

5. Full disclosure will allow informed consumers to make value comparisons. 

The Committee believed consumers, when educated through marketing and outreach efforts, will accept new 

technology and measurement practices. When provided with sound information, consumers will gain confidence 

that government oversight will prevent deceptive practices. The Committee believed the full disclosure provisions 

of the method of sale will reduce both unfair competition and consumer confusion. If, for example, a truck stop 

offers temperature-compensated sales of diesel fuel through high-speed dispensers for truckers, the road signs with 

price per unit of volume (e.g., gallon or liter) and dispensers must include a declaration that the volume is sold on 

the basis of temperature compensation. If the price per gallon is higher or lower than the usual price per gallon, 

consumers will be informed that the volume was compensated to a reference temperature. Several people expressed 

concern over marketplace confusion if diesel fuel is sold on the basis of both compensated and uncompensated 

L&R - 5 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

volume. It is incorrect to say that there would be two methods of sale for the same product under this 

recommendation just as it is inaccurate to say that some consumers will not receive a “full” gallon if temperature 

compensation is used as some opponents to this method of sale have claimed. The reality is that consumers will be 

able to compare price per gallon between stations and they will receive a “full” gallon as defined under the Method 

of Sale of Commodities Regulation. While confusion is possible with any method of sale, the Committee was not 

deterred by that possibility. If confusion occurs, the proper response is to educate consumers and address any 

changes identified from the confusion through further refinement of the method of sale. In this application, full 

disclosure will inform consumers that one product is sold on the basis of temperature compensation and one is not. 

When consumers are educated, they can make sound value comparisons between these choices just as they already 

make decisions when choosing between different brand name products, octane ratings, additive offerings, and types 

of fuels. Business and industry is also well equipped and very experienced in educating its customers whenever it 

chooses to introduce new products or services; so should they decide to use the method of sale, they are sure to 

introduce it using an informative marketing effort. 

The Committee was urged to clarify that there may be situations in which there is a valid contract where the price is 

based on the fuel being sold on the basis of uncompensated measurement. The Committee agreed with the comment 

that if a purchaser operating under such a contract fills up at a location where the dispensers are temperature 

compensated, the contract should prevail in those transactions. Similarly, the Committee heard from the American 

Petroleum Institute (API) that it should permit either uncompensated or compensated methods of sale at loadingrack meters when such sales are under contract. The Committee believed its proposal will not interfere with the 

contracts or understandings that API described. 

6. Costs 

The Committee heard from some users that the lack of temperature compensation was costing them great sums of 

money while industry representatives said the cost of equipment and installation will cost industry and, ultimately, 

consumers even larger amounts of money. The cost of any NCWM action is a concern to the Committee which 

must defend its actions on both sides of any issue. However, it is very difficult to give each side everything it wants 

in any recommendation. While the Committee was concerned about cost, it was skeptical of the economic claims 

from both sides in this debate. For example, at the Interim Meeting one estimate of the cost of implementing 

temperature compensation dropped nearly $2 billion dollars once industry learned that an alternative technology was 

available in the marketplace. 

That is but one illustration of the weaknesses the Committee saw in cost or damage claims over the years. It dates 

back to its work in the 1990s on the price verification procedures where some groups claimed that supermarkets 

were overcharging consumers billions of dollars a year. The Committee never saw data that supported such claims, 

yet the damage values received wide notice in the media. Some members of the NCWM may remember the claims 

made during Congressional consideration of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 that changing to the metric system 

would cost billions of dollars. In reality those high costs never materialized, which was confirmed through several 

reliable studies. One reason Congress made conversion to the metric system voluntary was to allow industry to 

make changes as part of their normal equipment replacement cycle. The automotive industry, for instance, found it 

cost effective to make the change to metric units when purchasing replacement equipment. Advancements in 

technology made conversions easier or allowed dual-unit displays on equipment as standard features. These factors 

were key contributors in reducing costs. 

The Committee also heard that no action should be taken pending further studies. The Committee was wary of calls 

that it take no action pending another study or action by Congress. Each State Director in the NCWM determines 

whether or not to incorporate what is adopted by the NCWM into his or her state law or regulations, not the 

Committee. Even states that adopt the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation by reference or citation can take 

action to exclude a specific section of a uniform regulation that conflicts with other requirements or policies. As for 

taking time for additional study, the NCWM record on consideration of the issue of temperature compensation dates 

back to the mid-1970s and has arisen for consideration every few years since that date. The Committee was aware 

of the history, the issues, the various points of view, and the potential costs of temperature compensation and 

believed it was time for the NCWM to move forward on temperature compensation by establishing standards by 

which this method of sale can be brought into the marketplace on a voluntary, yet controlled, basis. 

L&R - 6 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

As one speaker alluded to in his presentation, the marketplace is to some degree “intelligent” in that it helps address 

many factors through its price-setting function and can generally be trusted to balance costs and prices as well as 

justify investment in new technology and marketing practices if there is a need, demand or opportunity. A voluntary 

approach will allow early adopters to develop experience and pull advances in technology into the equipment market 

while competition and other factors will reduce costs even further if the method of sale is broadly adopted. The 

Committee believed a permissive approach to temperature compensation turned the choice over to the marketplace 

where, if consumer demand was sufficient, sellers would make a business decision to invest in the technology and 

marketing according to the new method of sale when the benefits offset costs. 

7. Limiting the option of temperature compensation to specific applications 

The Committee received suggestions that temperature compensation be limited to certain applications or not be 

allowed in retail sales, but it did not hear sufficient justification for taking such positions. Temperature 

compensation is not new to the commercial measurement system. It is widely used in wholesale transactions in 

many jurisdictions, and consumers in many states have purchased LPG and oil for heating and other uses for 

decades on the basis of temperature-compensated sales. No information was presented to the Committee that its use 

in those applications has been anything but successful. The Committee recognizes that verifying devices with 

temperature compensation may require additional inspection time and require weights and measures officials to 

purchase thermometers or other equipment for testing. However, those factors are not sufficient justification to 

prohibit the marketplace from implementing this method of sale. If a jurisdiction adopts this method of sale and a 

business decides to use temperature compensation, the weights and measures agency would need to obtain funding 

to implement appropriate testing procedures to verify devices. However, the Committee would expect that 

innovation, risk-based testing, and random sampling techniques, as well as technology, would lessen the time 

required to conduct additional tests just as those factors have reduced the burden of testing many weighing and 

measuring instruments in the past. 

8. Permissive vs. Mandatory Implementation 

The Committee heard from the regional associations and others that temperature-compensated sales should be 

implemented on a permissive basis. The Committee opposed the inclusion of a future mandatory date at this time. 

The Committee believed temperature-compensated sales should be market driven and that suppliers will conduct 

sales on a compensated basis when consumers demand it and should not be required to do so before then. The 

Committee, based on the comments of many jurisdictions, believed the imposition of a mandatory requirement was 

too burdensome on the industry, requiring upgrades and possibly the replacement of many meters without adequate 

justification. 

The Committee agreed that a mandatory requirement would not be justified at this point in time. The Committee 

felt it was important to get some form of regulation regarding temperature-compensated sales of petroleum into 

Handbook 130 and thought that as many barriers as possible should be removed in order to achieve that goal. 

Although the Committee’s recommendation is a permissive requirement for temperature-compensated sales, the 

Committee was willing to consider establishing future mandatory dates if a justified need was demonstrated after 

this permissive regulation was implemented and used for a period of time. 

9. Comments Reviewed by the Committee 

a. The Committee noted that if the proposal was adopted at the 2007 Annual Meeting, it would go into effect 

January 1, 2008, in the eighteen jurisdictions that indicated they automatically adopt that regulation by 

reference or citation (see 2006 edition of NIST Handbook 130, "II Uniformity of Laws and Regulations" 

[page 9] for a list of those states). The Committee also noted that if the recommendation was adopted in 

July 2007, some jurisdictions might want to delay its implementation or exempt that particular section from 

being automatically adopted. Since, typically rulemaking takes longer than six months to complete, the 

Committee debated whether or not it should include a delayed effective date of July 1, 2009, for this 

regulation. 

b. The Committee discussed the subject of unscrupulous retailers artificially heating fuels and the fact that this 

deceptive practice has occurred from time to time. The State of Arizona actually forbids the practice; 

L&R - 7 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

however, the Committee did not address that issue in the following recommendation. The Committee 

considered if a prohibition on the artificial heating of fuels for the purpose of increasing volume at the time 

of sale should be added to the recommendation. 

c. The Committee asked to receive comments on whether or not the recommendation should allow the state 

director to grant (and, when justified, revoke) written waivers to some provisions if sufficient justification 

was provided by the business owner. The Committee discussed whether or not the requirement that all 

devices that dispense product at a location might result in a hardship for some retailers or difficulties in 

implementing the new method of sale for specific customers (e.g., over-the-road truckers). For example, if 

a station decided to sell gasoline and diesel fuel on a temperature-compensated basis but also had a 

dispenser for K-1 Kerosene (from which limited sales were made), a waiver from the temperaturecompensation requirement on all dispensers could be justified. Likewise, if a chain of truck stops decided 

to sell diesel fuel on a temperature-compensated basis through its high-output dispensers to truckers (e.g., 

its prime customers), but did not want to implement temperature-compensated sales through its gasoline 

dispensers, a waiver could also be justified. The purpose of the requirement that all devices at a single 

location be temperature compensated or not was to prevent a retailer from selling through the compensated 

or uncompensated dispensers when it benefited him or her. The Committee believed some flexibility was 

warranted and could make acceptance of the method of sale easier to implement. 

At the 2007 Interim Meeting the BOD established an Automatic Temperature Compensation (ATC) Steering 

Committee to study the issues.

Committee Recommendation: Amend the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation in Handbook 130 by 

adding a new Section 2.30. Refined Petroleum Products: 

2.30. Refined Petroleum Products – Permissive Temperature Compensation

2.30.1. Where not in conflict with other statutes or regulations, these products may be sold on the 

basis of temperature-compensated volume.

2.30.2. When products are sold on the basis of temperature compensated volume:

(a) All sales shall be in terms of liters or gallons with the delivered volume adjusted to 15 °C 

or gallons with the delivered volume adjusted to 60 °F;

(b) Temperature compensation must be accomplished through automatic means.

2.30.3. Full Disclosure Requirements

2.30.3.1 The primary indicating elements of measuring devices, recording elements, and all 

recorded or display representations (e.g., receipts, invoices, bills of lading, etc.) shall be 

clearly and conspicuously marked to show that the product was delivered on the basis of 

temperature compensated volume;

2.30.3.2 When a product is offered for sale on the basis of temperature compensated volume, 

street signs or other advertisements of its unit price must clearly and conspicuously 

indicate that the volume is temperature compensated.

2.30.4. Other Provisions

2.30.4.1 At a business location all sales on a temperature-compensated basis shall be made 

continuously and for a period of not less than 12 months (e.g., a person may not engage 

the automatic temperature compensator on a device only during certain times of the 

year to prevent the person from taking advantage of temperature compensation).

L&R - 8 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

2.30.4.2 At a business location which offers products for sale on the basis of a temperature 

compensated volume, all measuring devices shall dispense on the basis of temperature 

compensated volume (e.g., a person must not operate some devices at a location with 

automatic temperature compensators and others without compensators to prevent them 

from taking advantage of temperature variations).

Annotations: 

1. As defined in Handbook 130 Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive 

Lubricants Inspection Law, refined petroleum products are products obtained from 

distilling and processing of petroleum (crude oil), unfinished oils, recycled oils, natural 

gas liquids, refinery blend stocks, and other miscellaneous hydrocarbon compounds as 

well as Biofuels such as E-85 and Biodiesel at various blends.

2. A temperature compensated liter is defined as having a reference temperature of 15 °C 

and a temperature compensated gallon is defined as 231 cubic inches at a reference 

temperature of 60 °F;

3. When a product is sold on the basis of a temperature-compensated volume, it is typically 

called “net” or “net volume,” whereas the volume before compensation is called the 

“gross” or “gross volume.”

4. The metric units are shown solely for the purpose of showing metric equivalents in this 

uniform regulation in this NIST handbook. There is no requirement that dual units be 

shown in any full disclosure information required under this section.

5. Temperature Compensation may be abbreviated (e.g., Temp Comp, or Compensated to 

60 °F) in the interest of space as long as its meaning is clear.

6. The seller is not prohibited from providing both gross and net gallons on receipts, 

invoices, bills of lading or other documentation as long as it is not misleading or 

deceptive.

7. A “business location” means a single outlet and should not be interpreted to mean all of 

the outlets or locations that a business or company operates in a jurisdiction.

Action at 2007 Annual Meeting: The Committee received eighteen comments requesting this item be made 

Informational to allow the Committee time for additional study and deliberation. The Committee believed the 

concerns of the commentators were valid but were issues to be addressed by the S&T Committee and NTEP. 

Additional studies of the method of sale proposal would bring nothing new to the current recommendation that could 

not be addressed through further revisions next year if needed. 

The Committee believed adopting this proposal would provide guidance to policy makers and others currently 

considering action on temperature compensation at the national, state or local level. Jurisdictions opposing the 

proposal because their state laws or their policies were against it would not be affected by the adoption of this 

method of sale because their laws simply prohibited its implementation. The implementation of temperature 

compensation will be slow primarily because there is no existing nationally approved temperature-compensation 

device and NIST Handbook 44 must be revised to set forth the specifications, tolerances and other technical 

requirements for this technology. NTEP will then need to undertake its work where needed. However, the 

Committee acknowledged that some states may move ahead with their own type approvals to allow temperature 

compensation. The majority of the Committee believed the proposed method of sale was ready for NCWM 

adoption as there was not a reasonable justification for delaying the adoption of the proposal as presented. 

Therefore, the Committee recommended adoption of this item. 

L&R - 9 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

This item was subjected to a lengthy discussion at the general voting session and several issues were raised along 

with calls for further study. On a vote the item did not garner enough support to pass, so the item will be carried 

forward for reconsideration at the 2008 Interim Meeting. 

The ATC Steering Committee will hold a public meeting August 27 - 29, 2007, in Chicago, IL, to address the issues 

and concerns. The topics to be discussed will include (1) establishing standard product densities; (2) establishing 

specifications for temperature; (3) response time of thermometer well; (4) referencing 15 °C vs. 60 °F; (5) field test 

procedures and temperature uncertainties related to the 5 gallon test draft; (6) implementation; 

(7) labeling/signage/receipts; (8) tax data; (9) temperature data; and (10) NTEP checklists. 

For further information on the ATC Steering Committee, please contact: 

Don Onwiler, Chairman 

Nebraska Weights & Measures Division 

PO Box 94757 

Lincoln, NE 68509 

(402) 471-4292 or at donwiler@agr.ne.gov 

232-2 V Fuel Ethanol Labeling 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) 

Recommendation: Add a fuel ethanol labeling requirement (Section 2.30.), as recommended by the Petroleum 

Subcommittee, to the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation. To ensure agreement, editorially replace the 

wording in Section 3.8. in the Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation with the 

following: 

3.8. E85 Fuel Ethanol.

3.8.1. How to Identify E85 Fuel Ethanol. - Fuel ethanol shall be identified as E85.

3.8.2. Labeling Requirements. 

a. Fuel ethanol shall be labeled with its automotive fuel rating in accordance 

with 16 CFR Part 306. 

b. A label shall be posted which states "For Use in Flexible Fuel Vehicles 

(FFV) Only". This information shall be clearly and conspicuously posted

on the upper 50% of the dispenser front panel in a type at least 12.7 mm 

(1⁄2 in) in height, 1.5 mm (1/16 in) stroke (width of type).

Discussion: It was the Committee’s view that this proposal did not impose any new requirements. These 

requirements were adopted by the NCWM and published in the Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive 

Lubricants Regulation in Handbook 130. However, by adding these requirements in the Method of Sale of 

Commodities Regulation, the Committee was obligated to give notice that it will become effective on 

January 1, 2008, in the eighteen jurisdictions which indicate they automatically adopt that regulation by reference or 

citation (see NIST Handbook 130-2006, “II Uniformity of Laws and Regulations” [page 9] for a list of those states). 

Section 2.20. of the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation in Handbook 130 currently contains requirements 

for the disclosure of oxygenates in engine fuels. Including requirements for the disclosure of fuel ethanol is 

consistent with that requirement and should be provided to ensure consumers are fully informed when making 

purchasing decisions. 

While the Committee received numerous comments supporting this item, it also heard some concerns about 

perceived discrepancies between this item and the Federal Trade Commission’s (FTC’s) regulation regarding 

L&R - 10 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

ethanol labeling. These concerns were initially raised when the requirement was being considered for addition to 

the Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation. In response to the concerns, the 

Committee reviewed the proposed requirement with the FTC and believes no conflict exists. This proposal has been 

considered by several regional associations and appears to have the support of most weights and measures officials. 

Committee Action at the 2007 Interim and Annual Meetings: At the 2007 Interim Meeting the CWMA and 

others recommended the Committee separate this item from the Biodiesel Labeling item which is on hold until 

ASTM finalizes its work on the biodiesel blend specifications (see Item 232-3 below). In response to those 

suggestions, the Committee agreed to separate the items and recommended the labeling requirement for fuel ethanol 

be adopted at the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting. One comment suggested the proposal be amended to clarify that 

only the maximum volume percentage of ethanol need be declared, but the Committee believed that most officials 

understood that was the intent of the requirement. The Committee did not make any changes to the proposal above 

so it would not conflict with the current requirement in the Engine Fuels Regulation. The day after the Committee’s 

discussion, the Petroleum Subcommittee met and began a review of the Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and 

Automotive Lubricants Regulation, which would include this section. The Petroleum Subcommittee made 

substantive changes to the recommended language at the Annual Meeting and the NCWM adopted the new language 

and directed NIST to revise Section 3.8. of the Engine Fuel Regulation to maintain consistency between the two 

sections. 

232-3 I Biodiesel Labeling 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) 

Recommendation: Add the biodiesel labeling requirements contained in Handbook 130 Engine Fuels, Petroleum 

Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation to the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation:

2.XX. Biodiesel.

2.XX.1. Identification of Product. – Biodiesel and biodiesel blends shall be identified by the 

capital letter B followed by the numerical value representing the volume percentage of 

biodiesel fuel. (Examples: B10; B20; B100)

2.XX.2. Labeling of Retail Dispensers Containing Between 5 % and 20 % Biodiesel. – Each 

retail dispenser of biodiesel blend containing more than 5 % and up to and including 

20 % biodiesel shall be labeled with either:

2.XX.2.1. The capital letter B followed by the numerical value representing the 

volume percentage of biodiesel fuel and ending with “biodiesel blend.” 

(Examples: B10 biodiesel blend; B20 biodiesel blend), or;

2.XX.2.2. The phrase “biodiesel blend between 5 % and 20 %” or similar words.

2.XX.3. Labeling of Retail Dispensers Containing More Than 20 % Biodiesel. – Each retail 

dispenser of biodiesel or biodiesel blend containing more than 20 % biodiesel shall be 

labeled with the capital letter B followed by the numerical value representing the 

volume percentage of biodiesel fuel and ending with either “biodiesel” or “biodiesel 

blend.” (Examples: B100 Biodiesel; B60 Biodiesel Blend)

2.XX.4. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. – The retailer shall be provided, at the 

time of delivery, with a declaration of the volume percent biodiesel on an invoice, bill of 

lading, shipping paper, or other similar document. This documentation is for dispenser 

labeling purposes only; it is the responsibility of any potential blender to determine the 

amount of biodiesel in the diesel fuel prior to blending.

2.XX.5. Exemption. – Biodiesel blends containing 5 % or less biodiesel by volume are exempted 

from requirements 2.XX.1 through 2.XX.4.

L&R - 11 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Discussion: It is the Committee’s view that this proposal did not impose any new requirements. However, by 

including these requirements in the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation, the Committee was obligated to 

give notice that the requirements will become effective on January 1 of the year following adoption in the eighteen 

jurisdictions which indicate they automatically adopt that regulation by reference or citation (see the 2006 edition of 

NIST Handbook 130, “II Uniformity of Laws and Regulations” [page 9] for a list of those states). These 

requirements have already been adopted and are published in the Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive 

Lubricants Regulation in Handbook 130. 

Section 2.20. of the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation in Handbook 130 currently contains requirements 

for the disclosure of oxygenates in gasoline blends. Including requirements for the disclosure of biodiesel and 

biodiesel blends is consistent with this practice and should be required to ensure consumers are fully informed when 

making purchasing decisions. 

The Committee received numerous comments in support of this item and heard from the National Biodiesel Board 

(NBB) that, in general, supported this item. However, the NBB requested the Committee keep this item on its 

agenda as an information item until ASTM finalizes its biodiesel specifications. Waiting for the ASTM biodiesel 

standard before moving this item forward for a vote will ensure there is no conflict with those specifications. 

At its 2006 Annual Meeting, the WWMA L&R Committee received no comments regarding this item. The WWMA 

supported the NBB request to keep this item as Informational pending ASTM action. The WWMA concurred that 

waiting for adoption of the ASTM specifications will prevent conflicts in the final labeling requirement for 

biodiesel. At a recent CWMA meeting, a few comments were received that the biodiesel label requirement should 

include percentages below 5 %. An update on activity within ASTM to develop a stability specification for B 100 

was provided. After negative votes were addressed, ballots were circulated to add a B 5 limit to the D 975 diesel 

specification and to establish a B 20 specification. 

Committee Action at the 2007 Interim and Annual Meetings: At the 2007 Interim Meeting, the CWMA and 

others recommended the Committee keep this proposal on hold until ASTM finalized its work on the biodiesel blend 

specifications. In response to those suggestions, the Committee agreed to separate this item from the Fuel Ethanol 

requirements and carried this item forward as an information item. At the Annual Meeting, several people called for 

this item to be presented for a vote at the 2008 Annual Meeting and encouraged the Petroleum Subcommittee to 

encourage all stakeholders to move quickly to resolve their concerns so this important consumer protection 

requirement can be adopted by the NCWM. 

260 NIST HANDBOOK 133 “CHECKING THE NET CONTENTS OF PACKAGED 

GOODS” 

260-1 W 2.6. Drained Weight for Glazed or Frozen Seafood 

Source: Northeast Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) 

Proposal: Amend Section 2.6 Drained Weight for Glazed or Frozen Foods of NIST Handbook 133 as indicated in 

italics: 

1. 2.6 Drained Weight for Glazed or Frozen Seafoods. 

2. How is the drained weight of frozen shrimp and crabmeat seafood determined? 

3. Change all references to shrimp and crabmeat to just the word “seafood.” 

4. Delete the glazed section procedure. 

Discussion: At its 2006 Interim Meeting, NEWMA addressed the following problems and questions concerning the 

proposed changes to Section 2.6 of Handbook 133:

1. If the intent was to apply Section 2.6 to just seafood, the heading should just say Frozen Seafoods. It was 

the opinion of NEWMA that this was the intent. If the intent was to apply this to all frozen food, which is a 

L&R - 12 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

very broad category, then the Committee needed to look at the intent of this section. Does it apply to 

frozen vegetables? 

2. The procedure paragraph was too specific. It used just shrimp and crabmeat as examples. It should be 

generalized by using the term “frozen seafood.” 

3. The glazed section was not needed. The immersion method will work for glazed products. However, if the 

committee felt this method was needed, then an editorial change needed to be made. The heading says 

glazed raw seafood and fish and the next sentence starts that way. The next sentence ended saying, frozen 

glazed food product. The question was, which one is it – seafood and fish or frozen food products? Does 

this section cover glazed chicken wings, which is not seafood? 

4. If an item was not labeled glazed even though it might be glazed, how would the inspector test the product? 

It is very hard to tell glazed from simply frozen. Immersion works for both. Supermarkets repack large 

bags of shrimp and scallops into smaller bags and do not take the tare for the glazing or mark the bags 

“glazed.” 

Committee Action at the 2007 Interim Meeting: The Committee withdrew this proposal because it believed the 

guidance on testing glazed and frozen foods contained in NIST Handbook 133 was consistent with the test 

procedures prescribed by the Food and Drug Administration. 

260-2 W Worksheet for Liquid Volumes 

Proposal: Amend Section 3.2 Gravimetric Test Procedure for Liquids of NIST Handbook 133 to add a worksheet 

for testing packages labeled by liquid volume. 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) 

The proposed worksheet shown on the following page was reformatted from a worksheet created by the CWMA in 

landscape format. It has been converted to portrait format for use in gravimetric testing as described below. 

The CWMA believed the worksheet is a necessary inspection tool for gravimetric testing of packages labeled by 

liquid volume. The worksheet is used for determining average density, nominal gross weight, converting the MAV 

from liquid volume to mass units, and converting the average error back to labeled units of volume. A worksheet 

was included in the third edition of NIST Handbook 133, but was not included in the fourth edition. This proposal is 

to add the worksheet, with improvements, to the fourth edition of NIST Handbook 133. The new worksheet is one 

page instead of two. It was modified to provide the added benefit of helping the inspector identify the largest 

labeled declaration (i.e., fl oz vs. decimal pt vs. ml) and using that declaration to determine the nominal gross weight 

for the packages. 

The worksheet was tested in Nebraska and proved to be an effective and vital tool for package inspectors. The 

CWMA believed this functional and simple worksheet in Handbook 133 will promote more inspection of packages 

labeled by liquid volume. Many inspectors currently shy away from those types of packages because they are 

intimidated by the added complexity of the procedure. This worksheet will greatly reduce that complexity to a 

process of simply following the steps. 

The CWMA believed the only downside of adding the worksheet to the handbook was that, if adopted, it needed to 

be published in the handbook. 

Committee Action at the 2007 Interim Meeting: While the Committee recognized the value of this and other 

similar worksheets in conducting package inspection, it represented but one way information can be organized and 

documented to complete the tests. Laptop computers, for example, are gaining wider acceptance and their software 

can provide similar step-by-step guidance to aid its users. Comments to the Committee at the 2007 Interim Meeting 

indicated that, while it would be helpful for officials to have worksheets and checklists to use, most officials do not 

want them added to the printed version of NIST Handbook 133. One reason for not including such forms in the 

handbook was that if a state adopts the handbook in its entirety, there may be situations where, if the forms or exact 

L&R - 13 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

steps specified in the handbook are not used or followed (even when they provide similar results), the official could 

be criticized or have his determinations challenged. The Committee decided to explore creating an Internet site to 

post Handbook 133 information, references, and even software to assist officials. The Committee agreed the 

worksheet was useful but decided to withdraw the proposal and pursue the idea of establishing a NIST HB 133 

Reference Center on the Internet where documents such as this proposal can be posted. 

L&R - 14 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Worksheet for Packages Labeled by Volume When Using Gravimetric Test Procedure 

Label Declaration 

Converted 

to Fluid 

Ounce 

Largest Declaration 

(Y=Yes, N=No) Firm: 

Date: 

Commodity: 

1st Package 2nd Package 3rd Package 4th Package 5th Package 

1. Gross Weight 

2. Tare Wt Rt =

Net Wt Rc =

3. Flask Wt (full) Converting MAV to Decimal Pounds

4. Flask Wt (empty, wetted) 13. MAV in fl oz (Table 2-6)

5. Wt of Liquid (step 3 - 4) 14. MAV in lb (step 13 x step 11)

6. Volume of Flask (fl oz) Converting Average Error to Fluid Ounces

Temperature of Liquid 15. Avg. Error in lb 

(Box 18 x Box 2 of Test Report)

16. Avg. Error in fl oz 

(step 15 ÷ step 11)

7. Liquid Density 

(step 5 ÷ step 6) 

8. Range of Densities 

9. Are densities within 1 scale 

division? Yes ⁯ No ⁯

(If no, use volumetric procedure in Sec. 3.3) 

10. Average Tare Wt (average of step 2) 

11. Average Liquid Density (average of step 7)

12. Nominal Gross Weight (step 11 x largest labeled volume*) + step 10 

* Use largest labeled volume converted to fl oz from top of page.

L&R - 15 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

270 OTHER ITEMS – DEVELOPING ITEMS 

INTRODUCTION 

The NCWM established a mechanism to disseminate information about emerging issues which have merit and are of 

national interest. Developing items have not received sufficient review by all parties affected by the proposals or 

may be insufficiently developed to warrant review by the NCWM L&R Committee. The Developing items listed 

are currently under review by at least one regional association, subcommittee, or work group (WG). 

The Developing items are marked according to the specific NIST Handbook into which they fall – Handbook 130 or 

Handbook 133. The Committee encourages interested parties to examine the proposals included in the appendices 

and to send their comments to the contact listed in each part. 

The Committee asks that the regional weights and measures associations, subcommittees, and WGs continue their 

work to develop fully each proposal. Should an association, subcommittee, or WG decide to discontinue work on a 

Developing item, the Committee asks that it be notified. When the status of an item changes because the submitter 

withdraws the item, the item will be listed in a table below. For more details on items moved from the Developing 

Items list to the Committee’s main agenda, refer to the new reference number in the main agenda. 

270-1 W Add to NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation Section 1.14. Labeling 

Requirement of Drained Weight for Commodities Packed in a Liquid Medium (foods other than 

meat or poultry products under USDA jurisdiction)

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Proposal: Add Section 1.14. “Labeling Requirement of Drained Weight for Commodities Packed in a Liquid 

Medium (foods other than meat or poultry products under USDA jurisdiction).” 

Add Section 1.14. to read as follows: 

1.14. Labeling Requirement of Drained Weight for Commodities Packed in a Liquid Medium. –

Drained weight is the appropriate method of sale for products packed in a medium which is 

inedible or invariably discarded. Food items such as, but not limited to: wet pack shrimp, 

lobster meat, crabmeat, clams, olives, mushrooms, bamboo shoots, water chestnuts, cocktail 

onions, roasted peppers, and artichokes shall be labeled with a drained weight declaration.

(a) Drained weight is the weight of the solid food in a container after the packing medium 

has been drained away.

(b) Packing medium includes water, brine, and acid based liquids. Packing medium should 

not be construed to include oil based marinades which are generally considered part of 

the product.

Background: In 1978 the Food and Drug Administration published the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act with 

interpretations and guidelines. FDA Guide 7563 states that drained weight is the appropriate way to list net weight 

of contents for products packed in a medium which is inedible or invariably discarded. It lists as examples food 

items like wet pack shrimp, green olives, ripe olives, canned mushrooms, canned clams, and canned artichokes. 

Furthermore under Section 403 (d) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, a food is considered misbranded if 

its container is so made, formed, or filled as to be misleading. The FDA guide states it would be regarded as 

deceptive and in conflict with Section 403 (d) to replace part of the food in the container with excessive packing 

medium. This is true whether or not the label bears an accurate statement of the drained weight of the food. 

Some net weight declarations accurately reflect the usable content while other declarations include the weight of the 

packing medium, causing an unfair business advantage and making value comparison impossible for the consumer. 

As markets have changed and more value-added products are being made available to consumers, it is important to 

specify labeling requirements in order that businesses may compete equally and consumers may have adequate 

L&R - 16 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

information to facilitate value comparisons. In addition, consumers rely on the weight declarations when deciding 

which products to buy for recipes and for dietary purposes. 

This proposal was initiated because of a consumer complaint. 

Discussion: The WWMA L&R Committee received no comments on this item. The WWMA supported forwarding 

this item, as submitted, to the NCWM L&R Committee for placement on its agenda. The WWMA requested that 

NIST coordinate discussions with the Federal Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for review and concurrence. 

At the 2006 CWMA Interim Meeting, an industry representative mentioned that the wording of the item was 

problematic because it expected the regulatory jurisdiction to make a judgment call regarding packing medium 

which is inedible or invariably discarded. Furthermore, the wording was very open-ended with respect to the 

products covered by this method of sale. Comment from the group was to look at past conference reports in relation 

to canned clams as guidance. 

Committee Action at the 2007 Interim Meeting: The Committee withdrew this proposal because it believed the 

guidance on testing these products, which is contained in NIST Handbook 133, was consistent with the test 

procedures prescribed by the Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture. 

270-2 W Amend NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation Section 2.13.4. Declaration of Weight 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Proposal: Amend Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation Section 2.13.4. “Declaration of Weight.” as follows: 

For the purpose of this regulation, when D is not known, the minimum density used to calculate the 

target net weight shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known). For products labeled “High Density,” 

“HD,” or similar wording, the minimum density (D) used to calculate the target net weight shall be 

0.95 g/cm3.

Background: Some manufacturers of polyethylene bags labeled as “High Density” or “HD” have been found to 

package and label products whose labeled net weights met calculated target net mass/weights when employing a 

factor of 0.92 g/cm3. When a density factor of 0.95 g/cm3 was used, as appropriate, in the calculation for 

high-density polyethylene materials, products commonly failed to meet the calculated target net mass/weight. 

Further inspection typically revealed that one or more of the labeled width, thickness, or count statements were 

inaccurate. 

Some manufacturers appeared aware that weights and measures officials were restricted to testing high-density film 

using the 0.92 g/cm3 value because the actual density value was not stated on the product label and the existing 

procedural guidelines did not address high-density polyethylene materials. When testing at manufacturing locations, 

weights and measures officials were able to obtain information regarding the density of the product from the 

manufacturer. However, at distributor locations, density information was not available and officials tested using the 

0.92 g/cm3 designated in Handbooks 130 and 133. 

Conversations with manufacturers and review of technical data sheets from various manufacturers indicated that 

0.95 g/cm3 is an acceptable minimum density value for HD labeled polyethylene film. 

Discussion: The WWMA supported forwarding this item, as amended below, to the L&R Committee for 

consideration on its agenda. 

Recommendation: Amend Handbook 130 Method of Sale Regulation Section 2.13.4. Declaration of Weight as 

follows: 

For the purpose of this regulation, when the density (D) is not known, the minimum density used to 

calculate the target net weight shall be 0.92 g/cm3 (when D is not known). For products labeled “High 

L&R - 17 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Density,” “HD,” or similar wording, when D is not known, the minimum density (D) used to calculate 

the target net weight shall be 0.95 g/cm3.

When the polyethylene commodity package is labeled with a specific density, the labeled density 

factor shall be used to calculate the target net weight. If the official determines that the labeled 

density information is not accurate, the minimum density factors above shall be used to calculate the 

target net weight.

Committee Action at the 2007 Interim Meeting: The Committee withdrew this proposal because industry 

representatives supporting the proposal did not agree on the density used by most manufacturers to produce products 

typically labeled “high-density polyethylene.” A state association of film extruders and converters wrote that a 

density of 0.96 gm/cm3

 or higher was generally accepted as the “industry” standard for “high density” sheeting 

while a letter from a company in that state indicated that resins having densities between 0.946 gm/cm3

 to 

0.948 gm/cm3

 would also be considered to fall under that designation. The Committee believed any proposal to 

establish a national standard for a product identity should have the support of a large number of manufacturers 

across the nation. The Committee noted that one significant weakness in this proposal was that an unscrupulous 

manufacturer could avoid its provisions by simply calling its product by another undefined term. It is unlikely that 

could be prohibited by saying the official believed it constituted “similar wording” because the language was vague.

270-3 W Add Section 2.1.6. to NIST Handbook 130, Interpretations and Guidelines 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Proposal: Add Section 2.1.6. to NIST Handbook 130 Interpretations and Guidelines as follows: 

2.1.6. Labeling Requirements for Variable Weight Produce Items Sold in Clear Plastic Bags.

Interpretation:

For products, such as broccoli crowns, that are traditionally sold by variable weight as bulk produce 

items, it is not necessary that these produce items, when single or multiple units are packaged or 

wrapped in plastic film or bags, be marked with a net weight, unit price, and total price at the time 

the product is offered for retail sale. The FDA interpretation allows the determination of net weight 

at the point of sale. Also, a disclaimer statement on the package of “To be weighed at or before time 

of sale” is required consumer notification, assuming there are scales at the point of sale. In addition, 

the retail price per weight must be displayed within a reasonable distance to the product when the 

product is displayed for the consumer at the store level. The customer must be provided with the net 

weight, unit price, and the total price at the time of sale.

Issue:

The NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) has received numerous requests for information 

regarding the labeling of produce items offered for sale in plastic bags. The bags may be “zip-lock” 

or not, may be open or closed, and may or may not have some product labeling on the bag. Industry 

and regulatory officials have requested guidance concerning the packaging and labeling 

requirements as they apply to these products when offered for sale. A similar issue was raised 

regarding bunches of bananas wrapped in plastic bags and offered for sale.

Background:

WMD staff reviewed the Uniform Weights and Measures Law, the Uniform Packaging and Labeling 

Regulation in Handbook 130, and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. An exemption to some labeling 

requirements was found in 21 CFR Part 101 that specifically addresses wrapped clusters of bananas. 

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempts state laws where state laws are not identical to the Act 

for the products covered by the Act. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was consulted to 

L&R - 18 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

obtain their interpretation regarding this issue. The FDA exemption and interpretation are reported 

below.

Summary:

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act contains a specific exemption to some labeling requirements for 

wrapped clusters of bananas and allows the net weight to be determined at the time of sale (see 

wording below). The FDA reported that the exemption probably was written specifically for 

wrapped clusters of bananas because, most likely, bananas were the only produce item using that 

method of packaging at the time the exemption was requested (around 1964). The FDA indicated 

that the sale of other produce items in plastic is analogous to the sale of wrapped clusters of bananas; 

therefore, the exemption described in 21 CFR Part 100 also applies to other produce items, such as 

table grapes and broccoli crowns, for example.

References:

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act) 21 CFR Title 21, Part 101, Subpart G, 

Section 101.100 (h) provides an explicit statement as it applied to bananas. 21 CFR Title 21, 

Part 101, Section 101.100 addresses exemptions from food labeling requirements. The text for the 

exemption is provided below. The exemption mentioned below is to FDC Act Section 403(e)(2), 

which states that a food package shall be deemed to be misbranded unless it bears a label containing 

an accurate statement of quantity of contents.

21 CFR Title 21, Part 101, Subpart G, Section 101.100 (h)(3):

“(i) Wrapped clusters (consumer units) of bananas of nonuniform weight intended 

to be unpacked from a master carton or container and weighed at or before the 

point of retail sale in an establishment other than that where originally packed shall 

be exempt from the requirements of Section 403(e)(2) of the Act during introduction 

and movement in interstate commerce and while held for sale prior to weighing:

Provided that

The master carton or container bears a label declaration of the total net weight; and 

the individual packages bear a conspicuous statement “To be weighed at or before 

the time of sale” and a correct statement setting forth the weight of the wrapper; 

using such term as “wrapper tare __ ounce”, the blank being filled in with the 

correct average weight of the wrapper used.

Provided further, that it is the practice of the retail establishment to weigh the 

individual packages either prior to or at the time of retail sale.

The act of delivering the wrapped clusters (consumer units) during the retail sale 

without an accurate net weight statement or alternatively without weighing at the 

time of sale shall be deemed an act which results in the product’s being misbranded 

while held for sale. Nothing in this paragraph shall be construed as requiring netweight statements for clusters (consumer units) delivered into institutional trade, 

provided that the master container or carton bears the required information.”

The Act provides an exemption for Identity statements under specified conditions:

Identity:

“21 Code of Federal Regulations 101.100 (b) (3) for non-meat and non-poultry foods 

specifically exempts packages from identity statements if the identity of the 

commodity ‘can easily be identified through the wrapper or container’”.

L&R - 19 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

“A statement of identity is not required if the identity of the product can easily be 

identified through the wrapper or container. This exemption does not apply to meat 

and poultry.”

Presently, the NIST Handbook 130 Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation addresses 

responsibility statement requirements as applicable only to packages “kept, offered...or sold 

at...other than the premises where packed” and, furthermore, provides an exemption to quantity 

statements on packaged commodities intended to be weighed prior to or at time of sale:

Responsibility:

UPLR Section 5 states:

“Any package kept, offered or exposed for sale, or sold, at any place other than the premises where 

packed shall specify conspicuously on the label of the package the name and address of the 

manufacturer, packer or distributor.”

This exempts those packages 'kept, offered or exposed for sale, or sold' on the premises where packed from 

the need for a responsibility statement. When retailers remove wrapped clusters of produce from a shipping 

container, they often inspect the packages for quality and make adjustments such as removing damaged 

product before putting them in a bulk display; they are, for all practical purposes, repackaging the produce 

and assuming responsibility for it.

Quantity (Exemption for Random Weight Packages): UPLR Section 11.26 states:

“Individual packaged commodities put up in variable weights and sizes for sale intact, and 

intended to be weighed and marked with the correct quantity statement prior to or at the 

time of retail sale, are exempt from a declaration of net quantity.”

“Random weight packages that will be weighed at the time of sale do not need a quantity 

statement. This regulation does not address package closure and the exemption is not 

dependent on the package being open or closed.”

Background/Discussion: In recent years more and more produce items are being packed in clear plastic wrappers 

of various sizes in order to maintain the integrity and sanitation of the product (i.e., clusters of grapes or broccoli 

crowns). These products are being shipped to retail stores in fully labeled non-consumer containers. The retail 

stores take the plastic wrapped produce out of the boxes and stack it in bulk retail displays on the produce counter, 

advertising it for sale for a certain price per pound. The consumer selects the amount desired and brings it to the 

checkout counter where it is weighed and the total price is determined. 

This interpretation recognizes and clarifies the labeling requirements for an existing retail trade practice that is 

becoming more and more common. It provides for uniform labeling guidance for both industry and enforcement 

officials. 

NIST Handbook 130 “Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation” requires packaged commodities to provide 

accurate and adequate information as to identity, quantity of contents, and the name and address of a responsible 

party. However, if certain conditions exist, there are exemptions from these requirements, as cited under the 

proposed “Reference” section above. 

The WWMA received no comments on this item and supported this item as amended below: 

Add Section 2.1.6. to NIST Handbook 130 Interpretations and Guidelines as follows: 

2.1.6. Labeling Requirements for Variable Weight Produce Items Sold in Clear Bags or 

Wrapping. 

L&R - 20 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Issue: The NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) received numerous requests for information regarding 

correct labeling of produce items offered for sale in clear bags or overwrapped in clear sheeting. Such bags may or 

may not have a “zip-lock” feature, may be open or closed, and the bags or sheeting may or may not have some 

product labeling. Industry and regulatory officials requested guidance concerning packaging and labeling 

requirements as they apply to these products when offered for sale. A similar issue was raised regarding bunches of 

bananas wrapped in plastic bags and offered for sale. 

Background: WMD staff reviewed the Uniform Weights and Measures Law, the Uniform Packaging and Labeling 

Regulation (UPLR) in Handbook 130, and the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act). A specific exemption to 

quantity statement labeling requirements is established in Title 21 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 101, 

specifically addressing wrapped clusters of bananas. An exemption to identity statement labeling requirements for 

non-meat and non-poultry products is also established in 21 CFR Part 101. Additional exemptions to responsibility 

and quantity statements, under specific conditions, are established in the UPLR. 

The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act preempts state laws when such state laws are not identical to the Act for any 

products covered by the Act. The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) was consulted to obtain its interpretation 

regarding this issue. The FDA exemption and interpretation are reported below: 

Interpretation: The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act contains a specific exemption from quantity 

statement labeling requirements for wrapped clusters of bananas and allows the net weight to be 

determined at the time of sale (see wording below). The FDA reported that the exemption was 

written specifically for wrapped clusters of bananas because, most likely, bananas were the only 

produce commodity commonly distributed under that method of packaging at the time the 

exemption was requested (around 1964). The FDA indicated that the sale of other produce items 

in clear wrapping or bags is analogous to the sale of wrapped clusters of bananas; therefore, the 

exemption described in 21 CFR Part 100 also applies to other produce items, such as table grapes 

and broccoli crowns. 

Consequently, for products traditionally sold by variable weight as bulk produce items, it is not 

required that these produce items, when single or multiple units are packaged or wrapped in clear 

film or bags, be marked with a net weight, unit price, and total price at the time the product is 

offered for retail sale. The FDA interpretation allows the determination of net weight at the point 

of sale, provided a scale is available to weigh the commodity at the point of sale. A disclaimer 

statement on the package stating, “To be weighed at or before time of sale” is required consumer 

notification. In addition, the retail price per unit of weight is typically displayed to the consumer 

within a reasonable distance of the product display at the retail store. The customer must be 

provided with the net weight, unit price, and the total price at the time of sale. 

References: The Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDC Act) 21 CFR Title 21, Part 101, 

Subpart G, Section 101.100 (h) provides an explicit statement applicable to the sale of bananas. 

21 CFR, Part 101, Section 101.100 addresses exemptions from food labeling requirements (text 

provided below). The exemption is from FDC Act Section 403(e)(2), which states that a food 

package shall be deemed to be misbranded if it does not bear a label containing an accurate 

statement of quantity of contents. 

21 CFR Title 21, Part 101, Subpart G, Section 101.100 (h)(3) states: 

“(i) Wrapped clusters (consumer units) of bananas of nonuniform weight intended to be unpacked 

from a master carton or container and weighed at or before the point of retail sale in an 

establishment other than that where originally packed shall be exempt from the requirements of 

Section 403(e)(2) of the Act during introduction and movement in interstate commerce and while 

held for sale prior to weighing: 

Provided that 

The master carton or container bears a label declaration of the total net weight; and the individual 

packages bear a conspicuous statement “To be weighed at or before the time of sale” and a correct 

L&R - 21 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

statement setting forth the weight of the wrapper; using such term as “wrapper tare _ ounce”, the 

blank being filled in with the correct average weight of the wrapper used. 

Provided further, that it is the practice of the retail establishment to weigh the individual packages 

either prior to or at the time of retail sale. 

The act of delivering the wrapped clusters (consumer units) during the retail sale without an 

accurate net weight statement or alternatively without weighing at the time of sale shall be deemed 

an act which results in the product’s being misbranded while held for sale. Nothing in this 

paragraph shall be construed as requiring net-weight statements for clusters (consumer units) 

delivered into institutional trade, provided that the master container or carton bears the required 

information.” 

As discussed above, the FDA indicated that the sale of other produce items in clear wrappings or bags is 

analogous to the sale of wrapped clusters of bananas, and an exemption to quantity statement requirements 

applies to other produce items, such as table grapes and broccoli crowns. 

The FDC Act provides an exemption from identity statements requirements under specified conditions: 

Identity: 21 CFR Section 101.100 (b) (3) for non-meat and non-poultry foods specifically exempts 

packages from identity statement requirements if the identity of the commodity “can easily be identified 

through the wrapper or container.” 

“A statement of identity is not required if the identity of the product can easily be identified through the 

wrapper or container. This exemption does not apply to meat and poultry.” 

NIST Handbook 130 Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation: 

Presently, the NIST Handbook 130 Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation (UPLR) addresses 

responsibility statement requirements as applicable only to packages “kept, offered...or sold at...other than 

the premises where packed” and, furthermore, provides an exemption to quantity statements on packaged 

commodities intended to be weighed prior to or at time of sale: 

Responsibility: UPLR Section 5 states: 

“Any package kept, offered or exposed for sale, or sold, at any place other than the premises 

where packed shall specify conspicuously on the label of the package the name and address of the 

manufacturer, packer or distributor.” 

The responsibility statement requirement in UPLR Section 5 applies only to packages sold from other than 

the premises where packed. Conversely, when offered, exposed, and/or sold from the premises where 

packed, the responsibility statement requirement does not apply. When retailers remove wrapped clusters 

of produce from a shipping container, they often inspect the packages for quality and make adjustments 

such as removing damaged product before rewrapping and offering the packages for sale. In doing so, 

these retailers are repackaging the produce and assuming responsibility for it. In such circumstances, 

packages need not be labeled with a responsibility statement. 

Quantity (Exemption for Random Weight Packages): UPLR Section 11.26 states: 

“Individual packaged commodities put up in variable weights and sizes for sale intact, and 

intended to be weighed and marked with the correct quantity statement prior to or at the time of 

retail sale, are exempt from a declaration of net quantity.” 

Random weight packages that are to be weighed at the time of sale are not required to be labeled with a 

quantity statement. This regulation does not address package closure and the exemption is not dependent 

on the package being open or closed. 

L&R - 22 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Summary: 

Variable weight produce commodities sold in clear bags or sheeting are exempt from specific package 

labeling requirements under specific conditions as follows: 

• Exempt from identity statement requirement when the product identity can be readily determined 

through the packaging; 

• Exempt from responsibility statement requirement when packaged or repackaged upon the 

premises where kept, offered, exposed for sale, or sold; 

• Exempt from quantity statement requirement when all of the following applies: 

- Labeled with the statement, “To be weighed at or before the time of sale” 

- Labeled with a statement, “Wrapper tare _ ounce” or similar wording 

- The retailer has approved scale(s) in operation at the point of sale 

- The retailer weighs the commodity and provides net weight information at the time of sale. 

Committee Action at the 2007 Interim Meeting: The Committee withdrew this proposal because it believed 

offering produce for sale in clear plastic bags for which the net weight is determined at the time of sale (e.g., over a 

point-of-sale system) is an accepted method of sale. It was the Committee’s view that this method of sale benefits 

consumers because, if tare is accurately deducted, they are more likely to receive net weight at time of sale because 

the loss of weight from prepackaged produce due to moisture loss will not be a factor. The Committee believed that 

signage adjacent to the display can be used to provide identity, unit price and other information. The Committee 

recognized that retailers will likely apply a small label to the package which will include a Price Look-Up or Bar 

Code to assist consumers and store personnel to identify and compute the total price for the product and did not 

believe the addition of this type of label prevented the package from being considered to be packaged in a “clear 

plastic bag.” Similarly the Committee would not object to the packaging if it bore the statement “To be weighed at 

time of sale,” UPC label, or open dating information. The Committee reminded retailers they are responsible for 

ensuring net weight is provided in this type of weighing transaction so accurate tare determination and deduction are 

required. 

270-4 W Amend Handbook 133, Chapter 4.7 Polyethylene Sheeting – Test Procedure 

Proposal: Amend Handbook 133, Chapter 4.7 Polyethylene Sheeting – Test Procedure 

Amend asterisked footnote below Step 3 as follows: 

*Determined by ASTM Standard D 1505-98 (or latest issue) “Standard Method of Test for Density of 

Plastics by the Density Gradient Technique.” For the purpose of this handbook, when the actual density is 

not known, the minimum density used to calculate the target net weight shall be 0.92 g/cm3 when the 

actual density is not known. For products labeled “High Density,” “HD,” or similar wording, the 

minimum density (D) used to calculate the target net weight shall be 0.95 g/cm3.

Background: Some manufacturers of polyethylene bags labeled as “High Density” or “HD” have been found to 

package and label products whose labeled net weights met calculated target net mass/weights when employing a 

factor of 0.92 g/cm3. When a density factor of 0.95 g/cm3 was used, as appropriate, in the calculation for 

high-density polyethylene materials, products commonly failed to meet the calculated target net mass/weight. 

Further inspection typically revealed that one or more of the labeled width, thickness, or count statements were 

inaccurate. 

Some manufacturers appeared aware that weights and measures officials were restricted to testing high-density film 

using the 0.92 g/cm3 value because the actual density value was not stated on the product label and the existing 

procedural guidelines did not address high-density polyethylene materials. When testing at manufacturing locations, 

weights and measures officials were able to obtain information regarding the density of the product from the 

manufacturer. However, at distributor locations, density information was not available and officials tested using the 

0.92 g/cm3 designated in Handbooks 130 and 133. 

L&R - 23 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Conversations with manufacturers and review of technical data sheets from various manufacturers indicated that 

0.95 g/cm3 was an acceptable minimum density value for HD labeled polyethylene film. 

Discussion: The WWMA L&R Committee received only a few comments on this item and therefore recommended 

forwarding the item to the NCWM L&R Committee to be placed on its agenda. 

Recommendation: Amend Handbook 133, Chapter 4.7 Polyethylene Sheeting – Test Procedure as follows: 

*Determined by ASTM Standard D 1505-98 (or latest issue) “Standard Method of Test for Density of Plastics 

by the Density Gradient Technique.” For the purpose of this handbook, when the actual density (D) is not 

known, the minimum density used to calculate the target net weight shall be 0.92 g/cm3 when the actual 

density is not known. For products labeled “High Density,” “HD,” or similar wording, when D is not 

known, the minimum density (D) used to calculate the target net weight shall be 0.95 g/cm3. When the 

polyethylene commodity package is labeled with a specific density, the labeled density factor shall be used 

to calculate the target net weight. If the official determines that the labeled density information is not 

accurate, the minimum density factors above shall be used to calculate the target net weight.

Committee Action at the 2007 Interim Meeting: The Committee withdrew this proposal because industry 

representatives supporting the proposal did not agree on the density used by most manufacturers to produce products 

typically labeled “high-density polyethylene.” (E.g., a state association of film extruders and converters wrote that a 

density of 0.96 gm/cm3

 or higher was generally accepted as the “industry” standard for “high density” sheeting 

while a letter from a company in that state indicated that resins having densities between 0.946 gm/cm3

 to 

0.948 gm/cm3

 would also be considered to fall under that designation.) The Committee believes that, lacking 

evidence of a serious national problem with polyethylene labeling, a proposal to establish a national standard for a 

product identity should have the support of a large number of manufacturers across the nation.

270-5 I Amend Section 2.2.1. in Handbook 130 Uniform Engine Fuels Regulation – Premium 

Diesel Lubricity 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Proposal: Amend Section 2.2.1. in Handbook 130 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive 

Lubricants Regulation as follows: 

2.2.1. Premium Diesel Fuel. – All diesel fuels identified on retail dispensers, bills of lading, invoices, 

shipping papers, or other documentation with terms such a premium, super, supreme, plus, or premier 

must conform to the following requirements: 

(a) Cetane Number. – A minimum cetane number of 47.0 as determined by ASTM Standard Test 

Method D 613. 

(b) Low Temperature Operability. – A cold flow performance measurement which meets the 

ASTM D 975 tenth percentile minimum ambient air temperature charts and maps by either ASTM 

Standard Test Method D 2500 (Cloud Point) or ASTM Standard Test Method D 4539 (Low 

Temperature Flow Test, LTFT). Low temperature operability is only applicable 

October 1 - March 31 of each year. 

(c) Thermal Stability. – A minimum reflectance measurement of 80 % as determined by ASTM 

Standard Test Method D 6468 (180 min, 150 °C). 

(d) Lubricity. – A maximum wear scar diameter of 520 μm as determined by ASTM D 6079. If an 

enforcement jurisdiction’s single test of more than 560 μm is determined, a second test shall be 

conducted. If the average of the two tests is more than 560 μm, the sample does not conform to 

the requirements of this part. 

L&R - 24 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Background: A member of the petroleum industry believed the test and associated tolerances for lubricity on 

premium diesel specified in Section 2.2.1.(d) were inconsistent with that for regular diesel. Effective 

January 1, 2005, the test tolerance for regular diesel lubricity was the ASTM D 6079 reproducibility of 136 μm (see 

ASTM D 975-04b). The NCWM chose to accept the ASTM reproducibility limits for all diesel (D 975) and 

gasoline (D 4814) properties (see Section 7.2.2., Reproducibility), but chose a different reproducibility limit for 

premium diesel lubricity without providing any explanation as to why the ASTM reproducibility limit was 

insufficient. If the NCWM intended to impose a stricter lubricity requirement for premium diesel, it should have 

designated a tighter specification for this property, not a different test tolerance (e.g., for regular and premium 

gasoline, premium has a different octane specification than for regular, but the test tolerance is the same). ASTM 

reproducibility limits were, by definition, based on establishing a 95 % probability that product that should pass, will 

pass. Applying an average test as specified in Section 2.2.1.(d) reduced that probability to 80 %. 

The Committee received comments from several members of the Premium Diesel Work Group (WG) who did not 

support the item as presented by the petroleum industry member. WG members believed the process that led to the 

current definition was very thorough and complete and the premium diesel lubricity requirements were established 

with a full understanding of their implications. The WG members felt that knowledgeable individuals provided 

input to the process, which lead to the consensus position contained in the current regulation. The work being done 

by the WG was reported at meetings of ASTM Subcommittee E-2 every six months. The current regulation has 

been endorsed by the American Petroleum Institute, the Engine Manufacturer's Association, and the NCWM. 

Prior to this requirement being adopted, the ASTM Lubricity Task Force conducted a great deal of research on this 

topic. Based on their research, the ASTM Lubricity Task Force concluded that a limit of 520 μm would meet the 

requirements of equipment in the field. Since the passage of this model regulation, ASTM included a lubricity 

requirement for No. 1 and No. 2 diesel fuel effective January 1, 2005. The ASTM requirement is also 520 μm. 

WG members reported that when this regulation was written, fuels with adequate lubricity provided a functional 

benefit to the end user. The WG agreed with the ASTM Lubricity Task Force that 520 μm was the correct limit to 

set for premium diesel. However, the WG’s review process also indicated increased pump wear for fuels with HighFrequency Reciprocating Rig (HFRR) values greater than 560 μm. The current reproducibility value of the HFRR 

test method would have placed enforcement well beyond the 560 μm level, essentially allowing fuels with little 

lubricity protection to be sold as “Premium.” The WG believed they could not recommend a premium fuel standard 

that would permit excessive pump wear. Using the statistical tools provided in ASTM D 3244, the WG evaluated an 

enforcement limit of 560 μm. The statistical tools indicated that a single laboratory reporting the assigned test value 

would have an enforcement limit of approximately 80 % probability of acceptance, while the average of two 

separate laboratories reporting the assigned test value would have an enforcement limit of approximately 90 % 

probability of acceptance. It was agreed that for a premium fuel the average of two test results was the best 

approach given the current test methods and precision available. Therefore, if a test exceeded 560 μm, then a 

second test must be run. The average of the two tests must exceed 560 μm before a violation would occur. At the 

2005 WWMA the Petroleum Subcommittee agreed the proposal was at that time the best approach, and, lacking new 

information, it continues to hold that position. 

Discussion: At the WWMA 2006 Annual Meeting, the WWMA L&R Committee received only one comment 

regarding this item, acknowledging the ongoing review by the Petroleum Subcommittee. The WWMA noted that 

the NCWM L&R Committee forwarded the proposal for review by the Petroleum Subcommittee and agreed this 

item should remain Developmental pending the Subcommittee’s recommendation. 

At its 2006 Interim Meeting, the CWMA indicated the NCWM Petroleum Subcommittee would make 

recommendations after ASTM improved the test method's precision and after the conclusion of other tests. The 

CWMA L&R Committee was awaiting the recommendation from the NCWM Petroleum Subcommittee. 

Committee Action at the 2007 Interim Meeting: The Committee carried this item over as an Information item. 

The Committee sent this proposal to the Petroleum Subcommittee and requested its recommendation on how to 

proceed with the issue. The Subcommittee suggested this item remain on the agenda as an Information item until 

further notice and reported that the activities of ASTM International and the Coordinating Research Council were 

continuing. 

L&R - 25 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Contact: NCWM Petroleum Subcommittee, Ron Hayes, Chairman, (573) 751-2922 or ron.hayes@mda.mo.gov for 

additional information. 

270-6 I Amend Handbook 130 Interpretations and Guidelines Section 2.3.2. Guidelines for the Method 

of Sale of Fresh Fruits and Vegetables 

Source: Northeast Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) 

Proposal: Amend Handbook 130 Interpretations and Guidelines Section 2.3.2. to recognize and support innovation 

in modern retail food marketing approaches at all forms of outlets from typical grocery stores to the age-old farm 

markets.

Discussion: The method of sale guidelines for the sale of fresh fruits and vegetables that currently appear in 

Handbook 130 are outdated and in need of revision. The present guidelines do not recognize current retailing 

practices and are not expansive enough to cover many exotic and unusual fruits and vegetables that are becoming 

more common in the marketplace. Additionally, the present guidelines do not take into consideration the necessary 

limitations experienced by retailers at roadside stands and farmers markets. 

The original proposal for this item reflected input from only a single jurisdiction. The Committee was informed that 

several industry associations requested an opportunity to review and respond to this proposal. The Committee 

believed there were several factual errors within the classifications of produce provided, and several types of 

produce still were not covered by the provided proposal. The Committee made this item Developmental so it may 

be more fully developed with input from jurisdictions throughout the country and from affected industry 

associations and businesses. 

Discussion: At its 2006 Interim Meeting, the CWMA heard a comment that this item should be moved to 

Informational for a year. The body of the guidelines should be circulated within the CWMA before becoming a 

Voting item. The WWMA L&R Committee received no comments regarding this item. The committee chairman 

encouraged all to provide input on this item to the NCWM L&R Committee. 

Contact Ross Andersen (NY Bureau of Weights and Measures) at (518) 457-3146 or e-mail at 

ross.andersen@agmkt.state.ny.us to submit comments or for further information. 

2.3.2. Fresh Fruits and Vegetables 

(Added 1979, Amended 1980, 1982, and 200X) 

This guideline applies to all sales of fruits and vegetables. There are two tables, one for specific 

commodities and one for general commodity groups. Search the specific list first to find those 

commodities that either don't fit into any of the general groups or have unique methods of sale. If 

the item is not listed, find the general group in the second table. The item may be sold by any 

method of sale marked with an X.

Specific Commodity Weight Count

Head 

or 

Bunch

Dry 

Measure 

(any size)

Dry Measure 

(1 dry qt or 

larger)

Artichokes X X

Asparagus X X

Avocadoes X

Bananas X X

Beans (green, yellow, etc.) X X

Brussels Sprouts (loose) X

Brussels Sprouts (on stalk) X

Cherries X X X

Coconuts X X

Corn on the Cob X X

L&R - 26 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Specific Commodity Weight Count

Head 

or 

Bunch

Dry Dry Measure 

(1 dry qt or 

larger)

Measure 

(any size)

Dates X

Eggplant X X

Figs X

Grapes X

Melons (cut in pieces) X

Mushrooms (small) X X X

Mushrooms (Portobello, large) X X

Okra X

Peas X X

Peppers (bell and other varieties) X X X

Pineapples X X

Rhubarb X X

Tomatoes (except cherry) X X X

General Commodity Group Weight Count

Head

or

Bunch

Dry

Measure

(any size)

Dry 

Measure 

(1 dry qt or 

larger)

Berries and Cherry Tomatoes X X

Citrus Fruits (oranges, grapefruits, lemons, etc.) X X X

Edible Bulbs (onions, garlic, leeks, etc.) X X X X

Edible Tubers (Irish potatoes, sweet potatoes, 

ginger, horseradish, etc.)

X X

Flower Vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, 

Brussels sprouts, etc.)

X X

Gourd Vegetables (cucumbers, squash, melons, 

etc.)

X X X

Leaf Vegetables (lettuce, cabbage, celery, etc.) X X

Leaf Vegetables (parsley, herbs, loose greens) X X X

Pitted Fruits (peaches, plums, prunes, etc.) X X X

Pome Fruits (apples, pears, mangoes, etc.) X X X

Root Vegetables (turnips, carrots, radishes, etc.) X X

Committee Action at the 2007 Interim and Annual Meetings: The Committee carried this item over as 

Informational and will reconsider it when it receives comments from the regional associations, retailers and other 

industries affected by the proposed amendments. The Committee also realized the proposed replacement table had 

been omitted from this item. That oversight has been corrected in this report (see next page). 

At the Annual Meeting, concerns were raised that permitting quart sales of some fruits and vegetables would not be 

useful or practical and the Committee should reconsider that provision of the table. 

Comparison of Current and Proposed Tables 

The following comparison was prepared for the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee at the request of the 

Central Weights and Measures Association. It compares the current Guideline for the Method of Sale of Fresh 

Fruits and Vegetables in Section 2.3.2. of the Interpretations and Guidelines Section of NIST Handbook 130 with 

the changes proposed in Item 270-6. A table which lists the commodities included in the current Guideline but 

which do not appear in the Specific or General Tables is also provided. 

L&R - 27 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Comparison Tables 

Key to Tables: 

Green rows (dark gray) indicate there is NO change between the current and proposed guideline (i.e., see the 

rows for Artichokes in the Comparision Table). 

Yellow rows (light gray) indicate there is a change between the current and proposed guideline (i.e., see “Dry 

Measure (1 dry qt or larger) in the header row of the Comparison Table and the cell under the header for count 

in the row for “Bananas.”) 

Explanations of the differences or questions to be resolved are provided in the numbered footnotes which are 

located at the bottom of the table. 

Specific Commodity Weight Count

Head 

or 

Bunch

Dry 

Measure 

(any size)

Dry Measure

(1 dry qt or larger)1

Artichokes X X

Asparagus X X

Avocadoes X

Bananas2 X X2

Beans (green, yellow, etc.) X X

Brussels Sprouts (loose)3 X3

Brussels Sprouts (on stalk)4 X4

Cherries5,6 X X6 X6

Coconuts X X

Corn on the Cob X X

Dates X

Eggplant X X

Figs X

Grapes X

Melons (cut in pieces) X

Mushrooms (small)6,7 X X6 X6

Mushrooms (Portobello, large)7 X X7

Okra X

Peas8 X X8

Peppers (bell and other varieties)9 X X X9

Pineapples X X

Rhubarb10 X X10

Tomatoes (except cherry)11 X X11 X 1

 This amendment changes the minimum dry measure from 1 peck to 1 dry quart. The equivalents are: one peck = 16 dry pints, 

8 dry quarts, 1⁄4 bushel, or 8.810 L. 2

 The current guideline forbids sales of bananas by count (only by weight). However, the NCWM permits individual bananas to be 

sold under the Ready-to-Eat Food exception in Section 1.12. in the Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation. 3

 The current guideline addresses Brussels sprouts and does not include the “loose” distinction. 4

 This is a new MOS for Brussels sprouts on “stalks” so there is nothing in the current method of sale to compare this with except 

that the current provision requires Brussels sprouts to be sold by weight. 5

 The reference to Section 4.46. Berry Baskets and Boxes Code in NIST Handbook 44 has been deleted. 6

 If a dry measure of “any size” is ok in Column 3, is an X correct in the 4th Column which limits sales to 1 dry quart or larger? 7

 This proposal distinguishes mushrooms by size between “small” and “large (Portobello)” and introduces the method of sale by 

count for “large” mushrooms which is not permitted in the current guideline (only by weight or measure). 8

 The current guideline does not allow sales of peas by “dry measure” (only by weight). 9

 The current guideline does not allow sales peppers by “dry measure” (only by weight or count). 

10 The current guideline does not allow sales of rhubarb by “head or bunch” (only by weight). 

11 The current guideline does not allow sales of tomatoes by “count” (only by weight and dry measure).

L&R - 28 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

General Commodity Group26

Weight Count

Head

or

Bunch

Dry

Measure

(any size)

Dry Measure 

(1 dry qt or 

larger)

Berries1 and Cherry Tomatoes X X

Citrus Fruits (oranges2, grapefruits3, lemons4, etc.) X X X2,3,4

Edible Bulbs (onions5,6, garlic7, leeks8, etc.) X X7 X7 X5,6,8

Edible Tubers (Irish potatoes9, sweet potatoes10, ginger11, 

horseradish12, etc.) X X9,10

Flower Vegetables (broccoli, cauliflower, Brussels 

sprouts13, etc.) X X

Gourd Vegetables (cucumbers14, squash15, melons16, etc.) X X X15

Leaf Vegetables (lettuce, cabbage17, celery18, etc.) X X17,18

Leaf Vegetables (parsley19, herbs20, loose greens21) X X21 X19,21

Pitted Fruits (peaches, plums22, prunes23, etc.) X X22 X22

Pome Fruits (apples, pears, mangoes24, etc.) X X X24

Root Vegetables (turnips, carrots, radishes25, etc.) X X25

1

 The reference to Section 4.46. Berry Baskets and Boxes Code in NIST Handbook 44 has been deleted. 2

 The current guideline does not allow sales of oranges by “dry measure” (only by weight or count). 3

 The current guideline does not allow sales of grapefruit by “dry measure” (only by weight or count). 4

 The current guideline does not allow sales of lemons by “dry measure” (only by weight or count). 5

 The current guideline does not allow sales of onions by “dry measure” (see 6). 6

 The current guideline allows sales by weight or bunch for “spring or green” onions and sales by “weight” for dry onions. 7

 The current guideline does not permit sales of garlic by “dry measure” (only by weight or count). 8

 The current guideline does not allow sales of leeks by “count” or “dry measure” (only by weight). 9

 The current guideline does not allow sales of Irish potatoes by “dry measure” (only by weight). 

10 The current guideline does not allow sales of sweet potatoes by “dry measure” (only by weight). 11 The current guideline does not include ginger. 

12 The current guideline does not include horseradish. 

13 Brussels sprouts are also in the Specific Commodity Table as “loose” and “on stalk.” 

14 The current guideline does not allow sales of cucumbers by “dry measure” (only by weight or count). 

15 The current guideline does not include squash. 

16 The current guideline does not allow sales of melons by “dry measure” (only weight or count). 17 The current guideline does not allow sales by cabbage by “count” (only by weight). 18 The current guideline allows sales of celery by weight or count so perhaps the Committee should decide whether or not “head or bunch” 

or “count” is the most appropriate descriptor. 19 The current guideline does not allow sales of parsley by “dry measure” (only weight or bunch). 

20 The current guideline does not include herbs. 

21 The current guideline does not allow sales of “Greens (all)” by count or dry measure (only by weight). 22 The current guideline does not allow sales of plums by count (only by weight or dry measure). 23 The current guideline does not allow sales of prunes by count or dry measure (only by weight). 24 The current guideline does not allow sales of mangoes by dry measure (only by weight or count). 

25 The current guideline does not allow sales of radishes by “head or count” (only by weight). 26 While many of these items may fall under the general categories listed above, it may improve uniformity and simplify the use of the table 

if all of the commodities were placed in a general category instead of the table, saying for instance, “Edible Tubers, etc.” 

L&R - 29 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

This table lists the commodities that are in the current method 

of sale guidelines but which are not specifically identified in the 

proposed tables.*

Commodity Method of Sale

Apricots Weight

Beets Weight or Bunch

Cantaloupes Weight or Count

Cranberries Weight or Measure

Currants Weight or Measure

Eggplant Weight or Count

Escarole Weight or Bunch

Kale Weight

Kohlrabi Weight

Limes Weight or Count

Nectarines Weight or Count

Papaya Weight or Count

Parsnips Weight

Persimmons Weight or Count

Pomegranates Weight or Count

Rutabagas Weight

Spinach Weight or Bunch

Tangerines Weight or Count

*While many of these items may fall under the general categories 

listed above it may be improve uniformity and simplify the use of 

the table if all of these commodities are placed in a general 

category instead of the table saying, for instance, “Edible Tubers, 

etc.”

The Committee requested this item be considered at upcoming regional meetings and that comments are submitted 

by November 1, 2007, for inclusion and review at the Interim Meeting in January 2008. 

270-7 D Amend Handbook 133 Section 2.3, Moisture Allowances to Provide Clearer Guidance 

This item was added to the agenda of the Committee’s Work Group (WG) on Moisture Loss (see Appendix A) 

following the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting. Also see Item 270-8 for an explanation of the WG’s role and 

responsibilities. 

270-8 D Laws and Regulations Committee Work Group (WG) on Moisture Loss 

At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee created a WG to undertake a review of a number of moisture 

loss and other issues relating to NIST Handbook 133 “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods.” NIST 

recommended the NCWM L&R Committee retain responsibility for this project instead of creating a task force 

because that would entail additional travel and meeting expenses for all parties. The Board of Directors and the 

Committee agreed with that proposal because a large portion of this project can be accomplished using e-mail and 

teleconferences to reduce costs. The Committee also noted the number of items on the Committee’s agenda has 

declined so it has time available during its work sessions at the Interim and Annual Meetings to address this project. 

If additional meetings are needed, they will be scheduled to coincide with the regional meetings to reduce travel and 

other costs. Another justification for this approach was that it allowed regional representatives on the Committee to 

develop a greater understanding of moisture loss and enabled them to better explain the subject matter to their 

constituents. 

Participation in this effort is open to everyone. The first meeting took place on Sunday, July 8, 2007, following the 

Committee’s regular work session at the NCWM Annual Meeting at the Snow Bird Resort near Salt Lake City, 

L&R - 30 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Utah. The first major subject of discussion was the determination of tare using gel-soaker pads. The participants 

agreed that information on the appropriate test procedures for using gel soaker pads should be distributed to weights 

and measures officials and industry following the NCWM Annual Meeting, and NIST agreed to publish an article in 

the upcoming edition of WMD’s Newsletter. A discussion of that issue is contained in Item 1 of Appendix A 

attached to this report. The group developed a formal work plan and addressed additional items listed in 

Appendix A as time allowed. 

To obtain more information on Moisture Loss or to participate in this group, contact Tom Coleman at 

(301) 975-4004 or by e-mail at t.coleman@nist.gov.

270-9 D Petroleum Subcommittee 

The Petroleum Subcommittee met on January 24, 2007, at the NCWM Interim Meeting in Jacksonville, Florida, to 

undertake a review of a number of significant issues related to fuel standards. Their first major project was to 

undertake a major review and update of the Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation in Handbook 130. The goal of the Subcommittee was to prepare and submit a major revision of this 

regulation for consideration by the Committee at the 2008 Interim Meeting. The Subcommittee also conducted a 

review of the Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Law and will prepare suggested 

changes for that uniform law as well. Another project will be to update and possibly expand the Basic Engine Fuels, 

Petroleum Products, and Lubricants Laboratory Publication which will then be made available on the Internet. The 

Subcommittee will undertake other projects as time and resources permit. 

The Petroleum Subcommittee also met at the Annual Meeting and continued its work on a number of items in 

addition to preparing a major revision of the Fuel Ethanol Labeling requirement in Item 232-2. 

The Chairman of the Petroleum Subcommittee is Ron Hayes, Missouri, who can be contacted at (573) 751-2922 or 

at ron.hayes@mda.mo.gov. If you would like to participate in the Petroleum Subcommittee, contact Ron Hayes or 

Ken Butcher, NIST L&R technical advisor, at (301) 975-4859 or by e-mail at kbutcher@nist.gov.

James P. Cassidy, Jr., Chairman, Cambridge, Massachusetts 

Vicky Dempsey, Montgomery County, Ohio 

Roger Macey, California 

Stephen Benjamin, North Carolina 

Joe Benavides, Texas 

Ron Hayes, Missouri, Chairman of the Petroleum Subcommittee

Pete O’Bryan, Foster Farms, Associate Member Representative 

Doug Hutchinson, Canada, Technical Advisor 

Tom Coleman, NIST, Technical Advisor 

Ken Butcher, NIST, Technical Advisor 

Lisa Warfield, NIST, Technical Advisor 

Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R - 31 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 

L&R - 32 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

Appendix A 

L&R Committee Work Group on Moisture Loss 

Table A 

Table of Contents and Agenda 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................................................A2

Item 1. Gel Soaker Pads....................................................................................................................................A2

Item 2. Moisture Loss Guidance in NIST Handbook 133 .................................................................................A3

Item 3. WMD Package Inspection and Moisture Loss Guidance Letter – Withdrawn......................................A9

Item 4. WMD Suggestions................................................................................................................................A9

a. Seek Greater Recognition of NIST Handbook 133 by FDA and other Federal Agencies. ..............A9

b. Create a new supplement or website to NIST Handbook 133 which would provide useful 

information to administrators, field officials and industry...............................................................A9

REFERENCE SECTION I – Excerpts From The Interpretations And Guidelines Section Of Nist 

Handbook 130..................................................................................................................................................A12

REFERENCE SECTION II – Other Moisture Loss Guidance And Related Documents................................A21

A. Text from the WMD Memorandum that was issued on January 1, 2006...................................................A21

B. Letter from Kraft Foods Requesting that NIST Withdraw Letter on Moisture Loss*................................A28

C. Chapter 3 from the 3rd Edition of NIST Handbook 133 and 4th Supplement 1994*..................................A28

*NOTE: The following documents could not be included in this publication because they are only available in 

Adobe PDF format; NIST will provide copies on request. Please contact Tom Coleman at (301) 975-4004 or by 

e-mail at t.coleman@nist.gov.

L&R - A1 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

Detail of all Items 

(In order by Reference Key Number) 

Moisture Loss and Other Issues for Consideration by the NCWM Laws and 

Regulations Committee and the Board of Directors 

INTRODUCTION 

The Weights and Measures Division (WMD) prepared this document at the request of Mike Cleary, Chairman of the 

NCWM, to detail several moisture loss and other package inspection issues to be studied under this project with the 

goal of developing recommendations for amendments to NIST Handbook 133 (HB 133) in 2008. There are four 

items listed below and most of the resource material is included to enable this document to serve as an agenda and 

comprehensive resource. 

WMD provided this outline for consideration by the NCWM L&R Committee, the Board of Directors and other 

interested parties with the goal of developing a consensus on whether or not there was sufficient justification to 

study the issues described below. 

Item 1. Gel Soaker Pads 

Several weights and measures officials are concerned that HB 133 does not provide adequate guidance on how to 

verify the net weight declaration on packages where “gel soaker pads” are used in the package to absorb moisture. 

Based on information that WMD has received, this discussion paper is provided as a technical examination of the 

use of “gel type” soaker pads when determining net weight. Gel soaker pads contain granules of a highly absorbent 

compound that soak up fluid and retain it so efficiently that the “usual” methods of drying (pressure, wiping and air) 

do not allow the recreation of “Used Dry Tare.” According to two manufacturers, “gel-based soaker pads” can 

absorb up to 50 times their original weights in fluid compared to “cellulose-based fluff pulp” which absorb only two 

to four times its weight (see www.thermasorb.com and www.stockhausen-inc.com). Gel-type soaker pads are 

used by industry to: (1) extend shelf life thus reducing repackaging costs, (2) reduce bacterial growth, and 

(3) improve the “presentation of packages” by absorbing blood and fluid, eliminating free flowing liquid in the 

package. 

Inspection problems with this type of tare arise when officials attempt to verify net weight declarations on packages 

which have been wrapped and labeled at a location other than where the commodity is inspected/tested since 

officials have no access to “unused dry tare.” Some officials report that it is impossible to dry these types of soaker 

pads using traditional drying procedures and have even attempted to use microwave ovens to establish “used dry 

tare.” WMD discourages the use of microwave ovens or other extreme drying methods for drying tare materials 

because (1) unused “dry” tare materials have a natural moisture content which cannot be reestablished using most 

heating methods (e.g., for gel-pads this could be 5 % or more); (2) the intensity/power of microwave ovens varies 

substantially from device to device so, given the range of variability, it would be impossible to suggest a power 

setting or heating time that could be considered reasonable, repeatable, and safe; and (3) a more practical concern is 

that an official could overheat tare material and damage the microwave or cause even more serious problems such as 

the possibility of fire. 

WMD solicits recommendations and comments from all concerned who have interest in this topic. Please consider 

possible solutions to allow accurate measurement practices that permit officials to safely recreate “used dry tare” for 

net weight verification on products using “gel-type” material. 

WMD believes the requirements of HB 133 are written broadly enough to apply to all types of tare materials 

including those which are “gel based.” Under the definition of “Used Dry Tare” officials use air drying, washing, 

scraping, pressure, or other techniques which can involve more than normal household procedures but do not go so 

far as to include laboratory procedures such as oven drying. The field test procedures in HB 133 were developed to 

provide uniform procedures to enable officials to dry out “used” tare to recreate as close as possible the weight of 

“unused tare material” that the packager used. When a packager uses a tare material that does not permit the 

recreation of unused dry tare (and the official does not have access to “unused dry tare” material or to readily 

L&R - A2 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

accessible reliable information on tare), the official is limited to drying at least two samples of the tare material as 

best he can using the procedures described by the handbook; he then can use an average tare to determine a net 

weight. If the packages are then found to be underweight, the packer must be permitted to provide information on 

whether or not the average tare value used by the official was reasonable or provide other information to the official 

to defend the net weight claims on the label. Since this is really the same opportunity any packer of any type of tare 

material has available to him, WMD believes the current guidance in HB 133 is adequate. 

A test procedure in HB 133 is necessary to ensure weights and measures can continue to maintain marketplace 

surveillance to ensure equity and fair competition while still recognizing reasonable moisture loss or gain as 

required under both federal and state laws and regulations. The relevant sections describing the tare definition and 

determination procedures from 4th edition of HB 133 (2005) are shown below: 

Used Dry Tare 

Used Dry Tare is defined as follows: Used tare material that has been air dried, or dried in 

some manner to simulate the unused tare weight. It includes all packaging materials that can 

be separated from the packaged product, either readily (e.g., by shaking) or by washing, 

scraping, ambient air drying, or other techniques involving more than “normal” household 

recovery procedures, but not including laboratory procedures like oven drying. Labels, wire 

closures, staples, prizes, decorations, and such are considered tare. Used Dry Tare is 

available regardless of where the packages are tested. The net content procedures described 

in this handbook reference Used Dry Tare.

How is a tare weight determined? 

Except in the instance of applying unused dry tare, select the packages for the initial tare 

sample from the sample packages. Mark the first two (three or five) packages in the order the 

random numbers were selected; these packages provide the initial tare sample. Determine 

the gross weight of each package and record it in block a, “Gross Wt,” under the headings 

“Pkg. 1,” “Pkg. 2,” “Pkg. 3,” etc. on the report form. Except for aerosol or other 

pressurized packages, open the sample packages, empty, clean, and dry them as appropriate 

for the packaging material.

NIST Handbook 133 is available online at http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/h1334-05.cfm. 

Item 2. Moisture Loss Guidance in NIST Handbook 133 

The three items shown below were taken from the L&R Report of the 2004 89th NCWM Annual Meeting 

Proceedings and later agendas including an item from the Committee’s 2007 Interim Meeting agenda. The 

Committee withdrew two of these items in 2004 and asked NIST to review the moisture loss sections of HB 133, 

revise them to improve their readability, and, where appropriate, add additional information or clarifications. 

NIST conducted the promised review but found there were several suggestions contained in these two items. A few 

of the suggestions raised substantive questions about what needs to be added to HB 133 and which questions would 

be the most useful or practical for field officials. NIST believes that responding to some of the suggestions or 

questions could lead to extensive revisions to the handbook. This level of discussion will take considerable time and 

effort for the Committee, and WMD would like to ensure everyone has a full understanding of the concerns and 

agrees to the necessity for change so time and resources will not be wasted. The Committee should review these 

sections and identify what information administrators need versus what information field officials need to perform 

their duties. 

260-2 W Amend Section 1.2, Package Requirements 

(This item was withdrawn.) 

Source: Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA). (See Item 250-3 on page L&R-18 in the 

Report of the 88th NCWM Annual Meeting in 2003.) 

L&R - A3 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

Recommendation: The Committee reviewed the following proposal to amend the section “Why do we allow 

for moisture loss or gain?” in Handbook 133, Section 1.2, Package Requirements (page 4) as follows: 

Why do we allow for moisture loss or gain? 

Some packaged products may lose or gain moisture and, 

therefore, lose or gain weight or volumes e after packaging. 

The amount of lost moisture depends upon the nature of the 

product, the packaging material, the length of time it is in 

distribution, environmental conditions, and other factors. 

Moisture loss may occur even when manufacturers follow 

good distribution practices. Loss of weight “due to exposure” 

may include solvent evaporation, not just loss of water. Note 

that allowances for loss or gain of moisture only apply to 

packages of commodities where the moisture has no value to the consumer (See Jones vs. Rath).

For loss or gain of moisture, you apply the moisture 

allowances to the maximum allowable variations permitted for 

individual packages and to the average net quantity of contents 

before determining the conformance of a lot. You may apply 

the allowance before measuring the package errors or 

after. When applying the allowance before the 

measurements, you essentially correct each package back 

to theoretical weight at time of pack (see Figure 1 at right). 

When applying the allowance after measuring the package 

errors, you correct the MAV and SEL to recognize the moisture loss as in Figure 2 at right. You can 

find specific directions for applying the allowances in tests in Section 2.3.

This handbook provides “moisture allowances” for some meat and poultry products, flour, and dry pet food (see 

“Moisture Allowances” in Chapter 2). These allowances are based on the premise that when the average net 

weight of a sample is found to be less than the labeled weight, but not by an amount that exceeds the allowable 

limit, either the lot is declared to be within the moisture allowance or more information must be collected before 

deciding lot compliance or noncompliance. 

Background: The original proponent of this item provided the following written issues and justification. 

These apply to both this item and the next item (260-3: Amend Section 2.3 Basic Test Procedure): 

What products are covered by the requirement to recognize loss/gain of moisture in distribution? The reference 

to the Rath vs. Jones case in Chapter 1 attempts to find an answer. NEWMA believed this may be premature 

and should be removed from the item for the short term to help develop a solution. However, this is a battle that 

will have to be fought some time in the future since regulators get claims of moisture loss from diverse packers 

as an excuse for packages that fail to have labeled net weight. The claims have ranged from windshield washer 

fluid in plastic jugs to canned tomato sauce. Where can the official turn to get an answer if not to this 

handbook? NEWMA would like guidance. 

When do you apply the moisture allowance in the test process? Within the handbook itself, the method is either 

not clear or some of the text is wrong. In Chapter 1 the text indicates that you must apply the allowance before 

the test (i.e., adjusting by using Box 13a and thus lowering the NGW in Box 14). In Chapter 2, the text appears 

otherwise. You are directed to add the moisture allowance to the MAV on page 18. You are further directed to 

compare the difference between sample average and SEL to the moisture allowance on page 19. Both of these 

instructions can only make sense if the value in Box 13a was not included in the nominal gross weight 

calculation in Box 14. At the very least these sections fail to provide clear guidance. The proposal attempts to 

clarify that you can make the correction either before or after measuring the package errors and attempts to 

provide procedures to do that in each case. Before works great for products with established moisture 

allowances, but it is not possible to apply a correction before the test when dealing with other products. For 

these other products, you must do additional investigation to determine the magnitude of the loss and you must 

L&R - A4 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

apply it after the field official completed the testing. It may also be beneficial to do the adjustment afterwards 

for products with established moisture loss allowances. Since both before and after methods can provide 

equivalent results, they should both be recognized in the handbook. The proposal does this in changes for both 

Chapters 1 and 2. 

Shouldn’t all the established moisture allowances be listed in one place rather than being listed as separate 

items? The proposal changes the question from how you apply the allowance for a specific product to what 

products have established allowances. This brings these all together in one section that is easily found by an 

inspector. 

How do you establish moisture allowances for products not in the list in 3 above? The handbook provides no 

guidance whatsoever! In the last line at the bottom of page 17, the text directs the inspector to follow steps if 

the product is listed, but says nothing about the products not listed in the handbook. This is a huge omission 

that has many officials wondering what to do. The result is that some packers bluff by playing the moisture loss 

card even when not entitled to a loss (e.g., canned goods) and many officials back away from these products for 

lack of direction. The proposal included the provision for comparing time-of-pack data with actual field data 

for moisture content that was in the 3rd edition. It also would permit using data from a scientific study provided 

by the manufacturer in support of any claim of moisture loss. 

Why do we have a different method of evaluating the test results for products with moisture loss than for other 

products? The basic procedure for evaluating test results calls for evaluating the individual packages against the 

MAV and evaluating the sample average against the SEL. On page 19 that procedure is no longer used and you 

have to look at a difference between the sample average and the SEL and not compare it to the moisture 

allowance. Recently the method of calculating the Rc for tare variability changed to avoid having different 

methods for different types of packages. Consistency helps inspectors apply the standard uniformly. NEWMA 

believes that sample average should always be compared to the SEL and this can be accomplished easily by 

adjusting the SEL rather than looking at differences. Thus we would follow the same process in evaluating the 

results in all cases. The only difference is in how the SEL and MAV are calculated when applying the moisture 

loss allowance after the test. If you use Box 13a before the test, this is done automatically. If you follow the 

proposed procedure after the test, a moisture-corrected MAV and a moisture-corrected SEL are calculated and 

the original test data are reevaluated. While the result may be the same using the procedure on page 19, a 

different evaluation process is used, and it is difficult to understand particularly how Box 13a is or is not used in 

the calculation of NGW. 

Discussion: One state believed the explanations provided in HB 133 pertaining to moisture loss were 

inadequate. In considering this proposal, however, the Committee concluded that the reference to the Jones vs. 

Rath court case was inappropriate and inaccurate. The Committee considered the additional language provided 

regarding the application of moisture loss unnecessary and confusing. NIST agreed, however, to review the 

moisture loss section of HB 133 to see if it can be written more clearly. The Committee has withdrawn this 

item. 

260-3 W Amend Section 2.3 Basic Test Procedure 

(This item was withdrawn.) 

Source: Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA). (See Item 250-4 on page L&R-19 in the 

Report of the 88th NCWM Annual Meeting in 2003.) 

Recommendation: The Committee reviewed the following proposal to delete the current “Moisture 

Allowances” discussion in Handbook 133 (HB 133), Section 2.3, Basic Test Procedure (pages 17 through 19), 

and replace it as follows: 

Moisture Allowances

What products have an established moisture allowance?

L&R - A5 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

Flour and dry pet food have a moisture allowance of 3 % of the labeled net weight. Note: Dry pet 

food means all extruded dog and cat foods and baked treat products packaged in Kraft paper bags 

and/or cardboard boxes with a moisture content of 13 % or less at the time of pack.

Meat and poultry products from a USDA-inspected plant are permitted no moisture allowance when 

tested under a Category A sampling plan with Used Dry Tare.

Meat and poultry products from a USDA-inspected plant are permitted the following moisture 

allowances when tested under a Category A sampling plan with Wet Tare. Note: When there is freeflowing liquid or absorbent packaging materials in contact with the product, all free liquid is part of 

the wet tare.

For packages of fresh poultry that bear a USDA seal of inspection, the moisture allowance is 3 % of 

the labeled net weight. For net weight determinations only, fresh poultry is defined as poultry above 

-3.3 oC (26 oF). This is a product that yields or gives when pushed with the thumb.

For packages of franks or hotdogs that bear an USDA seal of inspection, the moisture allowance is 

2.5 % of the labeled net weight.

For packages of bacon, fresh sausage, and luncheon meats that bear a USDA seal of inspection, there 

is no moisture allowance if there is no free-flowing liquid or absorbent materials in contact with the 

product and the package is cleaned of clinging material. Luncheon meats are any cooked sausage 

product, loaves, jellied products, cured products, and any sliced sandwich style meat. This does not 

include whole hams, briskets, roasts, turkeys, or chickens requiring further preparation to be made 

into ready-to-eat sliced product. When there is no free-flowing liquid inside the package and there 

are no absorbent materials in contact with the product, Wet Tare and Dried Used Tare are 

equivalent.

These allowances are based on the premise that when the average net weight of a sample is found to 

be less than the labeled weight, but not by an amount that exceeds the allowable limit, either the lot is 

declared to be within the moisture allowance, or more information must be collected before deciding 

lot compliance or noncompliance.

How do you determine the allowance for products without an established moisture allowance?

For any product subject to moisture loss/gain, you may determine the appropriate moisture loss 

allowance based on a valid, scientific study. You may not use arbitrarily chosen allowances for 

moisture loss/gain. Many packers have conducted studies that they can provide in support of any 

claim that the product lost/gained moisture. Any such study should have included a variety of 

environments that simulate the potential distribution chains that could be encountered. You may use 

the moisture loss limits found in such study as an allowance in a compliance test.

What is the accepted method to determine the actual moisture loss for a lot?

Where the packer measures and records the moisture content of product in each lot, you may request 

a copy of that data to be compared to the moisture content of the product offered for sale. You must 

select a random sample of the product offered for sale and have it tested for moisture content using a 

scientifically verified test procedure, e.g. like those in the Official Methods of Analysis of the 

Association of Official Analytical Chemists (See Appendix D). The actual moisture loss is calculated 

as the moisture content (percent) at time of pack minus moisture content (percent) at time of sale. 

Use the difference obtained to calculate the actual moisture loss for the lot by multiplying it times the 

label quantity. Use this as the moisture allowance in the official test. In the case of moisture gain, 

this value will be a negative number.

L&R - A6 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

Calculations

How do you apply a moisture allowance when conducting a test?

Moisture allowances may be applied either prior to testing or after testing. These two methods are 

mathematically equivalent means of adjusting both the individual package errors and the sample 

average. It is common practice to apply the moisture correction prior to the test for those products 

with established moisture allowances like flour and dry pet food. In most other cases the correction 

is made after the test since moisture loss data will probably be obtained as part of the follow-up 

investigation after the initial test has failed.

To compute the moisture loss allowance prior to testing, you correct the nominal gross weight in 

Box 14 for moisture loss. Find the value of the allowance by multiplying the labeled quantity by the 

decimal percent value of the allowance. Enter this value in Box 13a on the form. The nominal gross 

weight is found by adding the average tare (Box 13) to the label quantity (Box 1) and subtracting the 

moisture allowance (Box 13a). Lot compliance is evaluated in the normal way using decision criteria 

in Boxes 16 and 24 on the report form.

Example: Labeled quantity of a bag of flour is 2 lb and average tare is 0.04 lb (Box 13). Moisture 

Allowance is 3 % (0.03) of 2 lb = 0.06 lb.

Nominal Gross Wt. = 2 lb + 0.04 lb – 0.06 lb = 1.98 lb (record this value in Box 14).

To compute the moisture loss allowance after testing, you correct only the MAV and SEL for 

moisture loss. Perform your initial test with no moisture allowance in Box 13a. When moisture loss 

data becomes available, find the value of the allowance by multiplying the labeled quantity by the 

decimal percent value of the moisture loss or allowance. Lot compliance is evaluated using decision 

criteria in Boxes 16 and 24 on the report form and the moisture corrected MAV and SEL 

respectively.

Example: Labeled quantity of a package of rice is 2 lb, average tare is 0.04 lb (Box 13), MAV (Box 3) 

is 0.07 lb, and SEL (Box 23) is 0.023 lb.

Moisture content at time of pack was 13.4 % (packer data).

Moisture content at time of sale is 10.6 % (lab data).

Moisture loss is (13.4 % to 10.6 %) = 2.8 %.

Moisture allowance is 0.028 x 2 lb = 0.056 lb.

Moisture Corrected MAV is 0.07 lb + 0.056 lb = 0.126 lb – Compare each package error measured in 

the initial test to this moisture corrected MAV using criteria in Box 16.

Moisture Corrected SEL is 0.023 lb + 0.056 lb = 0.079 lb – Compare the sample average error in the 

initial test to this moisture corrected SEL using criteria in Box 24.

Background: The following information was provided by the original proponent of this item: The products 

that have established moisture allowances are not clearly stated. Currently the handbook only poses the 

question, “What is the moisture allowance for flour and dry pet food?” It does not state if any other products 

have moisture allowances. In addition, the handbook provides no guidance for products that do not have an 

established moisture allowance. 

The “Calculations” section on page 18 is confusing and does not distinguish between applying a moisture 

allowance before or after testing. The current method of comparing the moisture allowance to the difference 

between the average error and the SEL is confusing. The current handbook does not address commodities that 

are packed in sealed containers or how to treat commodities packed on the premises. 

Discussion: One state believed the explanations provided in HB 133 pertaining to moisture loss were 

inadequate. In reviewing this proposal the Committee considered the proposed additional language confusing 

and inaccurate. The Committee did agree that the “Calculations” section on page 18 needed to do a better job 

of distinguishing between moisture allowances applied before testing and those applied after testing. The 

L&R - A7 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

Committee believed there were extensive problems with this proposal as submitted. NIST agreed to review the 

moisture loss section of HB 133 to see if it can be written more clearly. The Committee withdrew this item. 

270-7 Amend NIST Handbook 133 Section 2.3, Moisture Allowances to Provide Clearer Guidance 

 (This Item was added to the agenda of the WG on Moisture Loss following the 2007 Interim Meeting) 

Source: Northeast Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) 

Proposal: Amend NIST Handbook 133 (HB 133) Section 2.3, Moisture Allowances (pages 17 through 19 of 

Handbook 133) to provide clearer guidance. 

Background: The issue of moisture loss is complex. Handbook 133 currently provides specific guidance on 

the determination and application of moisture allowances for only a limited number of commodities. Concerns 

have been raised that this guidance is confusing and difficult to understand, particularly with regard to when 

moisture loss is applied (i.e., at the time of inspection or subsequent to the inspection). Requests have been 

received to reword this section to make it easier to understand and apply. 

In addition, HB 133 provides little guidance on the determination and application of moisture allowances for 

commodities other than those specifically listed. Weights and measures jurisdictions across the country have 

been struggling with how to properly handle moisture loss during packaging inspections and need more definite 

guidance on this issue. 

The Committee did not believe it had the time or expertise to address properly the issue of moisture loss within 

the structure of the NCWM. The Committee decided to request activation of a NIST Moisture Loss WG to 

establish more effective and extensive guidance to the NCWM regarding the proper determination and 

application of moisture loss. 

Discussion of this Item by the WWMA: The WWMA L&R Committee heard that a meeting was tentatively 

planned for November 2006; the meeting was delayed to allow time for everyone to identify and agree on the 

issues to be addressed by the group to ensure that expectations for the meeting results were clear. The Weights 

and Measures Division (WMD) agreed to fund the travel and attendance of one NCWM representative. 

Leading issues included providing additional guidance in HB 133 regarding the determination and application 

of appropriate moisture loss allowances in package inspections, with noted examples including how to address 

gel soaker pads in poultry/meat packages, as well as how to determine moisture allowances for pasta, rice, and 

other commodities for which no established moisture loss allowances exist. Additionally, guidance regarding 

application of moisture loss allowances at the point-of-pack needed to be addressed. 

An industry representative urged involvement in the meeting and ensuing work on HB 133 amendments from 

the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) to ensure input and 

consensus from all relevant agencies. He further emphasized the need to review and consolidate all decisions 

and directives from any and all court rulings regarding moisture loss issues. Factors to be considered in 

determining and applying appropriate moisture loss allowances and influences upon such losses included 

commodity stability limits and varying environmental conditions at packing plants such as relative humidity and 

constant temperature rooms maintained at different temperature levels. The industry representative also urged 

that guidance be provided to industry members regarding the types of data needed to be tracked and provided by 

packers/manufacturers in addressing moisture allowance determinations. 

Discussion of this Item by the CWMA at its 2006 Interim Meeting: A comment was heard from industry 

that this needs to be addressed in order for businesses to be competitive. The USDA and FDA need to be 

involved in the development of this item. A meeting was tentatively scheduled for November prior to the 

NCWM Interim Meeting. There was general agreement that in order for this meeting to be effective, the USDA 

and FDA must be present. Comments were heard in support of using the New York proposal to correct the 

error in HB 133. 

L&R - A8 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

Item 3. WMD Package Inspection and Moisture Loss Guidance Letter – Withdrawn 

WMD believed there was some useful information for weights and measures officials and industry contained in the 

2005 Memorandum that WMD issued to state weights and measures officials and other interested parties, entitled 

“Verifying the Net Contents of Packaged Goods and Recommended Procedures for Moisture Allowances.” WMD 

withdrew the memorandum at the request of Kraft Foods which detailed a number of concerns about the guidance 

contained in the WMD communication. The Kraft Foods letter, dated January 31, 2006, was prepared by Steven 

Steinborn of Hogan and Hartson. WMD recommended the committee review both documents to resolve the 

corporation’s concerns where possible and determine if any information in the WMD letter can be revised and 

republished to assist weights and measures officials in dealing with net quantity of contents. The WMD 

memorandum and Kraft’s letter are presented in Reference Section II below. 

Item 4. WMD Suggestions 

a. Seek Greater Recognition of NIST Handbook 133 by FDA and other Federal Agencies. 

WMD would like to avoid frequent amendments to HB 133 because, unlike NIST Handbook 44, it is not widely 

adopted automatically. Many jurisdictions adopt new versions of HB 133 using their Administrative 

Procedures Acts. Another consideration is that the USDA adopts versions of the handbook which then 

preempts other versions from being used to verify the net quantity of packages put up under that agency’s 

supervision. In the past, WMD found that several jurisdictions used the wrong edition of HB 133 to take action 

against USDA-inspected products simply because they used a newer version of the handbook than had been 

adopted by the USDA. WMD believes that USDA adoption gives a strong endorsement and recognition to the 

handbook. WMD also believes the 4th edition of HB 133, whose core elements have been in use by the states 

since 1994, should be recognized by the FDA and all other agencies to eliminate any uncertainty over its use by 

the states. Perhaps it is time the NCWM consider petitioning the FDA to provide some type of formal 

recognition of the handbook. WMD believes that establishing a 5-year review cycle for HB 133 may be one 

way to ensure it is acceptable to other agencies, which will help avoid the confusion over which edition is 

currently in effect. 

b. Create a new supplement or website to NIST Handbook 133 which would provide useful information to 

administrators, field officials and industry. 

WMD would like to explore the possibility and usefulness of creating a new publication or website called NIST 

Handbook 133-1 which would provide supplementary information and guidance on net quantity of contents 

testing and moisture loss for administrators and industry. The publication or website would be “informative,” 

thus it would not include regulatory requirements. Instead it would be used to provide additional guidance and 

more examples than can be included in HB 133 itself. Such a publication or website could also be used to 

provide complete full-size copies of the various inspection forms and worksheets contained in HB 133 and other 

useful tools developed by jurisdictions. The publication or website could also include a variety of other 

information related to net contents verification and random sampling and could include appropriate information 

from federal regulations and policies as well as frequently asked questions (FAQs). Currently in NIST 

Handbook 130 (HB 130) Interpretations and Guidelines there are sections related to moisture loss, point-ofpack inspections and administrative procedures which may not be well known or readily accessible. These 

could be updated and moved to the new publication or website. 

For example: 

2.2.5. Lot, Shipment, or Delivery 

2.5.6. Guidelines for NCWM Resolution of Requests for Recognition of Moisture Loss in Other 

Packaged Products 

2.6.10. Model Guidelines for the Administrative Review Process 

2.6.11. Good Quantity Control Practices 

2.6.12. Point-of-Pack Inspection Guidelines 

These documents are shown below in Reference Section I. 

L&R - A9 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

Another example of the type of package information which could be included in a publication or website for 

reference purposes is the following report on a meeting held at NIST in 2005 to address concerns over packer 

supplied tare values. 

NIST Weights and Measures Today 

November 2005 

Report of Meeting on Tare 

On November 2, 2005, the Laws and Metric Group at NIST hosted a meeting to discuss ways to 

improve the communication of tare information between packers and retailers when meat products 

are packaged at a plant, but weighed and labeled at the retail store. Representatives from the meat 

packing industry, the retail food industry, and several weights and measures agencies attended the 

meeting. 

The Problem 

There is a fundamental change occurring in the retail food marketplace. Retail food stores are 

shifting from having in-store meat cutters to purchasing already-packaged meat from an outside 

plant. The supplying plant provides the retail store with packaged meat (including tray, soakers, 

and overwrap), and the store is then responsible for weighing and labeling the package. In order 

to weigh and label these products properly, the retail store needs to know the weight of the 

packaging materials used by the plant (i.e., the tare weight). While this may sound simple and 

straightforward, it is not. 

Retailers 

Many retail food chains manage their tare weights from a central location. Tares are maintained at 

the central or regional office and downloaded to the individual stores on a routine basis. While 

individual stores may have the ability to override the tare provided in a download (e.g., when an 

official from weights and measures informs them that they are using an incorrect tare), this 

correction will be erased when the next download occurs. Several retail food chains believe that 

the centralized management of tare information is critical to the overall success of their meat 

departments. With little cutting and packaging being done at the retail level, stores rarely have 

experienced, professional staff in their meat departments. Without significant expertise at the 

store level, food retailers are reluctant to leave decisions regarding the use and amount of tare to 

individual store management. 

Weights and Measures Officials 

When weights and measures officials find inaccuracies in tares being used, often these 

inaccuracies are not being communicated to the food retailer’s central or regional offices. If the 

food retailer’s central or regional office is not informed that a tare value is inaccurate, then the tare 

value will not get changed in the next download. While some retail food chains require their store 

managers to submit copies of inspection reports to the central or regional office, many do not. 

Some chains leave that decision to the discretion of the individual store managers. Individual 

store managers may be reluctant to forward disparaging information about their store’s 

performance to the central or regional office. As a result, when weights and measures officials 

find an inaccurate tare being used in a store and only notify store management of the correction 

necessary, that information may not be communicated to the people who really need to know—the 

people at the central or regional office who set the tare values for the entire chain of stores. 

Packers 

The weight of tare materials used at a meat packing plant varies regularly. Whenever the plant 

changes suppliers, whether it is suppliers providing soakers, trays, or overwrap, the tare must be 

reevaluated and changed. Whenever suppliers change the materials used in their products, the tare 

must be reevaluated and changed. Most meat packers monitor tare continuously and regularly 

make small adjustments to ensure their packages are accurate. While tare information is routinely 

shared with retailers, it is difficult to ensure that the correct tare goes on the correct package. 

L&R - A10 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

Packers may ship individual packages from several different production lots (lots which may have 

been packaged using different tare materials) in a single shipment to a retailer’s warehouse. The 

retailer’s warehouse then further breaks up these package groups to distribute packages to 

individual stores. Even if accurate tare information for all packages is provided to the retailer’s 

central or regional office, the retailer has difficulty using this information effectively since not all 

packages of the same product at the same location will necessarily have the same tare. In addition, 

new tare information provided to a retailer may only apply to packages still in the retailer’s 

warehouse (and not those presently in the store). This means retailers must coordinate the 

updating of tare data with the placement of new packages on the store shelves. 

Is There a Solution? 

The question remains: How do you effectively ensure that the tare information for a particular 

package “travels” with the package from the point of production to the final retail destination? 

One suggestion has been to print tare information directly on individual packages. However, 

packers and retailers all agree that printing tare information on packages, shipping cases, or 

shipping invoice forms would not be effective. Packers order packaging materials and shipping 

containers months in advance and at that point could only guess as to what amount of tare would 

need to be preprinted on these materials. In addition, if tare information were provided on 

individual packages, shipping cases, or shipping invoices, that information would only be 

available at the retail store and would never reach the retailer’s central or regional office in time to 

be included in the next download. Most retail food chains do not want individual stores making 

independent decisions about what tares to use. 

Ultimately, the key will be for packers and retailers to communicate more frequently and more 

effectively. To that end, the American Meat Institute (AMI) has agreed to contact other trade 

associations representing the retail and meat packing industries to ask for their help in reiterating 

to their members the importance of accurate net weight labeling at retail. AMI will encourage 

their packer and processor members to communicate tare values to retail customers whenever 

changes in tare values occur. 

How Can Weights and Measures Officials Help? 

Weights and measures agencies can help by sending copies of test reports (especially from failed 

inspections) to the corporate or regional office of the retailer. While ideally the corporate or 

regional office will receive this information from the retail store, retailers at this meeting stressed 

they would rather receive duplicate reports (from the weights and measures agency and the store) 

than none at all. Retailers consider it absolutely critical that weights and measures officials 

contact, communicate, and work with the corporate and regional offices early and often. Retailers 

specifically asked that weights and measures agencies not wait for problems to escalate before 

they get the corporate or regional offices involved. Weights and measures officials should 

conduct package inspections in full compliance with NIST Handbook 133 (HB133). Inspectors 

are encouraged to properly clean tare materials during inspections to avoid imposing tares larger 

than they should be. 

According to HB 133, Used Dry Tare is “tare material that has been air dried, or dried in some 

manner to simulate the unused tare weight.” Before adding this definition to HB 133, members of 

the NCWM and NIST did extensive testing to compare the weights of Unused Dry Tare (which 

the packer uses), and Used Dry Tare (which the inspector uses). If Used Dry Tare is dried and 

cleaned properly, its weight should not vary significantly from the Unused Dry Tare weight. In 

addition, NIST strongly discourages the use of microwave ovens when drying tare materials, 

particularly soaker pads. Past tests have shown that excessive heating of soaker pads and other 

tare materials can significantly alter their weight, and even start a fire as some officials have 

learned. 

L&R - A11 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

REFERENCE SECTION I – EXCERPTS FROM THE INTERPRETATIONS AND 

GUIDELINES SECTION OF NIST HANDBOOK 130

The following are currently in NIST Handbook 130 (HB 130) Interpretations and Guidelines 

2.2.5. Lot, Shipment, or Delivery 

(L&R, 1981, p. 95) 

Policy

The requirements for the average package net contents to meet or exceed the labeled declaration may be applied to 

production lots, shipments, or deliveries. Shipments or deliveries are smaller collections of packages than 

production lots that may or may not consist of mixed lot codes. 

Emphasis in inspection activities should be placed on warehouse and in-plant testing without neglecting retail 

consumer protection. 

Background

The Committee heard a petition from the California Brewers Association to define a lot as: 

"a selection of containers under one roof produced by a single company of the same size, type and 

style, manufactured or packed under similar conditions with a minimum number to be equivalent 

to one production line shift." 

The intention of the petition is to focus Weights and Measures enforcement on production lots as opposed to small 

collections of packages on retail shelves, because the production lot is under the control of the packager. 

An alternative proposal was made that would require mingling of lot and date codes in package inspection at 

warehouse locations. 

The Committee has reviewed the proposals in light of § 7.6. and § 12.1. of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling 

Regulation which refers to "shipment, delivery, or lot." If the petition is approved, the terms "shipment" and 

"delivery" would have to be dropped from this Uniform Regulation. 

The Committee recognizes the inherent value of in-plant and warehouse inspection and is of the opinion that, 

wherever possible, such inspections should be carried out. At the same time, the Committee recognizes the need for 

the state and local weights and measures officials to protect the consumer at the level where the ultimate sale is 

made. Therefore, the Committee recommends no change to the Uniform Regulation. 

The Committee looks forward to the work of the Special Study Group on Enforcement Uniformity of the NCWM 

which will be exploring the mechanisms that might be instituted to make in-plant inspection workable. 

2.5.6. Guidelines for NCWM Resolution of Requests for Recognition of Moisture Loss in Other Packaged 

Products

(Exec, 1988, p. 94) 

The Task Force on Commodity Requirements limited its work to only a few product categories, using these 

categories as models for addressing moisture loss. The gray-area concept is the result of this work. 

Recognizing several candidates for future work in moisture loss, the Task Force recommends that the following 

guidelines for moisture loss be followed as far as possible by any industry requesting consideration: 

1. There should be reasonable uniformity in the moisture content of the product category. For example, since 

pet food has final moisture contents ranging from very moist to very dry, some subcategorization of pet 

food needs to be defined by industry before the NCWM study of the issue. 

L&R - A12 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

2. The predominant type of moisture loss (whether into the atmosphere or into the packaging materials) must 

be specified. 

3. Different types of packaging might make it necessary to subcategorize the product. For example, pasta is 

packaged in cardboard, in polyethylene, or other packaging more impervious to moisture loss. The 

industry should define the domain of packaging materials to be considered. 

4. "Real-world" data is needed on the product as found in the retail marketing chain—not just laboratory 

moisture-loss data. 

5. The industry requesting consideration of moisture loss for its product should collect data on an industrywide basis (rather than from only one or two companies). 

Information concerning the relative fractions of imported and domestically produced product should be 

available, for example, in order to assess the feasibility of interacting with the manufacturer on specific 

problem lots. 

6. Moisture loss may occur either: 

- during manufacturing or 

- during distribution. 

Data will be needed to show the relative proportion of moisture loss in these different locations since 

moisture loss is permitted only under good distribution practices. Geographical and seasonal variations 

may apply. 

7. A description of the processing and packaging methods in use in the industry will be of great value, as will 

a description of the distribution system and time for manufacturing and distribution. A description of the 

existing net quantity control programs in place should be given, together with information on how 

compliance with Handbook 133 is obtained. A description of maintenance and inspection procedures for 

the scales should be provided, together with information on suitability of equipment and other 

measurements under Handbook 44. 

8. A description of federal and local agency jurisdiction and test should be given, as well as any regulatory 

history with respect to moisture loss and short weight. Has weights and measures enforcement generated 

the request? What efforts have addressed the moisture loss issue prior to approaching the NCWM? Are 

the appropriate federal agencies aware of the industry's request to the NCWM? 

9. The industry should propose the type of compliance system and/or moisture determination methodology to 

be used. The compliance scheme, if it contains industry data components, should be susceptible to 

verification (examples: USDA net weight tests for meat; exchange of samples with millers for flour) and 

should state what the companies will do to provide data to field inspection agencies in an ongoing fashion 

(as the gray-area approach requires). If in-plant testing is to be combined with field testing, who is to do 

such testing, and how is this to be accomplished? It should be possible to incorporate the proposed testing 

scheme into Handbook 133 to be used with Category A or B sampling plans. 

When all the preliminary information recommended above has been collected, a field test of the proposed 

compliance scheme should be conducted by weights and measures enforcement officials to prove its viability. 

See the plan diagrammed on the next page. 

L&R - A13 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

Decision to Request

Characterize Product:

Imported vs Domestic

Processing and

Packaging Systems

used to produce

product

Net contents and scale

maintenance programs

Moisture content of 

product

Types of packaging 

materials used

Distribution process

and time involved

How moisture is lost in

distribution:

into atmosphere

into packaging

materials

Prioritize Requests

Is Delineation of Problem Complete?

Form Technical Work Group:

Federal Agency representation

State W eights & Measures Agency

Industry or Trade Association

Representation

Recommend Compliance

Testing Scheme

H-133 Category A or B

The "Gray-Area" Concept

Specific Test Methods

Collect Data on:

Amount of moisture in marketing chain

Suitability of compliance testing scheme for

field use

Adopt Compliance Test Method(s)

Incorporate into H-133

Key:

I Industry or Trade Association

C NCWM L&R Committee

T Technical W ork Group

W Weights & Measures Officials

N NCWM Voting Membership

F Federal Agency

Plan For NCWM Resolution of Individual Requests For Recognition of

Moisture Loss

I

C

W

T

F

I

C

C

I

T I W

N

No

Yes

L&R - A14 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

2.6.10. Model Guidelines for the Administrative Review Process 

Purpose 

These guidelines are provided to assist weights and measures programs in establishing an administrative review 

process. They are not intended to be the only process an agency may use nor are they intended to supersede any 

agency's existing process. Before implementing ANY process, it should be approved by legal counsel. 

These guidelines 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 process enables affected persons to provide 

evidence which could be relevant in determining whether the enforcement action was proper. The purpose of the 

process is to ensure that a person's ability to conduct business is not hindered by improper enforcement actions. 

This process is independent of any other action (e.g., administrative penalties, prosecutions, etc.) that may be taken 

by the enforcement agency. 

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 jurisdictions could be ordered to pay monetary damages to compensate the affected party for 

the improper action. 

This process is one way to 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. 

Review Provisions 

Parties affected by enforcement actions must be given the opportunity to appeal enforcement actions. 

Inspectors are the primary contacts with regulated firms and thus are in the best position to ensure that the 

enforcement actions they take are "proper." "Proper" means that inspections are conducted (1) within the scope of 

the authority granted by law, (2) according to recognized investigative or testing procedures and standards, and 

(3) that enforcement actions are lawful. The "burden" for proving that 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 of, and 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 findings, the firm’s representative may provide information which must be used by the 

inspector to resolve the problems and concerns before enforcement actions are taken. In some cases, the provided 

L&R - A15 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

information may 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 learn 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 that the responsible party (e.g., as declared on the package label) is notified of violations and 

receives copies of inspection reports. Establish standard operating procedures to assure the affected party 

of timely access to a representative of the weights and measures program so that the firm can provide the 

relevant information or obtain clarification of legal requirements. 

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 higher level in the weights and 

measures program or an independent review by a third party. The following procedures are recommended: 

(a) 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 to a timely review of such order, to a prompt, impartial, administrative 

review of such off-sale order or finding. 

A notice of the right to administrative review should be included on all orders or reports of findings or 

violations and should be communicated to the responsible firm (e.g., person or firm identified on the 

product label): 

(b) 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 measures administration or enforcement. 

(c) No fees should be imposed for the administrative review process. 

Sample Notice

You have the right to Administrative Review of this order

or finding. 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 reference any information that you

believe supports the withdrawal or modification of the

order or finding.

(d) The firm responsible for the product or the retailer may introduce any record or other relevant 

evidence. 

L&R - A16 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

For example: 

(i) Commodities subject to the off-sale action or other findings were produced, processed, 

packaged, priced, or labeled in accordance with applicable 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. 

(e) The reviewer must consider the inspector's report, findings, and actions as well as any evidence 

introduced by the owner, distributor, packager, or retailer as part of the review process. 

(f) The reviewer must provide a timely written recommendation following review unless additional time 

is agreed to by the department and the petitioner. 

(g) The reviewer may recommend to the Department that an order be upheld, withdrawn or modified. If 

justified the reviewer may recommend other action including a reinspection of the device or 

commodity based upon information presented during the review. 

(h) All actions should be documented and all parties advised in writing of the results of the review. The 

report of action should be detailed in that it provides the reasons for the decision. 

2.6.11. Good Quantity Control Practices

Good 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. 

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 the 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. 

L&R - A17 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

9. Recognized procedures are used for the selection, maintenance, adjustment, and testing of filling equipment 

to insure proper fill control. 

10. Weighing and measuring devices are suitable for their intended purpose, and measurement standards are 

suitable and traceable to national standards. This includes a system of equipment maintenance and 

calibration to include recordkeeping procedures. 

11. Controls over automated data systems and software used in quantity control ensure 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. 

2.6.12. Point-of-Pack Inspection Guidelines 

A. Weights and Measures Officials’ Responsibilities

1. Conduct inspections during hours when the plant is normally open for business. Open the inspection by 

making contact with the plant manager or authorized representative (e.g., the quality assurance manager or 

the production manager). 

2. Present the proper credentials and explain the reason for the visit (e.g., routine or follow-up inspection or 

consumer complaint, etc.). 

3. Request access to quantity measurement equipment in the packing room, moisture testing equipment in the 

laboratory or in the packing room, and product packed on premise or stored in warehouse areas. 

4. Obtain permission from a plant representative prior to using a tape recorder or a camera. 

5. Conduct inspection-related activities in a professional and appropriate manner and, if possible, work in an 

area that will not interfere with normal activities of the establishment. 

6. 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. 

7. To close the inspection, recheck inspection reports in detail and ascertain that all information is complete 

and correct. 

8. Sample questions and tasks for Inspectors: 

a. Inside Buildings and Equipment: 

(i) Is all filling and associated equipment in good repair? 

(ii) Are net content measurement devices suitable for the purpose being used? 

(iii) Are standards used by the firm to verify device accuracy traceable to NIST? 

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 that the weighing systems are suitable and tare determination procedures are adequate. If 

there are questions regarding tare determination, weigh a representative number of tare and/or 

filled packages. 

L&R - A18 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

(iii) For products labeled and filled by volume and then checked by weight, ensure that proper density 

is used. 

c. Warehouse Inspection: 

If an 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 the 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 the applicable Maximum Allowable Variation as found in 

NIST Handbook 133. 

(vi) Apply moisture allowances, if applicable. 

(vii) Review the general condition of the warehouse relevant to package integrity, good quantity 

control, and distribution practices. 

(viii) Prepare an inspection report to detail findings and actions. 

9. Close the inspection – Review findings with Plant Representative. 

After the inspection, meet with the 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 them to the attention of the appropriate 

person. 

B. Plant Management Responsibilities 

1. Recognize that inspectors are enforcing a federal, state or local law. 

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 consumer complaint. If a complaint, obtain as much information as possible concerning the 

nature of the complaint, allowing for an appropriate response. 

4. The plant manager, quality assurance manager, or any designated representative should accompany the 

inspector. 

5. Plant personnel should take note of the inspector’s comments during the inspection and prepare a detailed 

write-up 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 result of the inspection/test. 

L&R - A19 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

Plant Management: information that must be shared with the inspector. 

1. Establishment name and address. 

2. Type of firm and information on related firms or applicable information (e.g., sub-contractor, servant or 

agent). 

3. General description and location of shipping and storage areas where packaged goods intended for 

distribution are stored. 

4. Commodities 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 been 

previously cited. 

7. Product volume of lot sizes or related information. 

8. Distribution records related to any problem lots including names of customers. 

L&R - A20 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

REFERENCE SECTION II – OTHER MOISTURE LOSS GUIDANCE AND RELATED 

DOCUMENTS 

This section contains the text from a WMD memorandum to state weights and measures directors and other 

interested parties and a letter from Kraft General Foods stating the reasons justifying a withdrawal of the WMD 

memorandum. 

A. Text from the WMD Memorandum that was issued on January 1, 2006 

Memorandum for State Weights and Measures Directors and Other Interested Parties 

Subject: Verifying the Net Contents of Packaged Goods and Recommended Procedures for Moisture 

Allowances 

This memo supersedes the April 3, 1995, memorandum from the Weights and Measures Division (WMD) 

concerning the impact of the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act of 1990 (NLEA) on net content testing by 

State and local weights and measures officials. 

I am revising the earlier correspondence primarily in response to the National Conference on Weights and 

Measures’ (NCWM) adoption of the 4th edition (January 2005) of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology’s Handbook 133 “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods” (Handbook 133). Recent 

inquiries from State officials on the status of package inspection programs that test products subject to Food and 

Drug Administration (FDA) jurisdiction have further prompted a response. This memorandum describes 

guidance provided by FDA. Since 1985 that agency has advised NIST that Handbook 133 has not been in 

conflict with that agency’s practices enforcing net quantity of content on packaged foods. 

I. Recommendations for Verifying the Net Quantity of Contents of Packages Subject to FDA 

Jurisdiction 

 WMD recommends that weights and measures officials use the 4th edition of Handbook 133 

(January 2005) for all products except those subject to regulation by the U.S. Department of Agriculture 

(USDA), which has adopted the 3rd edition of Handbook 133 and its 4th Supplement.1

 NIST recently 

learned that the USDA may adopt the 2005 edition of Handbook 133 in the near future. These publications 

are available on the Internet.2

The Category A Sampling Plans in Handbook 133 provide a statistically valid sampling scheme and 

sample correction factors to enable you to determine if a sample passes or fails a test with a confidence 

level of at least 97 %. The test methods prescribed for foods are consistent with those used by the FDA.3

 Weights and measures officials must apply both the “average” and “individual package” requirements in 

Handbook 133 to the packages they inspect because Federal and State laws and regulations relating to net 

quantity of content require officials to allow reasonable variations (both plus and minus errors in net 

contents) from the labeled net contents. By applying both requirements, officials avoid the appearance 

1

 See 9CFR317.19 and 9CFR381.121b for the applicable meat and poultry regulations. 

2

 The 3rd Edition and 4th Supplement required by USDA and the January 2005 4th Edition of Handbook 133 are free 

at http://ts.nist.gov/WeightsAndMeasures/h1334-05.cfm on the Internet. 

3

 Historically, the FDA has used enforcement procedures based on a 95 % confidence level that findings of underfill 

are accurate. The Category A Sampling Plans in the 4th edition of Handbook 133 are based on an approximate 

97 % confidence level that the findings are accurate; therefore, these plans should be acceptable to use in testing 

packages under FDA jurisdiction. 

L&R - A21 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

they are imposing a “minimum” net content system4

 while providing a high level of protection for 

consumers and ensuring fair competition in the marketplace. 

 Weights and Measures Officials should continue to test packages at retail and should consider Section 1.1. 

of Handbook 133 before taking enforcement action on small inspection lots of package: 

Testing packages at retail outlets evaluates the soundness of the manufacturing, distributing, 

and retailing processes of the widest variety of goods at a single location. It is an easily 

accessible, practical means for State, county and city jurisdictions to monitor packaging 

procedures and to detect present or potential problems. Generally, retail package testing is 

not conducive to checking large quantities of individual products of any single production 

lot. Therefore, follow-up inspections of a particular brand or lot code number at a number 

of retail and wholesale outlets, and ultimately at the point-of-pack are extremely important 

aspects in any package-checking scheme. After the evaluation of an inspection lot is 

completed, the jurisdiction should consider what, if any, further investigation or follow-up is 

warranted. At the point-of-sale, a large number of processes may affect the quality or 

quantity of the product. Therefore, there may be many reasons for any inspection lot being 

out of compliance. A shortage in weight or measure may result from mishandling the 

product in the store, or the retailer’s failure to rotate stock. Shortages may also be caused 

through mishandling by a distributor, or failure of some part of the packaging process. 

Shortages may also be caused by moisture loss (desiccation) if the product is packaged in 

permeable media. Therefore, being able to determine the cause of an error in order to 

correct defects is more difficult when retail testing is used. 

It is important to realize that the Category A Sampling Plans in Handbook 133, while statistically valid, 

may fail lots that contain the labeled net quantity of content approximately three times out of 100 tests. By 

basing enforcement actions on samples from multiple lots of the same product from the same manufacturer 

tested at different locations, you will have a better indication of whether or not an enforcement action is 

necessary. When a lot fails an inspection, NIST recommends you contact the manufacturer to obtain 

quantity control records and other production information on the lot to assist in your decision process. To 

ensure due process, we encourage jurisdictions to follow the NCWM’s Section 2.6.10. Model Guidelines 

for the Administrative Review Process in NIST Handbook 130 “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the area 

of legal metrology....” (Those guidelines are shown below this memorandum) for reference but, your 

agency’s general counsel may of course have you follow other procedures. When following up on possible 

violations with manufacturers, recognize they are required under Federal and State laws or regulations to 

follow current good manufacturing practices. The NCWM has also adopted guidelines in Section 2.6.11. 

on “Good Quantity Control Practices” that officials can use as a tool to assess quantity control systems. 

(These are provided below). 

 Weights and Measures officials should conduct inspections at the point of pack whenever possible so they 

will have access to larger lots of packages and can also assess the packager’s entire packaging system. The 

NCWM adopted guidelines in Section 2.6.12. on “point-of-pack inspections” to help officials conduct 

these inspections, (See below this memorandum). 

 We encourage jurisdictions to collaborate on conducting marketplace surveys to determine the level of 

compliance of commodity groups (e.g., store-packed random weight items, mulch, polyethylene sheeting, 

flour, milk, soft drinks, animal food, etc.) and to work together to follow up on possible problems at the 

point-of-pack where the packaging plant or distribution point is located in a jurisdiction other than where 

the packages failed to pass a test. The State of California conducts a wide variety of marketplace surveys 

which can serve as model for other states to follow. NIST encourages all states to follow the example set 

by California’s Division of Measurement Standards for monitoring compliance in the all areas of weights 

4

 Under a “minimum” net content system (these systems are common in European countries), no package in a 

sample may contain less than the net quantity of contents stated on the package label. 

L&R - A22 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

and measures enforcement. NIST will provide assist to states who want to conduct or collaborate in 

surveys... 

 Ensure that all samples are selected randomly. The statistical reliability of the sampling plans is valid only 

when the sample has been randomly selected from the inspection lot. 

 To be consistent with FDA inspection activities, utilize used dry tare when taking enforcement actions. 

The handbook permits unused dry tare to be used to conduct audits and to verify net weights of packages 

put up in retail stores. 

 Apply the average and individual package requirements to products tested at any point in distribution. 

Over the last ten years several jurisdictions have contacted WMD concerning industry claims that States 

can only take action on production lots. FDA advises that there are no provisions in the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act or its legislative history that support this claim. Another issue that WMD has 

been asked about is the claim that the FDA has a "1 %" tolerance that States must permit. FDA advises 

that they have a policy for their field compliance staff to use in determining whether or not to request 

enforcement actions by the U.S. Justice Department. The only purpose for the policy is for FDA to 

prioritize agency resources, not to set a limit for State enforcement actions. The FDA also reports that it 

did not establish this policy as a statistical allowance or tolerance that could be easily abused by an 

unscrupulous packager. 

 Allow for reasonable moisture loss. 

The following Federal regulation preempts any State or local requirement that is not identical: 

21 CFR § 101.105 

(q) The declaration of net quantity of contents shall express an accurate statement of the 

quantity of contents of the package. Reasonable variations caused by loss or gain of moisture 

during the course of good distribution practice or by unavoidable deviations in good 

manufacturing practice will be recognized. Variations from stated quantity of contents shall 

not be unreasonably large. 

State and local jurisdictions must allow reasonable variations in net contents caused by the loss or gain of 

moisture in food products that occurs during good distribution practice. If not, a jurisdiction may be questioned 

if enforcement action is taken against the product. The moisture loss issue has challenged weights and 

measures officials and industry since the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act allowing for moisture loss was 

passed more than 75 years ago. However, the fact that FDA has not adopted specific moisture allowances is not 

justification for not making reasonable allowances for moisture loss. 

The NCWM has adopted moisture allowances (also called “gray areas”) for flour, dry pet food, chicken, and hot 

dogs. Under the "gray area" concept, any food found short in excess of the allowance is subject to enforcement 

action. If the product is found short, but within the allowance, the official would take additional steps (such as 

comparing the moisture content of a sample from the lot to the time-of-pack moisture content provided by the 

packer) to determine if the product is short because of underweighing at the time of pack, or if the shortage is 

due to "reasonable" moisture loss that occurred during distribution. WMD recommends that officials use the 

following guidelines with the "gray area" approach to allow reasonable moisture loss for the listed foods. 

WMD only recommends moisture allowances. It is the individual jurisdiction's responsibility to make the final 

decision concerning appropriate moisture allowances. Final decisions should be made after considering 

moisture loss data provided by the packager. 

II. Recommended Moisture Allowances for Some Foods 

WMD has consulted with State and local weights and measures agencies and affected industries on moisture 

loss problems associated with hygroscopic foods. The following moisture allowances, beyond those already 

L&R - A23 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

addressed by the NCWM, are recommended. WMD used data from the FDA's Quantity of Contents 

Compendium as the major source for the numerical values for gray area recommendations. Moisture loss has 

been identified with flour, pasta, rice, cheese and cheese products, dried fruits and vegetables, fresh and frozen 

fruits and vegetables, coffee beans, and bakery products. Of all of these commodities, the extent of moisture 

loss variations is greatest for flour and pasta. Very little current data are available for many other commodities. 

However, WMD considers the need for allowances for affected commodities to be pressing and believes that 

States must make some allowance for these commodities until other data can be obtained for the respective 

commodities. If a recommended allowance is perceived as too lenient, weights and measures agencies may 

prevent abuses of the allowance through inspections at the point of pack. Allowances if too lenient provide are 

a disadvantage for firms with products in competition with packers where point-of-pack inspections may not be 

possible; consequently, such firms may wish to provide information to WMD so that we can recommend a more 

stringent allowance. Where allowances are too stringent, firms may also provide information justifying a more 

appropriate allowance. WMD suggests that firms desiring such an allowance be encouraged to work closely 

with the NCWM in view of its experience in this area. Even though the process of developing moisture 

allowances is time-consuming, affected firms will be provided some relief during the interim period if State and 

local agencies implement the following recommendations: 

III. Moisture Allowances at Point of Pack 

WMD recommends that moisture allowances at the point of pack not be made for packages taken immediately 

off the production line. However, regulatory officials may often encounter product at the point of pack that has 

been stored by the packer prior to shipment to other locations. In the past, moisture allowances have not been 

recognized in tests until the food is "introduced into interstate commerce;" however, since many manufacturers 

store the product for extended periods at the packing location, moisture loss should be recognized. It is 

recognized that moisture loss is a natural phenomenon that is not controlled or delayed by any specific schedule, 

and WMD recommends that, at some point during such storage, allowances be permitted for moisture loss. But, 

considering the multiplicity of foods, differences in packing materials, and the various environmental factors 

that affect moisture loss, it would be impossible for WMD to determine moisture loss that occurs on the 

packaging line or in the first few hours or days following the packaging of any one product type, let alone the 

tens of thousands of products that might be inspected at the point of pack. Certainly, some products begin to 

lose moisture immediately after packaging, but there must be some definitive guidance provided for weights 

and measures officials and industry. 

This problem is not unique to the United States where we are trying to encourage State and local officials to 

focus more on point-of-pack inspections. WMD is aware that point-of-pack inspections are one of the primary 

tools used in European countries to control net contents in packaged goods. We have learned that in some of 

these countries officials make no allowance for moisture loss within the first 7 days of the date of pack for some 

products. As this is the only documented guidance on the issue available, WMD recommends that States 

consider a similar approach until other guidance on this issue is available. This will provide packers and 

officials with guidance on when moisture loss allowances must be applied and will enable officials to conduct 

inspections at point of pack to ensure that packers are not taking advantage of recognized allowances for 

moisture loss. To minimize the possibility of moisture loss considerations, officials should inspect the most 

recently packed items. 

In 1995 WMD received comments on the 7-day recommendation from the Food Industry Weights and 

Measures Task Force (Task Force) of the Grocery Manufacturers of America. The Task Force was concerned 

the 7-day period was not reasonable because the data submitted to the NCWM to develop the gray areas for 

flour, dry pet food, and other products clearly showed that some products lose as much as 0.5 % to 1 % of their 

weight due to moisture loss in the first few days of packing. WMD acknowledged the industry's concerns about 

the 7-day period but believed then and now that the concerns can be addressed without dropping the 

recommendation. WMD believes it is crucial to have specific guidelines on moisture loss for use in point-ofpack inspections. 

WMD recommends an exception to the 7-day period if the packer can provide daily moisture loss data collected 

using the following procedures. We have developed the following guidelines in collaboration with industry for 

packers to use the results of the short-term moisture loss studies at the point of pack. To be acceptable, the data 

L&R - A24 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

must be computed using the average moisture loss determined on a daily basis (e.g., the weight of each package 

in each of the sample control lots is determined everyday for 7-days) in environmental conditions similar to 

those that exist when the product is being inspected. For example, an inspector visits a pet food plant in Ohio in 

the middle of July to conduct a point-of-pack inspection. If the product tested had been packaged 5 days before 

the inspection and is found underweight; the moisture loss data must reflect the loss that would occur in July not 

January. At least three sample control lots, consisting of at least 48 randomly selected packages, must be used 

to develop the moisture loss data. Each sample lot must be stored under the same conditions that are typical for 

the product (e.g., if the product is typically placed in a sealed case on a pallet and shrink wrapped, the sample 

lots must be stored under the same conditions. Moisture loss data obtained by removing the individual 

packages from the shipping case and storing them in a laboratory would not be acceptable). The three-sample 

control lots must be placed at various locations in the storage site. The average moisture loss value must be 

computed from the three-sample control lots with a 95 % prediction interval. 

Since point-of-pack inspections are not routinely done in most jurisdictions at this time, there will be many 

situations where packers may not have "acceptable" moisture loss data for a particular product found to be 

underweight at the time of a point-of-pack inspection. In these cases, WMD recommends the packer be allowed 

to conduct a study using the criteria specified above. This data could then be provided to the weights and 

measures official for use in making a final determination whether or not moisture loss caused the product to be 

underweight. One benefit of this approach is that the moisture loss study can be conducted within a few days of 

the inspector finding the inspection lot underweight so the test will more closely reflect the environmental 

conditions under which the original inspection lot was subject. 

A similar recommendation is included for fresh bakery products weighed within 1 day following the end of the 

day of pack (in this case the moisture loss data would have to be based on the amount of moisture lost on an 

hourly basis under the same conditions listed above for the 7-day period). WMD will provide technical 

assistance on request to any jurisdiction to resolve these individual moisture loss cases by working with you and 

the packer and will seek FDA assistance in resolving these situations. 

IV. Recommended Moisture Allowances for Use at Point of Pack and Testing at Any Other Location 

Provide the following allowances for moisture loss (expressed as a percentage of the labeled net quantity of 

contents): 

1. No allowance for moisture loss should be made if: 

(a) A food, other than a fresh bakery product, while stored by the packer, is weighed within 

7 days following the end of the day of pack, except when the packer provides acceptable (see 

note below) documentation of the moisture loss for the product in storage at the point-of-pack, 

or 

(b) A fresh bakery product, while stored by the packer, is weighed within 1 day following the end 

of the day of pack, except when the packer provides acceptable (see note below) 

documentation of the moisture loss for the product in storage at the point of pack, or 

(c) The food is not subject to moisture loss, or 

(d) The food is packaged in an air-/moisture-tight container (e.g., cans, glass bottles, enclosed in 

paraffin, etc). 

2. Allow 1 % for the following foods: frozen fruits and frozen vegetables, and fresh baked breads, 

buns, rolls and muffins. 

3. Allow 3 % for the following foods: flour, dry pet food, pasta, rice, cheese and cheese products, 

dried fruits and vegetables, fresh fruits and vegetables, coffee beans, and bakery products other 

than fresh baked breads, buns, rolls and muffins. 

L&R - A25 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

Note for Moisture Allowances at Point of Pack: The data must be computed using the average 

moisture loss determined on a daily basis (e.g., the weight of each package in each of the sample 

control lots is determined everyday for 7 days) in environmental conditions similar to those that exist 

when the product is being inspected. For example, an inspector visits a pet food plant in Ohio in the 

middle of July to conduct a point-of-pack inspection. If the product tested had been packaged 5 days 

before the inspection and is found underweight; the moisture loss data must reflect the loss that would 

occur in July, not January. At least three sample control lots consisting of at least 48 randomly 

selected packages must be used to develop the moisture loss data. Each sample lot must be stored 

under the same conditions that are typical for the product (e.g., if the product is typically placed in a 

sealed case on a pallet and shrink wrapped, the sample lots must be stored under the same conditions. 

Moisture loss data obtained by removing the individual packages from the shipping case and storing 

them in a laboratory would not be acceptable). The three-sample control lots must be placed at various 

locations in the storage site. The average moisture loss value must be computed from the three-sample 

control lots with a 95 % prediction interval. If the packer does not provide the information, no 

additional moisture allowance should be permitted. 

V. Moisture Loss for Products Not Listed in NIST Handbook 133 

When officials test product for which no moisture loss guidance has been provided NIST can provide technical 

assistance. In the past NIST has published recommended moisture allowances for use at all locations including 

Point-of-Pack. If moisture loss studies are required NIST will assist in the completion of such studies. If 

studies are a necessity they should be a collaborative effort between officials and industry and can be very time 

consuming depending on the product. Because of the potential impact on interstate commerce, studies must be 

completed on a nationwide basis and not by individual jurisdictions unless circumstances justify only local 

consideration. 

The amount of moisture lost from a package is a function of many factors not the least of which is the product 

itself (e.g., moisture content), packaging, storage conditions (e.g., temperature, humidity, air flow), time, 

handling and others. If a packaged product is subject to moisture loss officials must allow for “reasonable” 

variations caused by moisture either evaporating or draining from the product. Officials cannot set arbitrary 

moisture allowances based solely on their experience or intuition. Moisture allowances must be based on 

scientific data and must be “reasonable.” Reasonable does not mean that all of the weight loss caused by 

moisture evaporation or draining from the product must be allowed. As a result of product and moisture 

variability the approach used by official must be developed on a case-by-case basis depending on many factors 

to include, but not be limited to, the manufacturing process, packaging materials, distribution, environmental 

influence and the anticipated shelf life of the product. 

NIST Handbook 130 provides a starting point for developing a workable procedure in Section 2.5.6. in the 

Interpretation and Guideline Section regarding “Resolution for Requests for Recognition of Moisture Loss in 

Other Packaged Products.” NIST WMD has worked and will continue to work extensively with the NCWM, 

The Laws and Regulations Committee, and industry to develop protocol for determining moisture allowances 

that can serve as models for future studies. Most studies involving nationally distributed products will require 

that products be tested during different seasons of the year and in different geographic locations to develop a 

nationally recognized moisture allowance. Some studies may require the development of laboratory tests used 

for inter-laboratory comparisons to establish moisture content in products at time-of-pack or at the time-ofinspection. 

In some cases manufacturers can and may provide valid moisture loss data for officials to consider in lieu of 

conducting studies. In cases like this, WMD will provide assistance to determine if the information is complete 

or if further documentation is required. For example, a major producer of bar soap has provided moisture loss 

evidence for consideration by officials to determine what if any moisture loss could be expected to occur, in 

some cases this information has proven to be accurate thus avoiding the need for national data collection. 

Moisture loss or gain is a critical consideration for any net content enforcement effort and one that, in most 

cases, cannot be addressed by a field official. If moisture loss issues are to be deliberated, it is the regulatory 

official’s responsibility to resolve the packers concern utilizing available resources and due process procedures. 

L&R - A26 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

To fulfill this obligation officials may be required to utilize specialized test equipment and specific laboratory 

procedures. Additionally, the collection of adequate test data may require product examination over a broad 

geographical area and consideration of a wide range of environmental factors. If a national effort is required a 

coordinated effort involving industry, trade associations, weights and measures officials and federal agencies 

may be required. NIST will provide technical support upon request. 

VI. Background Information on Federal Preemption 

In the previous memorandum we reported that FDA was expected to adopt regulations identical to those 

contained in the 4th Supplement of the 3rd Edition of Handbook 133 adopted by the NCWM in 1994. The FDA 

published proposed regulations regarding net quantity of contents test procedures for packaged food under its 

jurisdiction in the March 4, 1997, issue (62 FR 9826) of the Federal Register. FDA subsequently withdrew that 

proposal on November 26, 2004 (69 FR 68831). FDA based the withdrawal on its need to reduce its regulatory 

backlog and focus its resources on current public health issues. The withdrawal did not speak to the merits of 

the proposal. Based on the experience reported since the adoption of the substantive revisions in 1994, WMD 

believes that the latest edition of Handbook 133 provides the basis for nationally uniform test methods and other 

requirements consistent with the requirements in Federal laws relating to net quantity of contents. Therefore, 

WMD recommends that State and local authorities test products according to the procedures outlined in the 

latest edition of Handbook 133 unless future FDA guidance or regulations specify otherwise. Moreover, it is 

extremely important that State and local jurisdictions continue to provide regulatory oversight so businesses can 

compete in a fair marketplace and consumers can depend on the representations of quantity upon which they 

make purchasing decisions. 

a. Federal Preemption under the Nutrition Labeling and Education Act (NLEA) of 1990 

The NLEA was signed into law on November 8, 1990, to amend Title 21 Section 343 of the Federal Food, 

Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA). The Act requires nutrition labeling on foods and regulates health claims 

about food nutrients to help consumers select a more healthful diet. Under the Act, State and local laws not 

"identical" to corresponding FDA requirements are preempted. According to regulations under FDA 

[21 CFR Part 100.1 (c)(4)], the phrase "not identical" does not refer to the specific words in the 

requirement. Instead it means that the State or local requirement directly or indirectly imposes obligations 

or contains provisions that (1) are not imposed by or contained in an FDA requirement, or (2) differ from 

those specifically imposed by or contained in an FDA requirement or implementing regulation. 

The preemption ensures uniformity in labeling requirements and prohibits non-uniform State and local 

laws, regulations, formal and informal policies, and other enforcement practices that prevent firms from 

conducting efficient and cost-effective business in all 50 States. Congress recognized that even though 

federal requirements may preempt more restrictive state requirements in certain instances, the net benefits 

from national uniformity in these aspects of the food label outweigh any loss in consumer protection that 

may occur as a result. 

The ultimate goal of the NLEA is uniformity in laws, regulations, and test procedures—a goal shared by 

the NCWM and NIST alike. Under NLEA, state and local labeling requirements must be identical to many 

of the regulations promulgated under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, as amended by the NLEA, 

in Title 21 - Code of Federal Regulations, Parts 100 to 169 (current edition). Jurisdictions may continue to 

enforce state or local regulations on foods where there is no federal requirement and continue to enforce 

existing state and local laws if they are "identical" to FDA regulations. 

b. Defining what is "Identical" 

Federal preemption of the net quantity of contents regulations and test procedures occurred on 

November 8, 1991. On that date, state and local regulations on quantity of contents (e.g., net quantity of 

contents regulations, sampling plans, and test procedures) were preempted under the NLEA if they were 

not "identical" to federal requirements. The question is, what is "identical?" Both State and FDA 

regulations require packers to express an "accurate" statement of the quantity of contents of packaged food 

while permitting "reasonable" variations. The most common questions WMD receives are “do the test 

L&R - A27 
L&R Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Committee WG on Moisture Loss

procedures used by the states and FDA provide identical results” (e.g., do the sampling plans have equal 

confidence levels, and are the products weighed or measured using recognized procedures) and “are the 

criteria for defining reasonable variations (e.g., the values of maximum allowable variations, the sample 

correction factors, and allowances for moisture loss) consistent with those used by FDA?” 

FDA's test procedures are based on those contained in "Official Methods of Analysis" of the Association of 

Official Analytical Chemists International (AOAC). Based on information provided by FDA, WMD 

believes the test procedures contained in the 4th edition of Handbook 133 are identical to the AOAC 

procedures. If officials implement the recommendations in this memo, they should be using test procedures 

equivalent to FDA's. 

c. Preemption Extends Beyond Food Packages Introduced into Interstate Commerce 

Federal courts have ruled that the FDA has jurisdiction over all food products made from ingredients 

shipped in interstate commerce, regardless of the amount of the ingredient present, even though the finished 

product has not moved in interstate commerce. Products that have not entered interstate commerce (e.g., 

bakery products offered for sale in the food store where they are baked and packaged) that are made of 

ingredients shipped in interstate commerce to the store are subject to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act 

and, therefore, should only be tested according to the following recommendations in this memorandum 

until final regulations are adopted by the FDA. 

This memorandum is not legal advice. I encourage you to review this memo with your State Attorney 

General or staff attorney before implementing any policy on these issues or before you take enforcement 

action against a product that falls under FDA or other federal jurisdiction. 

Training and Technical Support 

WMD is committed to supporting state and local jurisdictions in their package inspection programs by 

providing technical assistance and training classes on Handbook 133. If you need assistance, please contact 

Tom Coleman at (301) 975-4004 or by e-mail at t.coleman@nist.gov. 

NOTICE 

The following documents could not be included in this publication because they are only available in Adobe PDF 

format. They are available from NIST upon request. Please contact Tom Coleman at (301) 975-4004 or by e-mail 

at t.coleman@nist.gov or Lisa Warfield at (301) 975-3308 or at lisa.warfield@nist.gov to obtain copies. 

B. Letter from Kraft Foods Requesting that NIST Withdraw Letter on Moisture Loss 

C. Chapter 3 from the 3rd Edition of NIST Handbook 133 and 4th Supplement 1994

L&R - A28 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Report of the 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

Michael J. Sikula, Chairman 

Assistant Director 

New York Bureau of Weights and Measures 

Reference 

Key Number 

300 INTRODUCTION 

This is the final report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) (hereinafter referred to as the 

“Committee”) for the 92nd Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The 

report is based on the Interim Report offered in the NCWM Publication 16, “Committee Reports,” testimony at 

public hearings, comments received from the regional weights and measures associations and other parties, 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 agenda 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,” or if the item was 

part of the Voting Consent calendar by the suffix “VC” after the item number. Items marked with an “I” after the 

reference key numbers are Information items. Items marked with a “D” after the key numbers are Developing 

items. The Developing designation indicates that an item, while it has merit, may not be adequately developed for 

action at the national level. Items marked “W” have been withdrawn from consideration. Items marked with a “W” 

will generally be referred to the regional weights and measures associations because they either need additional 

development, analysis, and input or did not have sufficient Committee support to bring them before NCWM. 

Table B lists the appendices to the report, Table C identifies the acronyms for organizations and technical terms used 

throughout the report, and Table D provides a summary of the results of the voting on the Committee’s items and the 

report in entirety. 

This report contains recommendations to amend National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) 

Handbook 44, 2008 Edition, “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and 

Measuring Devices.” Proposed revisions to the handbook are shown in bold face print by striking out information 

to be deleted and underlining information to be added. New items proposed for the handbook are designated as 

such and shown in bold face print.

Note: The policy of NIST 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 submitted. 

Therefore, the report may contain references to inch-pound units. 

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference 

Key Number Title of Item Page 

300 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................1

310 GENERAL CODE............................................................................................................................................5

310-1A V G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud..........................................................................................................5

310-1B I Appendix D – Definition of Equipment ........................................................................................6

310-2 VC G-S.5.6.1. Recorded Representation of Metric Units on Equipment with Limited Character 

Sets and Table 1. Recorded Representation of Metric Units on Equipment with Limited 

Character Sets................................................................................................................................6

S&T - 1 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

310-3 VC G-S.8.1. Multiple Weighing or Measuring Elements that Share a Common Provision for 

Sealing ...........................................................................................................................................8

320 SCALES...........................................................................................................................................................10

320-1 W S.1.1.(c) Zero Indication; Requirements for Markings or Indications for Other than Digital 

Zero Indications...........................................................................................................................10

320-2 I S.1.1.1.(b) Digital Indicating Elements ......................................................................................13

320-3 I S.1.2.1. Weight Units and T.N.2.1. General ...............................................................................16

320-4 D S.1.4.6. Height and Definition of Minimum Reading Distance, UR.2.10. Primary Indicating 

Elements Provided by the User, UR.2.11. Minimum Reading Distance, and Definitions of 

Minimum Reading Distance and Primary Indications.................................................................19

320-5 W S.2.1.7. Tare Rounding on a Multiple Range Scale....................................................................19

320-6 V N.1.3.1. Bench or Counter Scales, N.1.3.8. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging 

Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel–Load Weighers, and Portable Axle-Load Weighers, and 

Appendix D, Definitions of Bench Scale and Counter Scale.......................................................23

320-7 VC N.1.3.6.1. Dynamic Monorail Weighing Systems.......................................................................29

320-8 W Table 4. Minimum Test Weights and Test Loads........................................................................30

320-9 I Appendix D; Definitions for Tare Mechanism, Gross Weight Value, Net Weight, Net 

Weight Value, Tare, and Tare Weight Value ..............................................................................32

321 BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS .....................................................................................................35

321-1 I UR.2.2.(n) Belt Alignment .........................................................................................................35

324 AUTOMATIC WEIGHING SYSTEMS.......................................................................................................36

324-1 I S.1.2. Value of Division Units and T.2.1. General ......................................................................36

324-2 VC Note 5 Table S.7.b. Notes for Table S.7.a.; Temperature Range.................................................38

324-3 I Appendix D; Definitions for Tare Mechanism, Gross Weight Value, Net Weight, Net 

Weight Value, Tare, and Tare Weight Value ..............................................................................41

330 LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES...............................................................................................................42

330-1 VC S.1.2.3. Value of the Smallest Unit..............................................................................................42

330-2 V S.1.6.5.5. Display of Quantity and Total Price and S.1.6.5.6. Display of Quantity and Total 

Price, Aviation Refueling Applications.......................................................................................44

330-3 V S.3.1. Diversion of Measured Liquid...........................................................................................46

330-4 I Temperature Compensation for Liquid Measuring Devices Code...............................................47

331 VEHICLE-TANK METERS .........................................................................................................................50

331-1 V Temperature Compensation.........................................................................................................50

356(A) GRAIN MOISTURE METERS.................................................................................................................53

356(a)-1 VC S.1.2. Grain or Seed Kind and Class Selection and Recording and Table S.1.2. Grain Types 

Considered for Type Evaluation and Calibration and Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations.......53

357 NEAR-INFRARED GRAIN ANALYZERS.................................................................................................56

357-1 VC S.1.2. Selecting Grain Class and Constituent and Table S.1.2. Grain Types Considered for 

Type Evaluation and Calibration and Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations...............................56

360 OTHER ITEMS..............................................................................................................................................58

360-1 I International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Report .................................................58

360-2 Developing Items .................................................................................................................................60

S&T - 2 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Table B 

Appendices

Appendix Title Page 

A Item 360-2: Developing Items..........................................................................................................................A1

Part 1, Item 1, Scales: S.1.4.6. Height and Definition of Minimum Reading Distance, UR.2.10. Primary 

Indicating Elements Provided by the User, UR.2.11. Minimum Reading Distance, and Definitions of 

Minimum Reading Distance and Primary Indications..............................................................................A1

Part 2, Item 1, Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems: UR.3.2.(c) Maintenance; Zero Load Tests ................................A4

Part 3, Item 1, Liquid-Measuring Devices: T.5. Predominance – Retail Motor-Fuel Devices...........................A5

Part 3, Item 2, Liquid-Measuring Devices: Price Posting and Computing Capability and Requirements for a 

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser (RMFD).....................................................................................................A6

Part 4, Item 1, Water Meters: UR.2.1. Accessibility for Reading ......................................................................A7

Table C 

Glossary of Acronyms 

AWS Automatic Weighing Systems NCWM National Conference on Weights and Measures, 

Inc. 

CC Certificate of Conformance NEWMA Northeastern Weights and Measures Association 

CWMA Central Weights and Measures Association NIST National Institute of Standards and Technology 

EPO Examination Procedure Outline NTEP National Type Evaluation Program 

GS Grain Analyzer Sector NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

GMM Grain Moisture Meters RMFD Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser 

GPMA Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association SI International System of Units 

HB 44 NIST Handbook 44 SMA Scale Manufacturers Association 

HB 130 NIST Handbook 130 SWMA Southern Weights and Measures Association 

LMD Liquid-Measuring Device WMD NIST Weights and Measures Division 

LPG Liquefied Petroleum Gas WS Weighing Sector 

MDMD Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices WWMA Western Weights and Measures Association 

MFM Mass Flow Meter USNWG NIST/OIML U.S. National Work Group 

MMA Meter Manufacturers Association WG Work Group 

MS Measuring Sector VTM Vehicle-tank Meters 

OEM Original Equipment Manufacturer 

“Handbook 44” (HB 44) means the 2008 Edition of NIST Handbook 44 “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other 

Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices” 

“Handbook 130” (HB 130) means the 2008 Edition of NIST Handbook 130 “Uniform Laws and Regulations in the 

Areas of Legal Metrology and Fuel Quality.” 

Note: NIST does not imply that these acronyms are used solely to identify these organizations or technical topics. 

S&T - 3 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Table D 

Voting Results 

House of State 

Representatives Reference Key House of Delegates

Number

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

Results

300 (Consent 

Calendar) 42 0 38 0 Passed 

310-1A 41 0 39 0 Passed 

320-6 30 10 32 7 Passed 

330-2 42 1 38 0 Passed 

330-3 27 15 30 9 Passed 

331-1 34 6 35 3 Passed 

300 (Report in its 

Entirety Voice 

Vote) 

All Yeas No Nays All Yeas No Nays Passed 

S&T - 4 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

310 GENERAL CODE 

310-1A V G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Amend HB 44, Section 1.10. General Code paragraph G-S.2. as follows: 

G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud. - All equipment and all mechanisms, software, and devices attached thereto to

or used in connection conjunction therewith shall be so designed, constructed, assembled, and installed for 

use such that they do not facilitate the perpetration of fraud. 

Background/Discussion: This proposal modified the language in paragraph G-S.2. to clarify that the prohibition 

against facilitating fraud applied to the electronically programmed and coded components of weighing and 

measuring devices. Some argued the existing language in Section 1.10. General Code. Paragraph G-S.2. Facilitation 

of Fraud was intended to address only hardware components of weighing and measuring devices. That is, 

“equipment, mechanisms, and devices” and the mechanics of how they are “constructed, assembled, and installed” 

appeared to deal with tangible components. Fraud issues in the past ten years involved: (1) altering, manipulating, 

or interfering with software interfaced with or installed in equipment; (2) microprocessor issues such as additional 

pulser units hidden in gas pumps and taximeters; and (3) software programs permitting manipulation of vehicle scale 

data used to generate weighmaster certificates. 

The CWMA, SWMA, and WWMA recommended this item move forward for a vote. 

NEWMA recommended this item be referred to the NTETC Software Sector for review and input. 

At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee considered the WWMA proposal and an alternate proposal 

developed by the SMA. The Committee acknowledged that neither proposal was reviewed by the NTETC Software 

Sector. The Committee agreed that updating the requirement could be accomplished by adding general terms to 

address the types of electronic and software-based technology being fraudulently used today. The WWMA 

proposed language naming specific software applications that should not facilitate fraud. Whereas, the SMA 

alternate proposal included broader language that is intended to prohibit fraudulent use of software, wireless 

connections, and all future technology “without limitation.” The Committee agreed the SMA proposal encompasses 

all possible equipment configurations and more appropriately addressed the problem at hand. Therefore the 

Committee agreed to present the SMA proposal for a vote at the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee considered multiple alternate proposals from the regional 

weights and measures associations, NTETC Software Sector, SMA, and NTEP participating laboratories to modify 

paragraph G-S.2. and agreed on the above proposal that maintained the original intent of the design specification and 

also clearly expanded the scope of the requirement to apply to software and wireless connections affecting 

metrological parameters. The Committee also considered a proposal to define the term “equipment” which has a 

unique meaning to requirements in HB 44, making it difficult to determine which part of a device or system must 

meet paragraph G-S.2. The proposed new definition of equipment was based on paragraph G-A.1. Commercial and 

Law-Enforcement Equipment and clarifies the various types and portions of a device or system used to establish a 

weight or measure that must comply with paragraph G-S.2. However, because the definition had just been 

introduced to the Conference, the Committee recommended splitting the proposal so that the proposed definition 

became a separate Information item presented as Item 310-1B. The proposal to modify paragraph G-S.2. was 

renumbered to become 310-1A and was presented for a vote. 

S&T - 5 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

310-1B I Appendix D – Definition of Equipment 

Source: NIST Weights and Measures Division

Recommendation: Add a new definition for “equipment” to Appendix D as follows: 

equipment. Weights, measures, and weighing and measuring devices, instruments, elements, and systems or 

portion thereof used or employed in establishing the size, quantity, value, extent, area, composition, 

constituent value, 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.[1.10, 2.20, 2.21, 2.22, 2.24, 3.30, 3.31, 3.32, 3.33, 3.34, 

3.35, 3.38, 4.40, 5.51, 5.56.(a), 5.56.(b), 5.57, 5.58, 5.59]

Discussion: The Committee agreed there is a need to define the term “equipment” since the term is used throughout 

HB 44 device codes. The term may be misinterpreted in paragraph G-S.2. unless there is a specific definition added 

to Appendix D to clarify which parts or portions of a device or system must comply. The Committee split S&T 

Item 310-1 into two separate items: S&T Item 310-1A (a proposal to modify paragraph G-S.2.) and S&T 

Item 310-1B (an Information item that recommends a new definition for “equipment” as used in HB 44). The 

Committee noted that the term “equipment” does not appear in all HB 44 Codes. The Committee recommended that 

Item 310-1B be carried over to allow sufficient time for a review of the proposed definition. 

310-2 VC G-S.5.6.1. Recorded Representation of Metric Units on Equipment with Limited Character Sets 

and Table 1. Recorded Representation of Metric Units on Equipment with Limited Character Sets 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

(This item was adopted) 

Recommendation: Amend paragraph G-S.5.6.1. and Table 1. as follows: 

Modify paragraph G-S.5.6.1. and Table 1. as follows: 

G-S.5.6.1. Indicated and Recorded Representation of Metric Units on Equipment with Limited 

Character Sets. – Appropriate Abbreviations.

(a) For equipment manufactured after January 1, 2008, the appropriate defining symbols are shown 

in NIST Special Publication SP 811 “Guide for the Use of International System of Units (SI)” 

and Handbook 44 Appendix C – General Tables of Units of Measurement.

Note: SP 811 can be viewed or downloaded at http://physics.nist.gov/cuu/pdf/sp811.pdf.

(Added 2007)

(b) The appropriate defining symbols on equipment manufactured prior to January 1, 2008, with 

limited character sets are shown in Table 1. Representation of SI Units on Equipment 

Manufactured prior to January 1, 2007, with Limited Character Sets.

(Added 1977) (Amended 2007)

S&T - 6 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Table 1. 

Recorded Representation of Metric SI Units on 

Equipment Manufactured prior to January 1, 2008, with Limited Character Sets 

Representation 

Form I Form II 

Name of Unit 

International 

symbol (common 

use symbol) 

(double case) (single case lower) (single case upper) 

Base SI units 

meter m m m M 

kilogram kg kg kg KG 

Derived SI units 

newton N N n N 

pascal Pa Pa pa PA 

watt W W w W 

volt V V v V 

degree Celsius °C °C °c °C 

Other units 

liter l or L L l L 

gram g g g G 

metric ton t t tne TNE 

bar bar bar bar BAR 

Background/Discussion: At its fall 2006 Annual Meeting, the SWMA reviewed a proposal from the Weighing 

Sector to amend paragraph G-S.5.6.1. The amendment would require abbreviations for SI units for both indications 

and recorded representations on new technology as specified in NIST Special Publication 811 “Guide for the Use of 

International System of Units (SI) and HB 44 Appendix C – General Tables of Units of Measurement. The 

amendment would continue to permit exceptions to those guidelines for older equipment with limited character sets. 

WMD has received inquiries from device manufacturers regarding how to apply the requirements in Table 1 for the 

abbreviation of SI units. There appears to be confusion about the intent of Table 1 unless one is directed to review 

paragraph G-S.5.6.1. in conjunction with Table 1. Additionally, there are instances where abbreviations for SI units 

may be confused with other abbreviations; for example, in devices designed with or capable of indicating and/or 

recording in additional units of measurement (e.g., inch-pound units) or when used with identifiers for measurement 

values such as gross, tare, and net (G, T, N). 

HB 44 paragraph G-S.5.6.1. was originally added to HB 44 in 1977 to address concerns about equipment with 

limited printing capabilities, that is, with either upper or lower case characters only. For example, a recording 

element, interfaced with a weighing system, which is equipped with upper case characters only; it will print the 

symbol for kilogram as “KG.” It was the NCWM S&T Committee’s view at that time that to require a lower case 

character capability solely to provide the appropriate symbol in lower case character (e.g., “kg”) would be cost 

prohibitive. Further, the Committee saw no problem in identifying “KG” as representing kilograms just as there is 

no problem in identifying the abbreviation for pound as “LB” or “lb.” The Committee also reviewed the 

International Standard Organization’s ISO 2955, which sets forth guidelines for the representation of SI and other 

units for use in systems with limited character sets. ISO 2955 “Representations of SI and other Units in Systems 

with Limited Character Sets,” an information processing standard, was withdrawn in 2001. 

WMD believes that permitting exceptions for abbreviations of SI units of measure is no longer necessary when 

considering advances in printer and display technology. 

SWMA supported the proposal and agreed to forward it to the NCWM S&T Committee with a recommendation that 

it be a Voting item on the Committee’s 2007 agenda. 

S&T - 7 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee made two editorial changes to the SWMA proposal as shown 

above. The Committee notes that the requirement includes units from multiple systems of measurement; therefore, 

it is not appropriate to name only metric units in the paragraph’s title. The proposal more appropriately lists the 

requirements that apply for SI units in a separate subparagraph. The Committee agreed there is precedence for 

citing a website where a reference document is available. The Committee agreed to present the item as modified for 

a vote at the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee also recognized that HB 44 was inconsistent in how it 

designates titles of paragraphs and tables where only table and paragraph numbers are referenced. Since there was 

no convention or document style guideline, the Committee agreed with WMD that the title or name of the 

corresponding paragraph or table (including a shortened title where appropriate) should be included when 

referencing the paragraph number, and that this could be done editorially throughout HB 44 as necessary. 

310-3 VC G-S.8.1. Multiple Weighing or Measuring Elements that Share a Common Provision for Sealing 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Carryover Item 310-3. (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association 

(WWMA) and first appeared on the Committee’s 2006 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph G-S.8.1. as follows: 

G-S.8.1. Multiple Weighing or Measuring Elements that Share a Common Provision for Sealing. – A 

change to any metrological parameter (calibration or configuration) of any weighing or measuring element 

shall be individually identified.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2010]

Note: For devices that utilize an electronic form of sealing, in addition to the requirements in G-S.8.1., 

any appropriate audit trail requirements in an applicable specific device code also apply. Examples of 

identification of a change to the metrological parameters of a weighing or measuring element include, but 

are not limited to,:

(1) a broken, missing, or replaced physical seal on an individual weighing, measuring, or indicating 

element or active junction box;

(2) a change in a calibration factor or configuration setting for each weighing or measuring element;

(3) a display of the date of calibration or configuration event for each weighing or measuring element; or

(4) counters indicating the number of calibration and/or configuration events for each weighing or 

measuring element.

(Added 2007)

Remove the existing Section 3.30. paragraph S.2.2.1. Multiple Measuring Elements with a Single Provision for 

Sealing when G-S.8.1. becomes effective; add a note to S.2.2.1. to indicate its removal date. 

S.2.2.1. Multiple Measuring Elements with a Single Provision for Sealing. – A change to the adjustment of 

any measuring element shall be individually identified. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2005] 

Note 1: Examples of acceptable identification of a change to the adjustment of a measuring element 

include, but are not limited to: 

(a) a broken, missing, or replaced physical seal on an individual measuring element; 

(b) a change in a calibration factor for each measuring element; 

(c) a display of the date of or the number of days since the last calibration event for each measuring 

element; or 

S&T - 8 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

(d) a counter indicating the number of calibration events per measuring element. 

(Added 2004)

Note 2: S.2.2.1. will be removed in the 2010 edition of Handbook 44 when General Code 

paragraph G-S.8.1. Multiple Weighing or Measuring Elements with a Single Provision for Sealing

becomes effective.

(Note 2 Added 2007)

Background/Discussion: The Committee believes a General Code requirement for identification of adjustments to 

individual weighing or measuring elements is appropriate, regardless of the device type, when systems have multiple 

weighing or measuring elements with a single provision for sealing. Initially, this proposal was developed to add to 

all the liquid-measuring device codes a requirement for identifying when an adjustment is made to any measuring 

device which has multiple measuring elements, but which is equipped only with a single provision for sealing the 

adjustment mechanism or access to the adjustment mechanism(s). After rejecting a meter for not meeting 

performance requirements, jurisdictions reported difficulty in determining whether or not repairs or adjustments 

were made to that meter. During the subsequent inspection, an official might have to test multiple grades or blends 

to confirm the rejected meter had been corrected. The proposed requirement is similar to the existing requirement in 

Section 3.30. paragraph S.2.2.1. Multiple Measuring Elements with a Single Provision for Sealing. 

The Committee heard from the weighing industry that the proposal was not appropriate for all devices. The 

Committee believed it was important to be sure no specific HB 44 codes would be adversely affected by placing the 

requirements in the General Code; therefore, the Committee originally agreed to make the proposal an Information 

item to provide the opportunity for the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Sectors and the regional 

weights and measures associations to evaluate the item further, especially for any adverse impact on a particular 

device type(s).

A General Code requirement would address all possible device types, including weighing systems, and any scenario 

where metrological parameters (calibration or configuration) have a single means for security. The list of acceptable 

means for individually identifying a change to a metrological parameter includes provisions for devices where 

features are accessed through an indicator or active junction box, but the list was not meant to be all-inclusive. 

Examples of weighing systems that have multiple weighing elements connected to a single indicator such that the 

calibration of each is controlled by a single seal include “in-and-out” weighing systems, shipping scale systems 

equipped with at least two platforms with different capacities connected to a single indicator, and multiple platform 

vehicle scales and axle-load weighers used for highway load enforcement or for truck operators’ use such as “CAT 

Scales.” Additionally, NTEP has evaluated indicators with the ability to support up to as many as ten weighing 

elements. 

At their fall 2006 meetings, CWMA, NEWMA, SWMA, and WWMA agreed the proposal should move forward for 

a vote as written. The CWMA agreed that if this item was adopted, LMD Code paragraph S.2.2.1. would become 

redundant and should be deleted. The WWMA agreed the proposal should apply to all device technologies where 

multiple components with metrological functions are secured by a single seal. The WWMA also heard there were 

weighing devices with multiple load-receiving elements interfaced to a single indicator (where sealing occurs) that 

have the ability to track changes to metrological parameters through an audit trail. Devices with an event logger 

would comply with the proposal. Devices utilizing only common counters for calibration and configuration 

parameters that increment one time when one or more weighing or measuring elements have been accessed would 

still need an additional means, such as a calibration factor for each element, to identify that changes were made to a 

particular element. 

At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed that modifications were needed to the title to clarify 

that the provision applies when elements share a security seal. Changes were also needed to the proposed language 

in the paragraph to eliminate the example allowing the display of the number of days to identify a change to 

metrological parameters in proposed new paragraph G-S.8.1. to eliminate any potential conflict with existing audit 

trail criteria. The Committee also agreed that if proposed paragraph G-S.8.1. was adopted, then Section 3.30. 

paragraph S.2.2.1. would no longer be needed and should be removed. 

S&T - 9 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

At the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed with industry comments that it was appropriate that the 

proposal to modify paragraph G-S.8.1. have a 2010 enforcement date to lessen the impact of the requirement on 

device manufacturers needing to modify equipment. Rather than delete paragraph S.2.2.1. Multiple Measuring 

Elements with a Single Provision for Sealing from the Liquid Measuring Devices Code at this time, the Committee 

agreed to recommend the inclusion of a second note in paragraph S.2.2.1. to indicate that paragraph S.2.2.1. will be 

removed from HB 44 when new proposed paragraph G-S.8.1. becomes effective in 2010. On January 1, 2010, 

paragraph G-S.8.1. will apply to all classes of devices in the specific device codes. 

For additional background information, refer to the Committee’s 2006 Final Report.

320 SCALES 

320-1 W S.1.1.(c) Zero Indication; Requirements for Markings or Indications for Other than Digital Zero 

Indications 

(This item was withdrawn) 

Source: Carryover Item 320-1. (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its 2004 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Amend paragraph S.1.1.(c) as follows: 

S.1.1. Zero Indication. 

(a) On a scale equipped with indicating or recording elements, provision shall be made to either indicate 

or record a zero-balance condition. 

(b) On an automatic-indicating scale or balance indicator, provision shall be made to indicate or record an 

out-of-balance condition on both sides of zero. 

(c) A zero-balance condition may be indicated by other than a continuous digital zero indication, provided 

that an effective automatic means is provided to inhibit a weighing operation or to return to a 

continuous digital indication when the scale is in an out-of-balance condition and is marked or 

includes supplemental indications to indicate that the “other than continuous digital zero 

indication” represents a no-load condition of the scale. 

(Added 1987) (Amended 1993 and 200X)

Note: The markings or supplemental indications in S.1.1.(c) are not required if, prior to the start 

of a transaction: (1) operator intervention is required to verify the zero-balance condition with a 

digital zero indication, or (2) for a scale equipped to indicate a zero-balance condition by a 

digital zero indication, the scale automatically resets to a digital zero indication.

(Added 200X)

(Amended 1987) 

Background/Discussion: The proposed changes to the requirement are intended to clarify that all primary 

indicators on scales using anything other than a digital zero indication (e.g., scrolling messages, dashes, etc.) to 

indicate zero require additional markings or indications to inform customers the scale is at a zero-balance condition. 

No markings are necessary on these devices when operator intervention is required to return the indication to a 

digital zero before conducting a transaction. The proposal addresses instances where the OEM elects to display 

rather than mark the information (i.e., supplemental indications) on the device. The proposed changes are meant to 

be applied retroactively and, therefore, apply to all equipment including self-service applications that have 

undergone type evaluation. 

The proposal is more than a simple clarification or housekeeping item. The proposed language is not in conflict 

with type evaluation procedures in NCWM Publication 14 (a document derived from HB 44 requirements). The 

proposal is warranted because of ongoing disagreements between NTEP laboratories at type evaluation on whether 

or not a scale complies with paragraph S.1.1.(c). If the proposal is adopted, the labs will find that Publication 14 and 

S&T - 10 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

HB 44 agree and there is no vagueness in the wording of either document or room for misinterpretation. Since field 

officials may not have access to Publication 14, they need definitive guidelines in their working documents on how 

to apply the requirement should devices be modified after type evaluation. 

In 2004 the Committee interpreted General Code paragraph G-S.6. Marking Operational Controls, Indications, and 

Features and Scales Code paragraph S.1.1. Zero Indication as requiring weighing devices to be marked or provide an 

indication stating the zero balance is represented by other than a digital zero indication. This position is supported 

by the 1993 amendment to paragraph S.1.1.(c) as well as type evaluation requirements and other HB 44 

requirements adopted to ensure customers have sufficient information about displays and recorded transaction 

information in order to make an informed decision during a direct sale transaction. 

In 2005 the Committee heard opposition to the proposal from several regional associations, the Weighing Sector, 

and scale manufacturers. These groups cited the following reasons for taking this position: (1) current HB 44 

language provides sufficient guidelines, (2) labeling criteria applied during type evaluation offers adequate 

protection from fraud, (3) the type evaluation laboratory determines that labeling is not necessary if a scale has an 

automatic means to inhibit a transaction when it is out of balance or returns to a continuous digital indication when 

in an out-of-balance condition, and (4) several jurisdictions have indicated they are not receiving any complaints 

because equipment lacks explanatory marking information. 

The Committee believes provisions should be in place for all devices to indicate clearly a zero-balance condition 

either with a digital zero, an annunciator, or using some other accepted means. The Committee is concerned there 

are no definitive guidelines available for the field official to verify a zero-balance condition particularly on 

software-based devices modified after type evaluation but also on devices that do not return to a digital zero. It is 

the continued belief of the Committee that the proposal has some merit but modified the language in response to 

comments that there is confusion about the language that addresses markings and indications. The Committee made 

changes to S.1.1.(c) to: (1) specify that markings and indications must be visible to the customer, and (2) clarify one 

instance where markings and indications are not required. 

In spring 2006 the Committee heard further opposition to the proposal from the public and private sector members 

who believe the wording in paragraph S.1.1.(c) is adequate to prevent fraud. However, one jurisdiction in support of 

the proposal noted that an indication other than zero would not be acceptable for devices such as a retail motor-fuel 

dispenser since it found dispensers in the field with no zero indication as a result of software changes made to 

indications after type evaluation. Because of varied positions, the Committee changed the status of the proposal 

from a Voting item to an Information item. The Committee asked that the regional weights and measures 

associations consider the proposal during their 2006 fall sessions, being mindful that there are installations where the 

operator is not present to verify a zero-balance condition. 

In the fall of 2006, the WWMA agreed it should be clear that a scale starts a transaction at zero. The WWMA 

believes the proposed modifications to (c) are sufficient and the note that describes when markings are not necessary 

is redundant. The WWMA further asserted that part (2) of the note describing how the device must function is not 

clearly worded. Consequently, the WWMA supported the proposal as a Voting item, but without the addition of the 

proposed note. The SWMA supports the WWMA alternate proposal. 

The CWMA and NEWMA recommend this proposal be withdrawn because the current wording in NIST HB 44 is 

sufficient. 

In fall 2006 the SMA restated its opposition to this proposal because it believes the current provisions of 

paragraph S.1.1.(c), are sufficient to prevent facilitation of fraud. The SMA continues its support of the Weighing 

Sector’s 2005 analysis of the proposal. 

During the 2007 Interim Meeting, WMD continued to support the 1993 and 2004 Committee’s position in favor of 

using markings that explain when indications other than a digital zero indication represent a zero-balance condition 

and making the requirement readily available to current and future field officials. WMD recommended a modified 

proposal eliminating proposed new subparagraph (2), which seemed to create some difficulty for manufacturers in 

the setup of the automatic sequence for resetting the scale to a digital zero indication.

S&T - 11 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

The Committee acknowledged that the weights and measures community is still divided on whether or not markings 

are needed to identify that an other-than-digital zero indication represents a zero-load condition on a scale. The 

Committee also heard a suggestion from both private and public sector members to modify the language to require a 

zero-balance indication that would clarify any ambiguity about the scale's zero-balance condition. The Committee 

agreed the proposal as worded does not get to the source of the problem that can occur should a device be set up to 

start a transaction when a zero condition does not exist. The Committee believes the proposal must go beyond a 

marking requirement. Consequently, the Committee kept the proposal as an Information item and recommends that 

rather than solve the problem with a marking requirement, the Weighing Sector and others affected in the weights 

and measures community provide input on possible modifications to arrive at a proposal that is a nonretroactive 

requirement that specifies the scale must start at a zero indication or have a center-of-zero indicator. 

In response to the Committee's request, WMD submitted an alternative proposal for consideration by the community 

as follows: 

S.1.1. Zero Indication. 

(a) On a scale equipped with indicating or recording elements, provision shall be made to either indicate 

or record a zero-balance condition. 

(b) On an automatic-indicating scale or balance indicator, provision shall be made to indicate or record an 

out-of-balance condition on both sides of zero. 

(c) For Scales Manufactured Between January 1, 1993, and January 1, 200X. – A zero-balance 

condition may be indicated by other than a continuous digital zero indication, provided that an 

effective automatic means is provided to inhibit a weighing operation or to return to a continuous 

digital indication when the scale is in an out-of-balance condition. 

(Added 1987) (Amended 1993 and 200X) 

(d) For Scales Manufactured On or After January 1, 200X. – A zero-balance condition may be 

indicated by other than a continuous digital zero indication, provided that:

i) an effective automatic means is provided to inhibit a weighing operation when the scale is 

out of balance until a digital zero-balance indication is displayed, or

ii) a "center-of-zero" is displayed when the scale is within ± 1⁄4 of a scale division of zero and 

returns to a continuous digital indication when the scale is in an out-of-balance condition 

more than ± 1⁄4 of a scale division.

(Added 200X)

During its development of the alternate proposal, WMD concluded that the “center-of-zero” language in 

paragraph S.1.1.1. Digital Indicating Elements would also need to be amended since the current language in 

paragraph S.1.1.1. does not require the “center-of-zero” indications if the automatic zero-tracking mechanism (AZT) 

maintains the zero-balance condition within ± 1⁄4 d. Therefore, WMD also developed a separate alternate proposal to 

amend paragraph S.1.1.1. in S&T Item 320-2 to require that the “center-of-zero” indication always be provided 

when the zero-balance condition is within ± 1⁄4 d, even when AZT maintains the zero-balance condition within 

± 1⁄4 d. WMD's alternate proposal to amend paragraph S.1.1.1. is similar to an OIML R 76 recommendation in 

Section 4.4.5. that requires a “center-of-zero” indication at all times when the zero balance is within “0.25 e” (and 

for a center-of-zero indication to be allowed after tare has been taken and the device is displaying a “net” zero). 

WMD recommended that the Committee may also want to consider combining S&T Items 320-1 and 320-2 into a 

single proposal because they are so closely related. 

The Committee requested input on this alternate proposal from the weights and measures community. 

At the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard testimony from the CWMA, NEWMA, and SMA 

recommending this item be withdrawn since the current technologies allowed by paragraph S.1.1.(c). are sufficient 

to prevent facilitation of fraud. 

S&T - 12 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

The Committee also heard comments at both the 2007 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings from an NCWM 

member that, as a consumer and weights and measures professional, she believes consumers have a right to have 

adequate information about a transaction, including information to indicate the scale is starting on zero. 

WMD commented that NCWM Publication 14 Digital Electronic Scale (DES) Section 11.8.4 and Electronic Cash 

Registers Interfaced with Scales (ECRS) Section 8 were amended in 2004 to specify that a label is required if the 

scale or electronic cash register (ECR) display returns to a live weight when the scale which is not at a zerobalanced condition are to be used. These changes to Publication 14 were based on a position taken by the 89th S&T 

Committee (2004) after a review of the 78th NCWM S&T Committee (1993) discussions on paragraph S.1.1.(c). 

Zero Indication. 

WMD also provided the Committee with information on the Canadian Type Evaluation and Field Manual 

requirements that defined the term “sleep mode;” and WMD also provided conditions when a scale could enter a 

sleep mode and the procedures to verify the correct operation of the sleep mode. The Canadian requirements state 

that “the device must bear, adjacent to the weight display, the following marking: ‘The device is at zero when in 

sleep mode’ or equivalent statement if the device is allowed to go into a sleep mode with a load on the scale” 

(Specifications Relating to Non-automatic Weighing Devices (1998) Sections 30 to 33, and 41, and Laboratory 

Manual for the Evaluation of Non Automatic Weighing Devices dated January 1997, Sections 10.9 to 10.12, Sleep 

Mode or Displaying Non Metrological Information. 

The Committee agreed there has been significant advancement in technology since the topic of “other than digital 

zero indications” was discussed, and weights and measures officials are more familiar with the technology. The 

Committee also heard from regional associations that officials in their region have not received complaints from the 

general public regarding the lack of a display of digital zero at the start of a transaction. The Committee believes the 

opinion of the 1993 S&T Committee interpretation that requires a label stating a screen saver or scrolling message 

represents zero is no longer valid or necessary. Therefore, a label is not required if the scale is capable of displaying 

non-zero information when it is in the sleep mode if the requirement for an effective and automatic means is 

provided to inhibit a weighing operation or to return to a continuous digital indication when the scale is in an out-ofbalance condition, thereby meeting the provision of paragraph S.1.1.(c). 

Therefore, the Committee agreed to withdraw the item from its agenda. 

For additional background information, refer to the Committee's 2004, 2005, and 2006 Final Reports.

320-2 I S.1.1.1.(b) Digital Indicating Elements 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector 

Recommendation: At the 2007 Annual Meeting, the Committee modified the proposed language developed after 

the 2007 Interim Meeting. The recommendation (as modified by the Committee) currently under consideration by 

the Committee is to amend S.1.1.1. as follows: 

S.1.1.1. Digital Indicating Elements. 

(a) A digital zero indication shall represent a balance condition that is within ± 1⁄2 the value of the scale 

division.

(b) A digital indicating device shall either automatically maintain a "center-of-zero" condition to ± 1⁄4 

scale division or less, or have an auxiliary or supplemental "center-of-zero" indicator that defines 

a zero balance condition to ± 1⁄4 of a scale division or less. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1993] 

Note: The "center-of-zero" indication may also work when zero is indicated for gross load zero or 

after a tare operation.

(Amended 1992 and 200X) 

S&T - 13 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Discussion: Scales Code requirements do not include sufficiently detailed language to identify all types of tare, 

define how tare features must operate, or specify the net and tare values a scale must indicate and record. Current 

HB 44 requirements that address tare include paragraphs S.2.1.6. Combined Zero-Tare ("0/T") Key, S.2.3. Tare, 

S.2.3.1. Monorail Scales Equipped with Digital Indications, and T.N.2.1. General (Tolerances). This Weighing 

Sector proposal is the first of several proposed modifications to HB 44 requirements intended to clarify the 

suitability of tare features already widely used in commercial applications. 

The Weighing Sector developed criteria used to type evaluate tare features based on General Code paragraph G-S.2. 

Facilitation of Fraud and other requirements that apply to indicating and recording elements and recorded 

representations. NTEP laboratories find that it has become increasingly difficult to base its compliance decisions on 

paragraph G-S.2. solely because the general nature of the language results in multiple interpretations. Type 

evaluation criteria are published in NCWM Publication 14; however, this document is not in wide distribution in the 

weights and measures community and only a limited number of weights and measures officials, device 

manufacturers, and device owners and operators are regular participants in Weighing Sector meetings where tare 

evaluation criteria are developed and discussed. Additionally, it is difficult for parties responsible for the design, 

use, and test of the tare feature to interpret and apply technical requirements published in Publication 14. This 

results in differing interpretations of HB 44 requirements. 

In 2006, the NTETC Weighing Sector formed a Tare Work Group (WG) to review existing tare requirements and 

make recommendations about how tare is to operate on a single range scale, a multiple range scale, and a 

multi-interval scale. The WG was also asked to develop, where necessary, recommendations for changes to 

Publication 14, HB 44, and HB 130 and to provide guidance to the Weighing Sector on type evaluation 

requirements. 

The WG is currently developing proposals to amend HB 44 requirements to: 

(1) ensure that a tare feature operates in a manner that increases the accuracy of net weight determinations, 

(2) clearly state what information and values are permitted and required for indicated and recorded 

representations of net weight and tare weight, and 

(3) identify the types (e.g., semiautomatic and stored tares) of tare weight values that are determined at the 

time objects are weighed or tare weight values that are determined prior to the time objects are weighed. 

The Weighing Sector agreed the WG’s proposal to amend paragraph S.1.1.1.(b) further clarifies that an auxiliary or 

supplemental “center-of-zero" indication is permitted with a load on the scale provided tare material is zerobalanced off by the tare mechanism and prescribes that the acceptable limits of accuracy are within ± 1⁄4 scale 

division for the resulting zero net indication. The Weighing Sector recommends the adoption of the proposal as an 

important step in promoting the development of specific language in HB 44 for specifications, test notes, and 

tolerances for different types of tare (e.g., tare, preset tare, percentage tare, etc.). 

The Committee considered the Weighing Sector’s proposal to modify paragraph S.1.1.1. as follows: 

S.1.1.1. Digital Indicating Elements. 

(a) A digital zero indication shall represent a balance condition that is within ± 1⁄2 the value of the scale 

division. 

(b) A digital indicating device shall either automatically maintain a "center-of-zero" condition to ± 1⁄4 

scale division or less, or have an auxiliary or supplemental "center-of-zero" indicator that defines a 

zero balance condition to ± 1⁄4 of a scale division or less. The auxiliary or supplemental 

“center-of-zero” indicator may be operable with a zero net weight indication.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1993] 

(Amended 1992 and 200X) 

S&T - 14 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

The SWMA supported the intent of the Weighing Sector's proposal, but agreed some modifications to the text in 

paragraph S.1.1.1. were needed to clarify that the center-of-zero indicator may be operable when a zero condition 

exists in the net weight mode. The SWMA recommended its alternate proposal move forward as a Voting item. 

The Committee considered the SWMA’s alternate proposal as follows: 

S.1.1.1. Digital Indicating Elements. 

(a) A digital zero indication shall represent a balance condition that is within ± 1⁄2 the value of the scale 

division. 

(b) A digital indicating device shall either automatically maintain a "center-of-zero" condition to ± 1⁄4 

scale division or less, or have an auxiliary or supplemental "center-of-zero" indicator that defines a 

zero balance condition to ± 1⁄4 of a scale division or less. The auxiliary or supplemental 

“center-of-zero” indicator may be operable with a zero condition in the net weight mode.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1993] 

(Amended 1992 and 200X) 

During the Committee's review of the SWMA alternate proposal, WMD recommended the Committee consider 

there may be a possible conflict between the SWMA proposal and 2006 NCWM Publication 14 criteria for zero 

indications in Section 41.5 that prohibits a minus sign from preceding a zero indication. 

The SMA supported the Weighing Sector’s proposal. 

The Committee discussed the possibility of using language in the Weighing Sector's and the SWMA’s proposals to 

modify paragraph S.1.1.(b) because together the proposals included two of three conditions that must be met for a 

center-of-zero indication when the scale is in a zero balance condition. 

The Committee agreed the best approach to developing language to address the operation of a center-of-zero 

indication was to request the NIST technical advisor to the Weighing Sector rework paragraph (b) using language 

similar to Publication 14 criteria that specifies how the center-of-zero must operate at zero gross weight or defines 

when there can be a zero indication of net weight. The Committee received the alternate proposal to amend S.1.1.1. 

as shown below and made it a Voting item in its 2007 Interim Report since this tare-related item focuses only on 

clarifying how the center-of-zero indication operates. 

S.1.1.1. Digital Indicating Elements. 

(a) A digital zero indication shall represent a balance condition that is within ± 1⁄2 the value of the 

scale division. A digital indicating device shall automatically maintain a "center-of-zero" condition 

to ± 1⁄4 scale division and have an auxiliary or supplemental "center-of-zero" indicator that defines 

a zero balance condition to ± 1⁄4 of a scale division or less. The "center-of-zero" indication may also 

work when zero is indicated for:

i. gross load zero, or

ii. after a tare operation.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007]

(b) For A Digital Indicating Elements Manufactured Before January 1, 2007. – device shall either 

automatically maintain a "center-of-zero" condition to ± 1⁄4 scale division or less, or have an 

auxiliary or supplemental "center-of-zero" indicator that defines a zero balance condition to ± 1⁄4 

of a scale division or less. A digital zero indication shall represent a balance condition that is 

within ± 1⁄2 the value of the scale division.

(c) For Digital Indicating Elements Manufactured Between January 1, 1993, and January 1, 2007. –

A digital indicating device shall either automatically maintain a "center-of-zero" condition to 

S&T - 15 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

± 1⁄4 scale division or less, or have an auxiliary or supplemental "center-of-zero" indicator that 

defines a zero balance condition to ± 1⁄4 of a scale division or less.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1993]

(Amended 1992 and 2007) 

At the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard testimony from the CWMA, NEWMA, and SMA 

stating this item has changed from the original intent to verify that zero tracking could be operable in the net mode, 

to now include the addition of other language which alters the requirement even more. For example, in 

paragraph S.1.1.1.(a), by stating “and” instead of “or” would make both requirements mandatory. If “or” is used 

instead of “and,” then this proposal lowers the current requirement of 1⁄2 e to 1⁄4 e. The SMA further stated that 

proposed paragraph (a) adds a dual requirement that is not consistent with Canadian and OIML requirements. 

Therefore, the CWMA, NEWMA, and SMA recommended the status of the proposal be changed to Informational to 

allow time for further consideration.

WMD agreed with the CWMA, NEWMA, and SMA and recommended deleting the additional changes added to the 

proposal (changing “or” to “and,” in addition to requiring all electronic indicators maintain zero to 1⁄4 e). WMD 

suggested the Committee consider amending the proposal as shown in the recommendation to be more consistent 

with the original intent of the NTETC Weighing Sector. WMD also provided the Committee with a second proposal 

to consider at a later date to define the zero condition of a scale with a “center-of-zero” annunciator while the scale 

is in a “sleep mode” if the Committee had chosen to recommend agenda Item 320-1 for a vote. 

The Committee agreed that comments shown in its 2007 Interim report significantly change the original intent of the 

proposal. Additionally, the changes to the center-of-zero indication requirements are in conflict with OIML 

recommendations and Canadian requirements. 

The Committee agreed the status of the item should be changed to Informational and the first alternate proposal 

from WMD become a carry-over item for the 2008 Committee agenda since that text is consistent with the intent of 

the original proposal from the NTETC Weighing Sector. 

320-3 I S.1.2.1. Weight Units and T.N.2.1. General 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector 

Recommendation: Add a new note to paragraph S.1.2.1. and amend paragraph T.N.2.1. as follows: 

S.1.2.1. Weight Units. - Except for postal scales, a digital-indicating scale shall indicate weight values using 

only a single unit of measure. Weight values shall be presented in a decimal format with the value of the scale 

division expressed as 1, 2, or 5, or a decimal multiple or sub-multiple of 1, 2, or 5. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1989]

Note: The requirements that the value of the scale division be expressed only as 1, 2, or 5, or a decimal 

multiple or submultiples of only 1, 2, or 5 does not apply to net weight indications and recorded 

representations that are calculated from gross and tare weight indications where the scale division of the 

gross weight is different from the scale division of the tare weight(s) on multi-interval or multiple range 

scales.

For example, a scale indicating a tare weight of 2 kg in the lower range or segment and a gross weight of 

5 kg in the higher range or segment may indicate a net weight of 3 kg, or a scale indicating a tare weight 

of 20 lb in the lower range or segment and a gross weight of 50 lb in the higher range or segment may 

indicate a net weight of 30 lb.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1989] 

(Added 1987) (Amended 200X)

S.2.3. Tare. – On any scale (except a monorail scale equipped with digital indications and multi-interval 

scales or multiple range scales when the value of tare is determined in a lower range), the value of the tare 

division shall be equal to the value of the scale division.* The tare mechanism shall operate only in a backward 

S&T - 16 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

direction (that is, in a direction of underregistration) with respect to the zero-load balance condition of the scale. 

A device designed to automatically clear any tare value shall also be designed to prevent the automatic clearing 

of tare until a complete transaction has been indicated.* 

(Amended 1985) 

[Note: On a computing scale, this requires the input of a unit price, the display of the unit price, and a 

computed positive total price at a readable equilibrium. Other devices require a complete weighing operation, 

including tare, net, and gross weight determination]* 

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1983]

(Amended 200X)

T.N.2.1. General. – The tolerance values are positive (+) and negative (-) with the weighing device adjusted to 

zero at no load. When tare is in use, the tolerance values are applied from the tare zero reference (zero net 

indication); the tolerance values apply to the net weight indication for any possible tare load using certified 

test loadsonly. 

(Amended 200X)

Discussion: In 2006, the NTETC Weighing Sector formed a Tare WG to review existing tare requirements and 

make recommendations about how tare is to operate on a single range scale, multiple range scale, and multi-interval 

scale. The WG was also asked to develop, where necessary, recommendations for changes to Publication 14, 

HB 44, and HB 130 and to provide guidance to the Weighing Sector on related type evaluation requirements. 

This proposal, which was developed by the Tare WG and supported by the Weighing Sector, adds a new note to 

paragraph S.1.2.1. The note recognizes display and printing of net weight values in divisions other than the scale 

division used in the display of gross weight, resulting in a more accurate net weight determination. 

The proposal also amends paragraph T.N.2.1. to clarify that tolerances also apply to net weight indications 

regardless of the gross load on the scale. The Tare WG reviewed OIML R 76 "Nonautomatic Weighing 

Instruments" for corresponding requirements to determine if there were areas where HB 44 could be aligned with 

international recommendations. Based on that review, the WG agreed that HB 44 paragraph T.N.2.1. should be 

modified to state that tolerances also apply to net load indications. 

The Tare WG discussed problems associated with determining the appropriate direction to round tare on multiinterval scales and multiple range scales whenever gross and tare weights fall in different weighing segments on a 

multi-interval scale or in different weighing ranges on multiple range scales. In these cases, the scale division size 

for the gross and tare weights differ; however, the net weight must be in mathematical agreement with the gross and 

tare weights that are indicated and recorded by the device (i.e., gross weight - tare weight = net weight). 

The problem arises when the tare weight is rounded up to the next larger scale division where the net weight falls in 

the higher segment or range. For example, a 0.004 lb tare weight in a weighing range or segment with 0.002 lb 

intervals in the lower weighing range or segment may round to zero when the net weight falls in the upper weighing 

range with 0.01 lb intervals: 

 10.05 lb Gross Weight 

 – 0.004 lb Tare Weight

 10.046 lb the Mathematically Correct Net Weight; 

 

 However, due to rounding of tare weight the device indicates 10.05 lb Net Weight 

This results in a transaction where a commodity is bought or sold on the basis of gross weight or an insufficient 

amount of tare weight is taken and results in a misrepresentation of net weight for the transaction. Essentially, the 

rounding of tare that falls in a smaller division in either direction (e.g., a 0.015 lb tare weight rounded down to zero 

or to 0.01 lb or up to 0.02 lb) provides a less accurate net weight. 

S&T - 17 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

The Tare WG developed a corresponding proposal for the Automatic Weighing Systems Code to clarify the 

appropriate scale division values and the application of tolerances to tare weights for those devices (see S&T 

Item 324-1). 

The SWMA supports the recommendation; however, the SWMA also agreed that an additional note should be added 

to paragraph S.2.3. Tare. The new note proposed for paragraph S.2.3. clarifies that the requirement does not apply 

to multi-interval scales or multiple range scales when tare is determined in the lower range of those scales. 

WMD agreed it might be more appropriate if the proposed new note explains that gross weight and calculated tare 

weight are expressed as an "indicated weight value" rather than as a "scale value.” WMD notes that the proposed 

SWMA text is necessary to clarify that tare weights are excluded from the requirement that specifies weight values 

must be the same as the scale division value. However, the SWMA’s proposal needs further work to better explain 

if only part or the entire paragraph does not apply to tare weights indicated on either a multi-interval or multiple 

range scale and to clarify the relationship of paragraph S.1.2.1. to corresponding paragraph S.2.3. WMD also asked 

if it was the SWMA's intent that this newly proposed note be a retroactive or nonretroactive requirement, and if 

nonretroactive, then what is an appropriate effective date? 

The SMA supports the Weighing Sector's proposal, but recommended the proposed new note become a 

subparagraph of paragraph S.1.2.1. and include a modification to the proposed new text in paragraph T.N.2.1. to 

require the net weight indication for “any” rather than “every” possible tare load using certified test loads. The 

Committee agreed to the SMA’s recommended changes to paragraph T.N.2.1. and modified the proposal 

accordingly. 

The Committee deliberated at length on this item and S&T Items 320-5 and 320-9, which are all meant to clarify the 

distinct differences in how various tare features are permitted to operate. The Committee agreed that ultimately 

neither the buyer nor seller should incur a loss as a result of an inaccurate calculation of a tare weight. Much of the 

weights and measures community has not had the opportunity to discuss these proposals nor has the Tare WG or 

Weighing Sector had time to analyze feedback on these proposed changes to the Scales Code and corresponding 

proposals to change the AWS Code (see Items 324-1 and 324-3). The Committee agreed that all proposals related to 

the operation of the tare feature should be Information items to ensure all aspects of the operation of tare features are 

adequately addressed and clearly defined for both the public and private sector. 

During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments from the CWMA and NEWMA 

supporting this item with recommendations to change the word “value” to “division” and incorporating the SWMA 

recommendation to modify paragraph S.2.3. 

NEWMA pointed out that the proposed amendment to S.1.2.1. appears to be permissive and not a requirement and 

asked if the intent was to prohibit multi-interval and multiple range scales from rounding and indicating calculated 

net weights in scales divisions to only 1, 2, or 5 when appropriate or if rounding the scale divisions of 1, 2, or 5 was 

still allowed? The WMD representative to the NCWM Tare WG stated that the intent is for the language to be 

permissive because there are a significant number of devices with an NTEP CC in the marketplace that round the 

tare values before calculating net weights. 

The Committee made several modifications to the proposal: 

- to clarify the examples in the proposed note to paragraph S.1.2.1., and 

- to clarify that the SWMA proposed modification to the language in S.2.3 for an exception for multi-interval and 

multiple range scales only applies to the requirement that the value of tare shall be equal to the value of the 

scale division. 

The Committee also agreed that the words “scale value” should be changed to “scale division” to be consistent with 

the terminology currently used in HB 44 and recommends that the NIST technical advisor forward the amended 

proposal to the Tare WG and NTETC Weighing Sector for their consideration and comment. 

S&T - 18 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

320-4 D S.1.4.6. Height and Definition of Minimum Reading Distance, UR.2.10. Primary Indicating 

Elements Provided by the User, UR.2.11. Minimum Reading Distance, and Definitions of 

Minimum Reading Distance and Primary Indications 

(The status of this item was changed to “Developing” during the January 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting and was 

moved to Appendix A as Item 360-2: Developing Items Part 1, Item 1 Scales.) 

During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee was informed that the NTETC Weighing Sector intends to 

continue developing this item before asking the Committee to consider the issue on its agenda. 

320-5 W S.2.1.7. Tare Rounding on a Multiple Range Scale 

(This item was withdrawn) 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Discussion: The Committee considered an SWMA proposal to add a new paragraph S.2.1.7. to the Scales Code as 

follows:

S.2.1.7. Tare Rounding on a Multiple Range Scale. – A multiple range scale with tare capability must 

indicate and record values that satisfy the equation:

net = gross - tare

and round the tare value up to the larger division size when entering the larger division.

(Added 200X)

A recent reversal of a 10-year-old NTEP policy now permits the operation of tare on multiple range scales to round 

down, thus overstating the quantity. The SWMA believes the Weighing Sector’s decision to round tare down should 

be addressed by all members of the NCWM. The proposal was developed to eliminate any conflict in the operation 

of the tare function on multiple range scales in the determination of a net weight. 

Currently, there may be a conflict between HB 44 requirements and NCWM Publication 14 policy for rounding tare 

values on multiple range scales. HB 44 General Code paragraph G-S.5.2.2.(c) Digital Indication and Representation 

requires that digital values round off to the nearest minimum unit that can be indicated or recorded. Also in question 

is a possible conflict with NIST HB 130 guidelines for Packaging and Labeling Regulations Section 6.13. Rounding, 

which specifies that in no case shall rounded values result in overstating the net quantity. NTEP is also revising its 

tare criteria through its Tare WG to ensure no further conflict with HB 44. 

At their fall 2006 meetings, the regional weights and measures associations considered this SWMA proposal as part 

of ongoing work by the Weighing Sector Tare WG. However, the SWMA intended it to be a separate proposal that 

addressed only tare rounding policies and procedures for multiple range scales. The WWMA believes the issue of 

tare capability is complex and the proposal also needs to address the suitability of the tare division size, the current 

prohibition of division sizes other than 1, 2, and 5, the scale application (buying or selling), and other issues that 

relate to tare. For these reasons, the WWMA believes the proposal should be thoroughly developed in the NTETC 

Weighing Sector prior to forwarding it to the NCWM S&T Committee for action. Consequently, the WWMA 

recommended withdrawing the SWMA proposal. The CWMA and NEWMA opposed this proposal as presented 

and agreed to await further input from the Weighing Sector Tare WG. 

During its 2006 meeting, the SWMA considered its proposal an urgent matter warranting an upgrade in status from 

Developing to an item that is ready for national consideration. The SWMA reported that a majority of the Weighing 

Sector believes the criteria noted in Publication 14 for use in type evaluation of devices with the tare feature are not 

supported by HB 44 requirements. The SWMA agreed that the decision to permit rounding keyboard tare down on 

multiple range scales is facilitation of fraud. For example, the customer and the operator observe that a tare weight 

S&T - 19 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

was entered in the lower range of a multiple range scale, yet when the gross weight is in a higher weighing range, 

the customer is not provided with “clear, definite, accurate” indications that tare has been reduced. 

The SWMA recognizes that OIML permits rounding tare down, but believes that customers are not able to make 

adjustments in unit prices to compensate for losses when tare is rounded down, whereas businesses can adjust the 

price to compensate for overhead expenses and losses that occur if tare is rounded up. 

The SWMA provided discussion and examples to support its position as follows: 

History

The operation of “tare” on a weighing device was first addressed in detail in 1971. In the 1971 Committee's 

Final Report (see NIST Special Publication (SP) 358, Page 170), the rationale for adding paragraph S.2.3. Tare 

Mechanism to HB 44 was to ensure net weight was represented for commodities sold directly over computing 

scales and to recognize new developments in device technology. Tare capability and its operation were again 

addressed in S&T Item 301-3 Tare in the 1980 Committee's Final Report (see NIST SP 599, page 216). The 

report noted “a key factor is the requirements in paragraphs G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud and G-S.5.1. Indicating 

and Recording Elements, General specify the indications to be clear, definite, accurate, and easily read by all 

parties involved in the weighing operation.” 

The SWMA notes that some believe General Code paragraph G-S.5.2.2. Digital Indication and Representation 

is intended to address the rounding of tare to the nearest minimum unit when it was amended in 1973. 

However, the Committee's 1980 Final Report notes only General Code paragraphs G-S.2. and G-S.5.1. 

Furthermore, there is no evidence in any of the Final Reports that the Committee agreed that the practice of 

rounding tare up, which has been NTEP policy, is in conflict with HB 44. 

In 2006, the NIST technical advisor to the Weighing Sector contacted two members of the 1980 NCWM S&T 

Committee and determined that the focus of tare discussions were on single range scales, rather than multiinterval scales and multiple range scales, and followed rounding rules listed in HB 44. Consequently, specific 

interpretations or proposals were needed to determine how requirements apply to multi-interval and multiple 

range devices. 

The SWMA provided an example to make its point that if no tare is taken, the store has sold less than the 

quantity represented. Consider an example where a store's deli is selling cheese for $7/lb and the weight of the 

roll of wrapping paper used in the deli is 40 lb. Sections of the wrap used in individual transactions are not 

heavy enough to register on the scale during a single transaction; however, if no tare is taken, the store collects 

an extra $280 (40 lb x $7/lb). The store controls the unit price for the commodity and selects the tare material 

and the resolution for the scale that it uses. The SWMA heard the argument that the store is losing money if it 

is forced to round tare up. The SWMA's response to that argument is to remind everyone that businesses view 

such losses as part of overhead expenses, which they most typically compensate for by making adjustments to 

their unit prices. The customer does not have the ability to adjust or bargain on the unit price. 

The SWMA notes that the loss to the customer when tare is rounded down is larger when scale error is on the 

plus side, even though the scale is within accuracy tolerances. In this case, the SWMA does not believe scale 

error is a justification for selling less than the quantity represented. For example, given a 30 lb x 0.01 lb scale: 

The scale has an internal error of plus (+) 0.012 lb, which is displayed as 0.01 lb, which is within maintenance 

tolerance. However, if the tare material used weighs 0.004 lb, there is an increased loss to the customer from 

0.01 lb to 0.02 lb since 0.012 lb + 0.004 lb = 0.016 lb would be displayed as 0.02 lb on the scale. 

OIML 

Historically, weights and measures officials have been against rounding tare down. But what should occur if 

you are rounding to the nearest division? Is zero considered a division? The SWMA acknowledges that zero is 

a division. The OIML Secretariat of TC 9/SC 1 for Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments R 76 noted in his 

response to the U.S. inquiry on that same question that “of course, rounding the tare value to zero is possible if 

S&T - 20 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

it is less than 0.5 ei (interval of the weighing segment) of the actual range i (interval).” Multiple range scales 

meet R 76 rounding criteria when they round to zero. However, R 76 Section 4.13.3.2 Semi-automatic Tare 

Device specifies that an instrument may be fitted with semi-automatic tare devices if the action of the tare 

device does not permit a reduction of the value of tare. 

The SWMA notes that there is not consensus within the international weighing and measuring community to 

allow tare to round down. A direct quote of The Netherlands’ position on the latest draft of R 76 (in regard to 

4.6.12.5. Multi-interval instrument with a preset tare device) was “In principle the conclusion that with e = 2 g 

the value of 3 g can be rounded to 2 g or 4 g is correct. However could we not agree in this Recommendation 

that 1 g or 3 g always will be rounded up (because in the case where e = 1 g, a tare value of 0.5 g is always 

rounded up).” 

Application of Tare Rounding Criteria 

On multi-interval scales tare is restricted to the smallest division, thus eliminating the possibility of rounding 

tare below its actual weight. For example, criteria for rounding tare on a multiple range scale results in a tare 

value of 12 lb in Range 1 (e = 1 lb), but when the net weight causes the scale to switch to Range 2 (e = 10 lb), 

the tare value would become 10 lb. 

The Tare WG considered that the problems of tare rounding can be demonstrated in the following which 

illustrates some of the losses that can occur to parties involved in a transaction that is conducted on a multiple 

range scale where different rules for rounding are applied: 

Given a multiple range scale where, 

 Capacity of the first range = 60 lb; scale division of the first range = 0.01 lb 

 Capacity of the second range = 300 lb; scale division of the second range = 0.1 lb 

No Rounding 

of Tare or Net 

Tare Rounded Down 

to Nearest Division 

in the 2nd Range 

Tare Rounded Up 

to Nearest Division 

in the 2nd Range 

Gross 266.2 lb (falls in 2nd range) 266.2 lb (falls in 2nd range) 266.2 lb (falls in 2nd range) 

Tare 53.44 lb (falls in 1st range) 53.4 lb (falls in 2nd range) 53.5 lb (falls in 2nd range) 

Net 212.76 lb 212.8 lb 212.7 lb 

Rounding Error 0.0 lb 0.04 lb (consumer's loss) 0.06 lb (store's loss) 

A multiple range scale is viewed as two separate scales even though it has two or more weighing ranges with 

different maximum capacities and different scale intervals, each extending from zero to its maximum capacity 

all on the same load receptor. A multiple range scale is basically multiple scales in a single housing. Current 

practices do not allow rounding of tare to zero with completely separate scales when the results of weighments 

on both scales are used to determine the gross, net, and tare weight. Indicators totalizing multiple weighing 

elements are required to calculate the total weight based on the smallest scale division to eliminate problems 

with inaccurate net weights. 

Conclusion 

The SWMA agreed that, if the real issue is protecting both the retailer and the consumer, perhaps what should 

be looked at is: (1) the suitability of the scale division based on unit price and/or application, (2) limiting the 

multiple of the scale division difference between the weighing ranges, (3) reducing the allowable tolerance, and 

(4) limiting the initial determination of the tare, gross, and net to the same weighing range. 

The SWMA believes all multiple range scales currently evaluated by NTEP should not round tare down when 

changing to a higher scale division. For over ten years, the NTEP checklist test criteria for multiple range and 

multi-interval devices in NCWM Publication 14 has always been that tare will round up to the nearest scale 

division. 

S&T - 21 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

The SMA supports the proposal provided the last sentence is modified to reflect the rounding requirements in HB 44 

Appendix A – Fundamental Considerations, Section 10 “Rounding Off Numerical Values.” 

WMD agreed with the SWMA concern that the resulting net weight may be inaccurate when tare is rounded down 

or to zero. A device owner is still responsible for ensuring accurate net weight at time of sale regardless of how a 

scale operates. Device requirements in HB 44 are not meant to create conflicts with weights and measures law or 

the principles of NIST Handbook 133. WMD believes that part of the solution to this problem is addressed in S&T 

Item 320-3, which is a proposal to permit tare to be expressed in a value other than the scale division value of 1, 2, 

or 5. Furthermore, the equipment selected for use in the transaction must be suitable for that application and, 

therefore, must not facilitate inaccuracies when rounding weight values and must not misrepresent the net weight at 

the time of sale. The following table shows an example where the tare is 0.004 lb and the scale division is 0.01 lb. 

The table compares the results of weighments when tare is rounded up or down to the nearest division: 

No Tare Rounding 

(lb) 

Tare Rounding to the Nearest 

Scale Division (lb) 

Tare Rounding Up 

(lb) 

 10.05 Gross Weight 10.05 Gross Weight 10.05 Gross Weight 

0.004 Tare Weight 0.00 Tare Weight 0.01 Tare Weight 

10.046 Actual Net Weight 10.05 Net Weight 10.04 Net Weight 

 10.050 Displayed Net Weight 

Results in an accurate tare weight, 

because the tare weight is indicated in a 

value other the scale division of 1, 2, or 5 

as proposed in S&T Item 320-3. This is 

only a partial solution because even 

though the tare weight is accurate, the net 

weight is rounded to the nearest division, 

which results in overstating the net 

weight. Rounding will occur and 

depending on its direction can result in 

either overstating or understating the net 

weight. 

Results in an error of 0.004 lb in 

the net weight, if existing General 

Code paragraph G-S.5.2.2.(c) is 

applied. No tare is deducted. 

Results in an error of 0.006 lb as 

proposed in S&T Item 320-5. 

The Committee considered the conflicts with this proposal where tare is rounded up and the proposed language in 

S&T Items 320-3 and corresponding Automatic Weighing Systems Item 324-1 where no tare rounding is permitted. 

The proposal in Item 320-5 will frequently result in an inaccurate net weight. In cases where tare is rounded up, the 

losses that occur in a transaction will depend on whether the commodity is bought (operator loss) or sold (customer 

loss) based on that inaccurate net weight. The Committee agreed the most appropriate method for calculating 

weight values during a transaction was to permit tare to have a value other than that of a scale division of 1, 2, or 5 

when that increment more accurately represents the tare value. The Committee believes this provision will, at least 

in part, address the concerns of the SWMA. Consequently, the Committee withdrew this proposal from its agenda 

since the proposal forces the scale to always round up regardless if the scale owner is a seller or buyer and it treats 

tare rounding differently between single range and multiple range scales. The Committee also requested the 

Weighing Sector continue its work on Items 320-3, 320-9, 324-1, and 324-3 to develop procedures and associated 

terminology that results in a more accurate determination of net weight and a better understanding of tare features 

and functions. 

S&T - 22 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

320-6 V N.1.3.1. Bench or Counter Scales, N.1.3.8. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging 

Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel–Load Weighers, and Portable Axle-Load Weighers, and 

Appendix D, Definitions of Bench Scale and Counter Scale 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Carryover Item 320-3. (This item originated from the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

(NTETC) Weighing Sector and first appeared on the Committee’s 2005 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Delete paragraph N.1.3.1. and renumber subsequent paragraphs. 

N.1.3. Shift Test. 

N.1.3.1. Bench or Counter Scales. – A shift test shall be conducted with a half-capacity test load 

centered successively at four points equidistant between the center and the front, left, back, and right 

edges of the load-receiving element.

Add new paragraph N.1.3.3. as follows: 

N.1.3.4.3 Vehicle Scales, Axle-Load Scales, and Livestock Scales. 

N.1.3.3. Prescribed Test Patterns and Test Loads for Two-Section Livestock Scales. A shift test shall 

be conducted using the following prescribed test loads and test patterns, provided the shift test load 

does not exceed one-half the rated section capacity or one-half the rated concentrated load capacity, 

whichever is applicable, using either:

(a) a one-quarter nominal capacity test load centered as nearly as possible, successively, over each 

main load support as shown in N.1.3.7. Figure 2; or

(b) a one-half nominal capacity test load centered as nearly as possible, successively, at the center of 

each quarter of the load-receiving element as shown in N.1.3.7. Figure 1.

Renumber and amend paragraph N.1.3.8. as follows: 

N.1.3.87. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel-Load 

Weighers, and Portable Axle-Load Weighers. A shift test shall be conducted using the following 

prescribed test loads and test patterns. A single field standard weight used as the prescribed test 

load shall be applied centrally in the prescribed test pattern. When multiple field standard 

weights are used as the prescribed test load, the load shall be applied in a consistent pattern in 

the shift test positions throughout the test and applied in a manner that does not concentrate the 

load in a test pattern that is less than when that same load is a single field standard weight on the 

load-receiving element.For livestock scales, shift test shall not exceed one-half the rated 

section capacity or one-half the rated concentrated load capacity, whichever is applicable. A shift 

test shall be conducted using either:

(a) For scales with a nominal capacity greater than 500 kg (1000 lb), a shift test may be conducted 

by either using a one-third nominal capacity test load (defined as test weights in amounts of at 

least 30 % of scale capacity, but not to exceed 35 % of scale capacity) centered as nearly as 

possible at the center of each quadrant of the load-receiving element using the prescribed test 

pattern as shown in Figure 1 below, or by using a one-quarter nominal capacity test load 

centered as nearly as possible, successively, over each corner of the load-receiving element using 

the prescribed test pattern as shown in Figure 2 below.

(b) For scales with a nominal capacity of 500 kg (1000 lb) or less, a shift test shall be conducted using 

a one-third nominal capacity test load (defined as test weights in amounts of at least 30 % of 

scale capacity, but not to exceed 35 % of scale capacity) centered as nearly as possible at the 

S&T - 23 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

center of each quadrant of the load-receiving element using the prescribed test pattern as shown 

in Figure 1 below.

(a) A one-quarter nominal capacity test load centered as nearly as possible, successively over 

eachmain load support as shown in the diagram below; or

(b) A one-half nominal capacity test load centered as nearly as possible, successively at the center of 

each quarter of the load-receiving element as shown in the diagram below.

(Amended 1987,and 2003, and 2007)

Delete the diagrams that correspond to existing paragraphs N.1.3.8.(a) and (b) and add new Figures 1 and 2 to 

correspond with proposed revisions to N.1.3.8. as follows: 

Figure 1 Figure 2 

Position 

1

Position 

2 Position 

1 

Position 

2 

 

 

Position 

4

Position 

3 Position 

4

Position 

3

(Added 2003) 

 (Amended 2007)

Delete Appendix D definitions for “bench scale” and “counter scale” as follows: 

bench scale. See "counter scale."[2.20]

counter scale. One that, by reason of its size, arrangement of parts, and moderate nominal capacity, is 

adapted for use on a counter or bench. Sometimes called "bench scale."[2.20]

Discussion: The proposal was intended to clarify the appropriate shift test pattern and test loads for scales currently 

designated as bench/counter scales and other platform-type scales. Currently, bench and counter scale shift tests are 

conducted with a one-half capacity test load centered successively at four points equidistant between the center and 

the front, left, back, and right edges of the load-receiving element. Shift tests for other platform scales are 

conducted with a one-half capacity test load centered, as nearly as possible, successively at the center of each 

quadrant. The proposal eliminates references to bench and counter scales and instead prescribes that the shift test 

load and test pattern used for those and all scales other than livestock be based on the scale’s nominal capacity. For 

livestock scales the proposal further clarifies, but does not change, the existing requirements for shift tests. 

In 2005, the proposal was kept on the agenda as an Information item. This was in response to comments indicating 

that data should be collected on shift tests to verify that the proposed test loads and positions are equivalent to 

existing test patterns and to allow the data to be reviewed by the Weighing Sector, NIST, and the NTEP laboratories. 

During the 2006 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received data comparing shift tests conducted using 

current shift test requirements and shift tests on the same scales using the proposed test requirements (a test load of 

one-third the scale's capacity). There was no demonstrated difference in scale performance based on the location of 

S&T - 24 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

the scale, thus the terms “bench” and “counter” should be eliminated. In response to that data, comments were 

received from the public and private sectors in support of the proposal. 

In response to comments from the weights and measures community, the Committee modified the entire proposal to 

include language that is technically correct and consistent in its description of how to conduct a shift test on all types 

of scales. The Committee modified the language to: (1) clarify what defines “acceptable” weight values for a test 

load that is one-third of the scale’s nominal capacity, (2) ensure uniform procedures are followed when applying test 

weights on the load-receiving element, (3) eliminate instances where test weights are concentrated in a pattern that 

overload the load-bearing points as illustrated in the example below, and (4) change the scale capacity that is used as 

the basis for the shift test load from 150 kg (300 lb) to 500 kg (1000 lb) to align the proposed one-third capacity shift 

test load requirement with existing minimum test weight requirements for the greater of 25 % device capacity or 

300 lb for devices with 1000 lb capacity already specified in Table 4. Minimum Test Weights and Test Loads. 

The Committee considered an example of a livestock scale with a section capacity of 1000 lb: a shift test is 

performed as shown in Figure 1 using a test load of 500 lb. While 100 lb test weights are not commonly used or 

available, they are used in this example to illustrate the concept of uniformity when applying a test load in a 

specified pattern on the load-receiving element. 

S&T - 25 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Figure 1: Application of Test Weights 

One 500 lb test weight applied in the 

center of the quadrant 

Five 100 lb test weights not uniformly applied 

and not concentrated in the quadrant 

Five 100 lb test weights uniformly 

applied, but not in the quadrant 

Test Weights Applied as Prescribed in Proposed

Paragraph N.1.3.7. 

Five 100 lb test weights uniformly applied and 

concentrated in the center of the quadrant 

Test Weights Not Applied as Prescribed in Proposed

Paragraph N.1.3.7.

Five 100 lb test weights uniformly applied, but the 

load is concentrated in a pattern in the quadrant 

that is less than that of the single 500-lb test weight

At the 2006 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed there was sufficient data and a consensus for 

presenting the proposal for a vote at the meeting. During the voting session, the Committee heard concerns that 

substantive changes were made to the livestock scale requirements and it should revisit earlier proposed language. 

The Committee explained those changes were only a reorganization of the text. The vote on the item did not yield a 

sufficient number of positive or negative votes for the item to be accepted or defeated and, therefore, the proposal 

was returned to the Committee for further action. The Committee requested jurisdictions to review carefully the 

consistency that exists between the proposed language and current HB 44 requirements for livestock scales and to 

provide input on alternate language that might be more appropriate and/or further clarify the shift tests and test loads 

for these devices. 

S&T - 26 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

The WWMA S&T Committee had the opportunity to review an alternate proposal that was to be presented to the 

NTETC Weighing Sector in September 2006. The WWMA S&T Committee liked the direction of the Weighing 

Sector’s alternate proposal, which clarified shift test procedures in livestock scale applications, addressed shift test 

patterns for circular platforms, and eliminated some of the redundant text. Since the Weighing Sector members 

would not have the opportunity to review and agree on the alternate language until after the WWMA meeting, the 

WWMA recommended the proposal as an Information item. 

The CWMA supported most of the Committee's 2006 recommendation, but suggested some alternate wording to 

modify and renumber paragraph N.1.3.8.(b) to read as follows: 

N.1.3.87. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel-Load Weighers, and 

Portable Axle-Load Weighers. 

(b) For scales with a nominal capacity of 500 kg (1000 lb) or less, a shift test shall be conducted using up 

to 50 % nominal capacity test load (defined as test weights in amounts of at least 30 % of scale 

capacity, but not to exceed 50 % of scale capacity) centered as nearly as possible at the center of each 

quadrant of the load-receiving element using the prescribed test pattern as shown in Figure 1 below.

The CWMA developed this alternate recommendation with the intent that jurisdictions would have more flexibility 

in using their existing test weights. 

Based on the comments received during the 2006 NCWM Annual Meeting, the NIST technical advisor to the 

Weighing Sector amended the proposal as summarized below to: 

(1) Make it clear that no significant changes are being made to requirements for two-section livestock scales; 

(2) Simplify the language for the shift test on “Other” scales; 

(3) Group the livestock scale shift test requirements together; 

(4) Change the order of the “test notes” so that the more common type of scales are listed first; and 

(5) Include minor editorial suggestions on existing language. 

Figure 1: NIST Handbook 44 Shift Test at One-Half Capacity 

The Weighing Sector considered this alternate proposal along with a comment solicited from the PTB and one 

industry consultant indicating there is a higher risk of overloading one of the (multiple) supports by using a one-half 

capacity load in an eccentric loading test pattern than by using a one-third capacity load. This appears to stem from 

the difference in test method between HB 44 and OIML R 76. In other words, HB 44 more or less assumes a 

rectangular platform and places the load at a point on a line halfway from the center to the edge as illustrated in 

Figure 1. 

OIML R 76 recognizes that platforms exist in other shapes (e.g., square, triangular, or circular platforms) as 

illustrated in Figure 2. 

S&T - 27 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Figure 2: OIML R 76 – Quadrants shown for platforms of devices with four or fewer points of support 

Thus, since OIML R 76 depends more on placing the eccentric load in a prescribed section of the total area of the 

platform rather than on a specific line, they more or less trust the load will be placed at the center of the quadrant 

according to the figures illustrated in OIML R 76 for scales with four or fewer supports. The end result of both 

methods, especially for rectangular platforms, is more or less the same. 

During subsequent discussions, several Weighing Sector members stated that the proposed language was 

unnecessary since there was no technical justification to change the current language in HB 44. Additionally, the 

proposed language would prohibit weights and measures officials from using one-half capacity even though the 

scale could be weighing loads up to one-half scale capacity that are not in the center of the platform. In contrast, the 

NIST technical advisor stated that there was no technical reason to use procedures different than those in R 76. 

(Note: Manufacturers have stated in past discussions that they have to adjust the scales differently for scales 

intended for North America and scales intended for countries that adopt OIML recommendations.) 

Another industry consultant cited text from the 1915 edition of the precursor to HB 44 (see Section 10 for Counter 

Balances and Scales, page 19), noting that the shift test loads and positions have not changed in 91 years. 

Measurement Canada reported that the proposal to amend HB 44 would be in conflict with their current 

requirements; however, in the past they have indicated a commitment to align their requirements with OIML R 76. 

One scale manufacturer reminded the Sector that the test load positions were also changed in the proposal and that 

the proposed change to one-third scale capacity puts a different torque on the load cell that is roughly equivalent to 

current forces when using current HB 44 test loads and positions. 

Based on a vote of 11 in favor of and 8 against withdrawing the proposal to amend current HB 44 shift test 

procedures and shift test loads, the Weighing Sector agreed to withdraw their support for the proposal and 

recommended that the proposal be withdrawn from the Committee's agenda. 

The SMA and NEWMA supported the Committee's 2006 proposal. 

The SWMA recommended withdrawing this proposal from the S&T Agenda, but provided no rationale for this 

position. 

WMD recommended the next step should be to ascertain if manufacturers have sufficient data to support the 

changes in test procedures for devices equipped with single and multiple load cells. 

The Committee agreed the proposal includes suitable requirements for a minimum test load and test patterns for off 

center loading based on field data and input from manufacturers and officials. In response to concerns about 

changes to shift test requirements for livestock scales, the Committee deleted all references in its 2006 proposal to 

livestock scales in paragraph N.1.3.8. and placed those requirements in a proposed new paragraph N.1.3.3.3. 

Keeping livestock scale requirements under one heading seemed a more appropriate approach since 

paragraph N.1.3.4. is proposed to be renumbered to N.1.3.3. and already addresses the shift test procedures for all 

other types of livestock scales. The Committee considered the NIST recommendation for OEM data to support the 

proposal from an engineering standpoint. As of the 2007 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings, the Committee had 

heard opposition from OEMs and wanted to move in the direction of harmonization where the proposal is an 

accepted practice. 

S&T - 28 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

During the 2007 NCWM Annual meeting, the Committee heard comments from a jurisdiction that the current test is 

more stringent than the proposed shift tests and recommended the proposal be amended to permit an optional shift 

test to be conducted with a test load of: 

- one-half scale capacity centered successively at four points equidistant between the center and the front, left, 

back, and right edges of the load-receiving element, and 

- one-half scale capacity centered as nearly as possible, successively, at the center of each quarter of the 

load-receiving element. 

Another jurisdiction commented that the proposed shift test loads and positions are equivalent with the current 

HB 44 shift tests for scales with one load support and may be less stringent with scales with four load supports. 

Manufacturers concurred that the proposed shift test loads and positions are equivalent with the current HB 44 shift 

tests for scales with one load support and may be less stringent with scales with four load supports. Manufacturers 

also expressed concerns with the comment that both types of shift tests should be performed on scales and would 

prefer that the proposal be withdrawn rather than having two different methods for conducting shift tests. 

The Committee considered the comments and concluded that both methods for conducting shift tests are equivalent. 

Additionally, the Committee opposes having two different methods, noting this would promote nonuniformity of 

tests between service agents, weights and measures officials, and among weights and measures jurisdictions. 

The Committee believed there is sufficient support for this item with the correction of the references to Figures 1 

and 2 in proposed paragraphs N.1.3.3.3.(a) and N.1.3.3.3.(b). The Committee further modified paragraph N.1.3.3.3. 

to reverse the order of the paragraphs (a) and (b) so each paragraph appears in the same order as its corresponding 

figures 1 and 2. 

Consequently, the Committee agreed to present the item for a vote. 

For more background information, refer to the Committee's 2005 and 2006 Final Reports. 

320-7 VC N.1.3.6.1. Dynamic Monorail Weighing Systems 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA)

Recommendation: Modify paragraph N.1.3.6.1. as follows: 

N.1.3.6.1. Dynamic Monorail Weighing Systems. – Dynamic tests with livestock carcasses shall should be 

conducted during normal plant production to duplicate actual use conditions. No less than 20 test loads 

using carcasses or portions of carcasses of the type normally weighed shall should be used in the dynamic test; 

two additional test loads may be included in the test run for use in the event that one or two test loads 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 conveyer chain does not space or prevent the carcasses or 

portions of carcasses from touching one another, dynamic tests shall should not be conducted until this 

condition has been corrected. 

All carcasses or portions of carcasses shall be individually weighed statically on either the same scale being 

tested dynamically or another monorail scale with the same or smaller divisions and in close proximity. (The 

scale selected for static weighing of the carcasses or portions of carcasses shall first be tested statically with 

certified test weights that have been properly protected from the harsh environment of the packing plant 

to ensure they maintain accuracy.) 

S&T - 29 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

If the scale being tested is used for weighing freshly slaughtered animals, (often referred to as a "hot scale") 

care must be taken to get a static weighment as quickly as possible before or following the dynamic weighment 

to avoid loss due to shrink. If multiple dynamic tests are conducted using the same carcasses or portions of 

carcasses, static weights shall be obtained before and after multiple dynamic tests. If the carcass or portion of 

a carcass changes weight between static tests, the amount of weight change shall should be taken into account, 

or the carcass or portion of a carcass shall should be disregarded for tolerance purposes. 

(Note: For a dynamic monorail test, the reference scale shall comply with the principles in the Fundamental 

Considerations paragraph 3.2. Tolerances for Standards.) 

(Added 1996) (Amended 1999 and 2007) 

Discussion: The CWMA supported this item and recommended it move forward for national consideration. The 

CWMA heard testimony from the USDA Packers and Stockyards Administration that the proposal clarifies that the 

device should be tested while in production and the extra two carcasses referenced in the current language are only 

for replacement purposes in cases where carcass weight loss occurs as a result of influences other than from the 

device being tested. The extra carcasses were not intended to replace erroneous or outlying device readings. 

The Committee supported the proposal along with the SWMA recommendation to include a requirement for the use 

of certified weights in paragraph N.1.3.6.1. (2nd paragraph) to clarify the appropriate procedures to test the scale 

used for the static weighing of carcasses. 

During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard testimony from the submitters of this item that 

some applications weigh portions of carcasses. The submitters made the following recommendations: (1) the 

proposed language be amended to clarify that the tests also apply to portions of carcasses; (2) the requirements that 

the tests be conducted during normal plant operation should be mandatory and not permissive; and (3) the word 

“should” be changed to “shall.” 

The Committee agreed with comments that the test of a dynamic monorail scale be conducted during normal plant 

operation because tests conducted when the plant is not in normal operation may not represent an “as used” 

condition. Therefore, the Committee changed all references to the word “should” in paragraph N.1.3.6.1. to “shall” 

to clarify when the test must be performed. The Committee also agreed with a comment that the words “or portions 

of carcasses” should be inserted where appropriate in the proposed text to recognize that carcasses are frequently 

split in half prior to normal weighing. 

Consequently, the Committee agreed to present the modified item for a vote. 

320-8 W Table 4. Minimum Test Weights and Test Loads 

(This item was withdrawn) 

Source: Carryover Item 320-4. (This item originated from the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association 

(NEWMA) and first appeared on the Committee’s 2006 agenda.)

Discussion: The Committee considered an earlier NEWMA proposal to modify Table 4. Minimum Test Weights 

and Test Loads as follows: 

S&T - 30 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Discussion: The Committee considered an earlier NEWMA proposal to modify Table 4. Minimum Test Weights and 

Test Loads as follows: 

Table 4. 

Minimum Test Weights and Test Loads1

Minimums (in terms of device capacity) 

Device capacity Test weights (greater of) Test 

loads2

(where practicable) 

0 to 150 kg 

(0 to 300 lb) 100 % 

151 to 1 500 kg 

(301 to 3 000 lb) 25 % or 150 kg (300 lb) 75 % 

1 501 to 20 000 kg 

(3 001 to 40 000 lb) 12.5 % or 500 kg (1 000 lb) 50 % 

20 001 kg+ to 

250 000 kg (40 001 lb+

to 500 000 lb)

12.5 % or 5 000 kg (10 000 lb) 25 %3

250 001 kg+ 

(500 001 lb+)

12.5 % OR 30 000 KG 

(62 500 LB) 

25 %3

Test weights to dial face capacity, 

1 000 d, or test load to used capacity, if 

greater than minimums specified. 

During initial verification a scale 

should be tested to capacity.

1

 If the amount of test weight in Table 4 combined with the load on the scale would result in an unsafe condition, then 

the appropriate load will be determined by the official with statutory authority. 

2

 The term "test load" means the sum of the combination of field standard test weights and any other applied load used 

in the conduct of a test using substitution test methods. Not more than three substitutions shall be used during 

substitution testing, after which the tolerances for strain load tests shall be applied to each set of test loads. 

3

 The scale shall be tested from zero to at least 12.5 % of scale capacity using known test weights, and then to at least 

25 % of scale capacity using either a substitution or strain load test that utilizes known test weights of at least 12.5 % 

of scale capacity. Whenever practical, a strain load test should be conducted to the used capacity of the scale. When 

a strain load test is conducted, the tolerances apply only to the test weights or substitution test loads. 

(Amended 1988, 1989, 1994, and 2003) 

[Note: GIPSA requires devices subject to their inspection to be tested to at least “used capacity,” which is calculated 

based on the platform area of the scale and a weight factor assigned to the species of animal weighed on the scale. 

“Used capacity” is calculated using the formula: 

Used Scale Capacity = Scale Platform Area x Species Weight Factor 

Where species weight factor = 540 kg/m2

 (110 lb/ft2) for cattle, 340 kg/m2 (70 lb/ft2) for calves and hogs, and 

240 kg/m2

 (50 lb/ft2) for sheep and lambs]

(Amended 200X)

Field officials are faced with determining the minimum test load necessary to verify the performance of scales with 

nominal capacities that exceed 1 000 000 lb. Since January 2006, the Committee has considered several proposed 

modifications to Table 4, which included listing the minimum and maximum test weights and test loads for devices 

with capacities that exceed 500 001 lb. However, this action has not resulted in any new guidelines beyond the 

existing minimum test load requirements in Table 4. 

The Committee further acknowledged that officials might have difficulty placing the recommended minimum 25 % 

test load on some load-receiving elements such as railway track scales with two small platforms with a dead space 

between them because this configuration limits the size of each platform. In its earlier reviews of this item, the 

Committee agreed that until the submitter develops alternate language and data to justify specific minimum load 

requirements that warrant a change to existing HB 44 requirements, the proposal should remain an Information item. 

S&T - 31 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

The WWMA discussed the proposal and heard one comment that recommended the proposal specify only 62 500 lb 

of minimum test weights in the proposed new device capacity range that exceeds 500 001 lb. The WWMA believes 

that the carryover proposal does not change the requirements in Table 4, even though the proposed text specifies the 

amount of test weights for scale capacities that exceed 500 000 lb. The WWMA also believes that data may be 

needed to demonstrate what is an adequate amount of test weight for scales with capacities that exceed 500 000 lb. 

Consequently, the WWMA recommended the proposal be withdrawn. 

The CWMA recommended this proposal be withdrawn, but provided no rationale for its position. 

NEWMA recommended that HB 44 provide flexible guidelines for determining the minimum acceptable test load 

when testing high-capacity scales. At its October 2006 meeting, NEWMA developed an alternate proposal which 

modified Table 4 as follows to address devices with a capacity up to 500 000 lb and to allow some flexibility by 

eliminating the last column. 

Table 4. 

Minimum Test Weights and Test Loads1

Minimums (in terms of device capacity) 

Device capacity Test weights (greater of) Test 

loads2

(where practicable)

0 to 150 kg 

(0 to 300 lb) 100 % 

151 to 1 500 kg 

(301 to 3 000 lb) 25 % or 150 kg (300 lb) 75 % 

1 501 to 20 000 kg 

(3 001 to 40 000 lb) 12.5 % or 500 kg (1 000 lb) 50 % 

20 001 kg+ to 

250 000 kg (40 001 lb+

to 500 000 lb)

12.5 % or 5 000 kg (10 000 lb) 25 %3

250 001 kg (500 001 lb) 12.5 % OR 30 000 KG 

(62 500 LB) 

25 %3

Test weights to dial face capacity, 

1 000 d, or test load to used capacity, 

if greater than minimums specified

During initial verification, a scale 

should be tested to capacity

1

 If the amount of test weight in Table 4 combined with the load on the scale would result in an unsafe condition, then 

the appropriate load will be determined by the official with statutory authority. 

. 

. 

. 

Where species weight factor = 540 kg/m2

 (110 lb/ft2) for cattle, 340 kg/m2 (70 lb/ft2) for calves and hogs, and 

240 kg/m2

 (50 lb/ft2) for sheep and lambs]

The SMA supported the carryover proposal with modifications for removing the proposed new minimum 

requirement for “12.5 %” test weights and any reference to the original footnote 3 from the fifth row of the table.

At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee determined there was insufficient support at the national level 

for this proposal and the data that supported adopting the proposed minimum test weight and test loads for devices 

that exceed 500 001 lb capacities had not been provided. Therefore, the Committee withdrew this proposal from its 

agenda. 

320-9 I Appendix D; Definitions for Tare Mechanism, Gross Weight Value, Net Weight, Net Weight 

Value, Tare, and Tare Weight Value 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector 

Recommendation: Modify the definition for “tare mechanism” and add new definitions for “gross weight value,” 

“net weight,” “net weight value,” “tare,” and “tare weight value” to Appendix D. 

S&T - 32 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Amend the following definition for “tare mechanism:” 

tare mechanism. A mechanism (including a tare bar) designed for determining or balancing out the weight of 

packaging material, containers, vehicles, or other materials that are not intended to be included in net weight 

determinations and for setting the indication to zero when the tare object is on the load-receiving element:

1. by reducing the weighing range for net loads (e.g., subtractive tare where Net Weight + Tare 

Weight ≤ Gross Weight Capacity), or

2. without altering the weighing range for net load on mechanical scales (e.g., additive tare 

mechanism such as a tare bar on a mechanical scale with a beam indicator).

The tare mechanism may function as:

1. a non-automatic mechanism (load balanced by an operator),

2. a semi-automatic mechanism (load balanced automatically following a single manual command),

3. an automatic mechanism where the load is balanced automatically without the intervention of an 

operator. An automatic tare mechanism is only suitable for indirect sales to the customer (e.g., 

prepackaging scales).

[2.20, 2.24] 

(Amended 200X)

Add the following new definitions to Appendix D: 

gross weight value. Indication or recorded representation of the weight of a load on a weighing device 

with no tare mechanism in operation.[2.20, 2.24]

(Added 200X)

net weight. The term "net mass" or "net weight" means the weight of a commodity excluding any 

materials, substances, or items not considered to be part of the commodity. Materials, substances, or 

items not considered to be part of the commodity include, but are not limited to, containers, conveyances, 

bags, wrappers, packaging materials, labels, individual piece coverings, decorative accompaniments, and 

coupons, except that, depending on the type of service rendered, packaging materials may be considered 

to be part of the service. For example, the service of shipping includes the weight of packing 

materials.[2.20, 2.24]

(Added 200X)

net weight value. Indication or recorded representation of the weight of a load placed on a weighing 

device after the operation of a tare mechanism.[2.20, 2.24]

(Added 200X)

tare. The weight of packaging material, containers, vehicles, or other materials that are not intended to 

be part of the commodity included in net weight determinations.[2.20, 2.24]

(Added 200X)

tare weight value. The weight value of a load determined by a tare mechanism.[2.20, 2.24]

(Added 200X)

Discussion: This Weighing Sector proposal is one of several proposed modifications to HB 44 requirements 

intended to clarify the acceptable tare features already recognized for use in commercial applications. Scales Code 

requirements do not include sufficiently detailed language to identify all types of tare, define how tare features must 

operate, or specify the net and tare values a scale must indicate and record. Current HB 44 requirements that 

address tare include paragraphs S.2.1.6. Combined Zero-Tare ("0/T") Key, S.2.3. Tare, S.2.3.1. Monorail Scales 

Equipped with Digital Indications, and T.N.2.1. General (Tolerances). 

The Weighing Sector has developed criteria used to type evaluate tare features based on General Code 

paragraph G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud and other requirements that apply to indicating and recording elements and 

recorded representations. NTEP laboratories find that it has become increasingly difficult to base its compliance 

S&T - 33 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

decisions solely on paragraph G-S.2. because the general nature of the language results in multiple interpretations. 

Type evaluation criteria are published in NCWM Publication 14; however, this document is not in wide distribution 

in the weights and measures community. In addition, only a limited number of weights and measures officials, 

device manufacturers, and device owners and operators are regular participants in Weighing Sector meetings where 

tare evaluation criteria are developed and discussed. Additionally, it is difficult for parties responsible for the 

design, use, and test of the tare feature to interpret and apply technical requirements published in Publication 14. 

This results in differing interpretations of HB 44 requirements. 

In 2006 the NTETC Weighing Sector formed a Tare WG to review existing tare requirements and make 

recommendations on how tare should operate on a single range scale, a multiple range scale, and a multi-interval 

scale. The WG also was asked to develop, where necessary, recommendations for changes to Publication 14, 

HB 44, and HB 130 and to provide guidance to the Weighing Sector on type evaluation requirements. 

The WG is currently developing proposals to amend HB 44 requirements to: 

(1) ensure that a tare feature operates in a manner that increases the accuracy of net weight determinations, 

(2) clearly state what information and values are permitted and required for indicated and recorded 

representations of net weight and tare weight, and 

(3) identify the types of tare weight values (e.g., semiautomatic and stored) determined at the time objects are 

weighed or tare weight values are determined prior to the time objects are weighed. 

At its 2006 meeting, the Weighing Sector agreed to submit a proposal to the NCWM S&T Committee to amend 

HB 44 Appendix D by amending the term “tare mechanism" and adding new tare definitions to ensure a uniform 

understanding of the terminology used in HB 44. 

The SWMA supported the proposal, but also believed the wording of the definition for "net weight" (which 

referenced the HB 130 definition of tare) should appear in Appendix D rather than have the reader refer to NIST 

HB 130 for that information. Consequently, the SWMA recommended adding the complete definition of "net 

weight" from HB 130 to the proposal as shown in the recommendation above. 

The SMA supported the intent of the proposal, but recommended the proposal be returned to the Weighing Sector 

for further development and subsequent review by the regional weights and measures associations. 

WMD noted there should be a corresponding proposal in the Automatic Weighing Systems (AWS) Code since the 

terms also apply to those devices. Both proposals should be discussed and eventually voted on as a block. 

The Weighing Sector submitted a single proposal (S&T Item 320-9), which included modified and new definitions 

for tare and related weight values that referenced HB 44 Sections 2.20. Scales and 2.24. Automatic Weighing 

Systems. The Committee agreed that for procedural reasons, a separate corresponding proposal should have 

appeared in its 2007 S&T Agenda in Section 3.24. for AWS. A separate item is more appropriate because some in 

the community, due to time constraints and interests, will focus only on specific device sections in the agenda. 

Therefore, the Committee developed a separate proposal for automatic weighing systems that now appears in this 

report as new S&T Item 324-3. For the sake of brevity, the Committee kept the proposed text for both applications 

under S&T Item 320-9 to ensure a similar outcome since devices in both Code Sections 2.20. and 2.24. are affected 

by the definitions. The Committee will consider this item and new S&T Item 324-3 jointly during all future 

sessions. 

The Committee further modified the proposed formula for subtractive tare in subparagraph one that appears in the 

definition of “tare mechanism” to clarify that the combined net and tare net weight value should not exceed the 

permissible gross weight capacity. The Committee agreed that lengthy discussions on all of the tare proposals 

demonstrate that, although it is necessary to address tare, the matter is too complex to move forward without a more 

thorough review of all related proposals by the Weighing Sector and weights and measures jurisdictions. 

Consequently, the Committee recommended this proposal and other related proposals addressing tare features 

remain as Information items for further review and development. The Committee also agreed that all tare related 

items, when ready, should be presented for voting as a block.

S&T - 34 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

321 BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS 

321-1 I UR.2.2.(n) Belt Alignment 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA)

Recommendation: Modify paragraph UR.2.2.(n) as follows: 

UR.2.2. Conveyor Installation 

(n) Belt Alignment. – The belt shall be centered on the idlers in the weighing area and shall track in 

practically the same position whether empty or loaded. The belt shall not extend beyond the edge of the 

idler roller in any area of the conveyor.

(Amended 1998 and 2007) 

Background/Discussion: During the 2006 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee considered the 

recommendation from the NCWM review panel’s recommendations and comments from industry. The review panel 

indicated the proposal should have included national data that demonstrated a need for modifying paragraph UR.2.2. 

and should be a Developing item until such data is provided. At that time, one representative from the belt-conveyor 

scale service industry indicated there are too many factors that influence belt tracking to ensure a belt is centered at 

all times. The service representative recommended that the belt should not extend beyond the edge of the idler roller 

in any area of the conveyor on the carrying side or touch holding brackets on the return side to reduce any 

detrimental effects on accuracy. Industry representatives indicated the design of idlers and scales are such that the 

belt is not intended to stay in the exact center. Industry also indicated no mechanism is available to monitor the 

belt’s tracking 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. Industry requested specifications for what constitutes either “center” 

or an acceptable “range of center” for belt tracking. Although the 2005 SWMA reported the proposal was ready for 

national consideration, the Committee agreed it was more appropriate to make the proposal a Developing item until 

there is some clear indication that belt alignment can be tracked for maintenance and accuracy purposes. 

At its 2006 meeting, the WWMA agreed with concerns about the difficulties in tracking belt alignment and agreed it 

should first be determined if there are mechanisms capable of monitoring this feature before establishing device 

requirements. Consequently, the WWMA recommended this item be withdrawn from the agenda. 

The CWMA does not believe this proposal should move forward without more information from industry. 

In 2006 the SWMA recommended the proposal remain a Developing item, but indicated if industry provides no 

additional input, the item should be withdrawn from the Committee's agenda. 

During the 2007 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments that the BCS Code requirements are far too 

prescriptive when compared to the language in other scale code sections and device operators, manufacturers, and 

officials are able to detect improper belt alignment either through belt wear or in the system's performance. The 

Committee agreed the proposed language was sufficiently developed and should be upgraded from a Developing 

item to an Information item in this report in order to receive additional input and national data demonstrating the 

need for amending paragraph UR.2.2. The Committee requested input from all stakeholders, including a review by 

the National Weighing and Sampling Association by the 2007 Annual Meeting, before it will consider the proposal 

ready for adoption. 

During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard testimony that a work group of the National 

Weighing and Sampling Association is working on this item and will have a recommendation for the Committee 

prior to the 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

S&T - 35 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

324 AUTOMATIC WEIGHING SYSTEMS 

324-1 I S.1.2. Value of Division Units and T.2.1. General 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector 

Recommendation: Add a new note to paragraph S.1.2. and amend paragraph T.2.1. as follows: 

S.1.2. Value of Division Units. – The value of a division d expressed in a unit of weight shall be equal to: 

(a) 1, 2, or 5; or 

(b) a decimal multiple or submultiple of 1, 2, or 5. 

Note: The requirements that the value of the scale division be expressed only as 1, 2, or 5, or a decimal 

multiple or submultiples of only 1, 2, or 5 does not apply to net weight indications and recorded 

representations that are calculated from gross and tare weight indications where the scale division of the 

gross weight is different from the scale division of the tare weight(s) on multi-interval or multiple range 

scales.

For example, a scale indicating a tare weight of 2 kg in the lower range or segment and a gross weight of 

5 kg in the higher range or segment may indicate a net weight of 3 kg, or a scale indicating a tare weight 

of 20 lb in the lower range or segment and a gross weight of 50 lb in the higher range or segment may 

indicate a net weight of 30 lb.

(Note Added 200X)

S.2.2. Tare. – On any automatic weighing system (except for multi-interval scales or multiple range scales 

when the value of tare is determined in a lower range) the value of the tare division shall be equal to the value 

of the scale division. The tare mechanism shall operate only in a backward direction (i.e., in a direction of 

underregistration) with respect to the zero-load balance condition of the automatic weighing system. A device 

designed to automatically clear any tare value shall also be designed to prevent the automatic clearing of tare 

until a complete transaction has been indicated. 

Note: On a computing automatic weighing system, this requires the input of a unit price, the display of the unit 

price, and a computed positive total price at a readable equilibrium. Other devices require that a transaction or 

lot run be completed. 

(Amended 2004 and 200X) 

T.2.1. General. – The tolerance values are positive (+) and negative (-) with the weighing device adjusted to 

zero at no load. When tare is in use, the tolerance values are applied from the tare zero reference (zero net 

indication); the tolerance values apply to the net weight indication for any possible tare load using certified 

test loadsonly. 

(Amended 200X)

Discussion: In 2006 the NTETC Weighing Sector formed a Tare WG to review existing tare requirements and 

make recommendations on how tare is to operate on a single range scale, multiple range scale, and multi-interval 

scale. The WG was also asked to develop, where necessary, recommendations for changes to Publication 14, 

HB 44, and HB 130 and to provide guidance to the Weighing Sector on type evaluation requirements. 

This proposal developed by the Tare WG and supported by the Weighing Sector adds a new note to paragraph S.1.2. 

The note recognizes display and printing of net weight values in divisions other than the scale division used in the 

display of gross weight, resulting in a more accurate net weight determination. 

The proposal also amends paragraph T.2.1. to clarify that tolerances also apply to net weight indications regardless 

of the gross load on the scale. To determine if there were areas where HB 44 could be aligned with international 

recommendations, the Tare WG reviewed OIML R 76 “Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments” for corresponding 

S&T - 36 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

requirements. Based on that review, the WG agreed that HB 44 paragraph T.2.1. should be modified to state that 

tolerances also apply to net load indications. 

The Tare WG discussed problems associated with determining the appropriate direction to round tare on multiinterval scales and multiple range scales whenever gross and tare weights fall in different weighing segments on a 

multi-interval scale or in different weighing ranges on multiple range scales. In these cases, the scale division size 

for the gross and tare weights differ; however, the net weight must be in mathematical agreement with the gross and 

tare weights indicated and recorded by the device (i.e., gross weight - tare weight = net weight). 

The problem arises when the tare weight is rounded up to the next larger scale division, where the net weight falls in 

the higher segment or range. For example, a 0.004 lb tare weight in a weighing range or segment with 0.002 lb 

intervals in the lower weighing range or segment may round to zero when the net weight falls in the upper weighing 

range with 0.01 lb intervals: 

 10.05 lb Gross Weight 

 – 0.004 lb Tare Weight

 10.046 lb the Mathematically Correct Net Weight; 

 

However, because the tare weight will be rounded to zero in the upper range, the device indicates 10.05 lb 

Net Weight. 

This results in a transaction where a commodity is bought or sold on the basis of gross weight (as shown in the 

example above) or when an insufficient amount of tare weight is taken and results in a misrepresentation of net 

weight for the transaction. Essentially, the rounding of tare that falls in a smaller division in either direction

provides a less accurate net weight than if the tare weight were not rounded. 

The Tare WG developed a corresponding proposal for the Scales Code to clarify the appropriate scale division 

values and the application of tolerances to tare weights for those devices (see S&T Item 320-3). 

The SWMA supports the recommendation; however, the SWMA also agreed that an additional note should be added 

to paragraph S.2.2. Tare (as shown in the recommendation above) to eliminate any conflict with proposed changes 

to paragraph S.1.2. The new note proposed for paragraph S.2.2. clarifies that the requirement does not apply to 

multi-interval scales or multiple range scales when tare is determined in the lower range of those scales. 

WMD agreed that it might be more appropriate if the proposed new note explains that gross weight and calculated 

tare weight are expressed as an "indicated weight value" rather than as a "scale value.” WMD notes that the 

proposed SWMA text is necessary to clarify that tare weights are excluded from the requirement that specifies tare 

weight values must be the same as the scale division value. However, the SWMA’s proposal needs further work to 

clarify that only part of the entire paragraph applies to tare weights indicated on either a multi-interval or multiple 

range scale and to clarify the relationship of paragraph S.1.2. to corresponding paragraph S.2.2. WMD also asked if 

it was the SWMA's intent that this newly proposed note be a retroactive or nonretroactive requirement, and if 

nonretroactive, then what is an appropriate effective date? 

The SMA supports the Weighing Sector proposal, but recommends the proposed new note become a subparagraph 

of paragraph S.1.2. and a modification to the proposed new text in paragraph T.2.1. to require the net weight 

indication for “any” rather than “every” possible tare load using certified test loads. The Committee agreed to the 

SMA’s recommended changes to paragraph T.2.1. and modified the proposal accordingly. 

The Committee deliberated at length on this item and S&T Items 320-5, 320-9, and 324-3, which are all meant to 

clarify the distinct differences in how various tare features are permitted to operate. The Committee agreed that 

ultimately neither the buyer nor seller should incur a loss as a result of inaccurate calculation of a tare weight. Much 

of the weights and measures community has not had the opportunity to discuss these proposals nor has the Tare WG 

or Weighing Sector had time to analyze feedback on these proposed changes and corresponding proposals to 320-3 

and 324-3 to make changes to the Scales Code and the AWS Code, respectively. The Committee agreed that all 

proposals related to the operation of the tare feature should be Information items to ensure all aspects of the 

S&T - 37 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

operation of tare features are clearly defined for the public and private sectors and its operation is adequately 

addressed. 

During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments from the CWMA and NEWMA 

supporting this item with recommendations to change the word “value” to “division” and incorporate the SWMA 

recommendation to modify paragraph S.2.2. 

NEWMA pointed out that the proposed change to paragraph S.2.1. appears to be permissive and not a requirement 

and asked if the intent was to prohibit multi-interval and multiple range scales from rounding and indicating 

calculated net weights in scale divisions to only 1, 2, or 5 when appropriate or if rounding the scale divisions of 1, 

2, or 5 was still allowed? The WMD representative to the NCWM Tare WG stated that the intent was for the 

language to be permissive because there are a significant number devices with NTEP CCs in the marketplace that 

round the tare values before calculating net weights. 

The Committee made several modifications to the proposal: 

- to clarify the examples in the proposed note to paragraph S.1.2., and 

- to clarify the SWMA proposed modification to the language in S.2.2. for an exception for multi-interval and 

multiple range scales only applies to the requirement that the value of tare shall be equal the value of the scale 

division. 

The Committee also agreed that the words “scale value” should be changed to “scale division” to be consistent with 

the terminology currently used in HB 44 and recommends that the NIST technical advisor forward the amended 

proposal to the Tare WG and NTETC Weighing Sector for their consideration and comment. 

324-2 VC Note 5 Table S.7.b. Notes for Table S.7.a.; Temperature Range 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector 

Recommendation: Amend Note 5 in Table S.7.b. as follows: 

5. Required only on automatic weighing systems if the temperature range on the NTEP CC is other

narrower than and within –10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F). 

(Amended 2007)

Add new paragraph T.2.X. as follows: 

T.2.3. Subsequent Verification Examination. – For subsequent verification examinations, the tolerance 

values apply regardless of the influence factors in effect at the time of the conduct of the examination. 

(Also see G-N.2.)

(Added 2007)

Background/Discussion: Questions periodically arise about whether or not a device is suitable for field operation 

based on the limited temperature range the device is subjected to under type evaluation. In other cases a device's 

suitability is questioned when the temperature limits marked on the device are narrower or wider than the –10 °C to 

40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F) temperature range referenced in HB 44. In 2005, the NTETC Weighing Sector established a 

policy where its laboratories will only test and issue approvals over the –10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F) 

temperature range because of the limitations of its environmental chambers and safety concern for laboratory staff 

working in high temperature environments. In 2006 the Weighing Sector asked for the Committee’s interpretation 

of how to apply temperature limits given the climatic conditions developed in the laboratory and those that exist in 

real-world environments. 

Most HB 44 Section 2 and Section 5 device codes include requirements for marking equipment with temperature 

limits. Many of those codes include specific conditions for marking a temperature range on commercial equipment. 

S&T - 38 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Weighing devices are required to perform within tolerance over the temperature range of –10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F to 

104 °F). The temperature range of –10 °C to 40 °C was selected as the low and high climatic limits of operation to: 

(1) align U.S. and International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) environmental conditions for performance 

tests, (2) keep within a range that represents at least 80 % of the climatic conditions for meeting performance 

requirements in military specifications for electronic equipment, and (3) duplicate the conditions typically found in 

most outdoor environments. Current OIML recommendations for temperature test levels for electronic equipment 

are left to each nation based on the severity of climatic conditions where the instrument is typically in use. 

In 1991 the NCWM S&T Committee provided guidelines on how to apply temperature range marking requirements 

and the appropriate use of a scale that is marked for use in a temperature range narrower or wider than –10 °C to 

40 °C. Device manufacturers are required to mark the equipment’s working temperature range when it is narrower 

or wider than –10 °C to 40 °C. Device codes also specify the minimum difference between the lower and upper 

limits of the temperature range based on the device’s accuracy class. 

The following text is excerpted from Item 320-3 of the 1991 Final S&T Report and includes the Committee’s 

interpretation on marking requirements for temperature ranges on scales that should be included in the training 

modules for scales: 

Temperature Range of –10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F): 

This case has two parts. The conclusion is the same whether or not the temperature range is marked on the 

device. 

If a temperature range is not marked on the scale, the device must be accurate over the range of –10 °C to 

40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F). If a temperature range is not marked on a device with an NTEP Certificate of 

Conformance, it was tested over a temperature range of –10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F). 

If a device is marked with a temperature range of –10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F), the marking is not 

considered to be a limitation to its application. The device may be used outside the specified temperature 

range, but the device must be accurate in the environment in which it is used since Scales Code 

paragraph T.N.2.3. Subsequent Verification Examination applies. The marking of the temperature range 

-10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F) is optional. 

Marked Temperature Range Less Than –10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F): 

If a device is marked with a temperature range less than –10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F), then the 

environment in which the device is used must be evaluated to determine if the device is suitable for use in that 

application. The device cannot be used in an environment in which the temperatures exceed the temperature 

limits marked on the device. 

Marked Temperature Range Greater Than –10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F): 

If a device is marked with a temperature range greater than –10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F) this indicates a 

scale of higher quality than a scale without a temperature marking for devices within the same accuracy class 

and of the same scale division value. This fact may be used as a marketing tool in the same manner as the 

maximum number of scale divisions, nmax. A scale marked with a wider temperature range is tested during 

type evaluation over the marked temperature range. 

No changes were made to HB 44 temperature marking requirements until 1998 when the Weighing Sector identified 

a discrepancy between HB 44 and Publication 14 National Type Evaluation Program Administrative Procedures, 

Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures in the requirement for marking temperature ranges on scales. 

HB 44 required that Class III, III L, and IIII devices be marked with a temperature range if the temperature limits are 

other than –10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F). However, some sections of Publication 14 stated that these devices 

must be marked with a temperature range if the temperature range is narrower than –10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F to 

104 °F). 

S&T - 39 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

In 1998 the Weighing Sector discussed instances where is it permissible to use a device if the device is marked with 

a specific temperature range or a range is listed on a CC. The Sector agreed that, if possible, the requirement should 

harmonize with OIML. OIML R 76 Clause 3.9.2.1. Prescribed Temperature Limits states, “If no particular working 

temperature is stated in the descriptive markings of an instrument, this instrument shall maintain its metrological 

properties within the following temperature limits: –10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F).” 

Subsequently, the Committee considered a proposal to modify Scales Code Table S.6.3.b. Notes for Table S.6.3.a., 

Note 5. to read as follows: 

5. Required only on Class III, III L, and IIII scales devices if the temperature range on the NTEP CC is other

narrower than and within –10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986]

The Committee agreed that although the modifications to Note 5 are less restrictive, they appear to more adequately 

describe the temperature marking requirements and eliminate any conflict between HB 44 and Publication 14. 

During the 1999 Annual Meeting, hearing no unfavorable comments on this proposal, the Conference adopted the 

item, and it remains the same today. 

In 2006 the Sector questioned why requirements that address equipment operating at temperatures outside the -10 °C 

to 40 °C temperature range, such as Scales Code paragraph T.N.2.3. Subsequent Examination Verification, are not 

included in all weighing device codes. The Sector also noted there are inconsistencies in the language that specifies 

temperature requirements throughout the weighing device codes. The Weighing Sector agreed this is an important 

issue and recognized that the Committee needed time to research the codes and policies established on this topic. 

Consequently, the Weighing Sector request became a Developing item on the Committee's 2006 agenda. 

The Weighing Sector agreed that no evaluation would be conducted for temperature ranges outside of laboratory 

capabilities, which are –10 °C to 40 °C while it awaited input from the Committee. The Weighing Sector’s ad hoc

policy is contrary to an earlier 1991 NTEP policy where NTEP agreed to require testing to demonstrate compliance 

with the manufacturer’s specified temperature range, including accepting data from recognized and approved 

laboratories for tests performed under the oversight of an NTEP lab at temperature ranges that exceeded the –10 °C 

to 40 °C temperature range.

At their fall 2006 meetings, the regional weights and measures associations reviewed the proposal in its former 

status as a Developing item (Part 4, Item 1) that did not include any recommendation to modify HB 44. The 

WWMA agreed the proposal is predominantly a type evaluation laboratory issue and should be considered at the 

next meeting of the Automatic Weighing System WG. The WWMA may revisit the issue at a later date if it is 

deemed necessary to modify HB 44 to adequately address temperature requirements. The WWMA recommended 

the issue remain a Developing item while the NCWM S&T Committee and Weighing Sector develop a position that 

can be published for review. 

The CWMA recommended that the Automatic Weighing Systems Code reflect HB 44 Scales Code T.N.8. Influence 

Factors. NEWMA supported the CWMA recommendation. 

At the conclusion of its 2006 meeting, the Weighing Sector agreed that the NIST technical advisor would prepare 

and submit to the SWMA proposed changes to Note 5 as shown in the recommendation above. The Sector agreed 

that any corresponding changes to other codes should first be evaluated by the appropriate NTETC sector. 

The Weighing Sector believes that its 2005 technical policy defining the scope of temperature testing conducted by 

NTEP is not in conflict with the 1991 S&T Committee's position since the 1999 modification to Note 5 resulted in a 

link of the temperature range marking requirement to the range listed on the CC. The Sector also agreed that the CC 

does not cover devices marked with a larger temperature range than what is listed on the CC. For example, an 

NTEP CC that lists a temperature range of –5 °C to +30 °C would not cover a device that was not marked with a 

temperature range or a device marked with a –5 °C to +45 °C temperature range. 

The Sector agreed with the concerns from the NTEP laboratories that testing over increasing temperature ranges 

may become a health and safety issue and that existing temperature chambers are limited in their capabilities to 

S&T - 40 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

perform temperature tests over wider ranges. Additionally, the Sector recommended the NCWM S&T Committee 

reconsider amending the Committee’s 1991 position on temperature requirements to correspond with the Sector’s 

current marking requirement policy that recognizes health and safety concerns and the limitations of NTEP 

laboratory testing equipment. 

The SWMA agreed the Weighing Sector's proposal should move forward as a Voting item on the NCWM S&T 

Committee's agenda. However, both the SWMA and WMD recommended including in the proposal a new 

paragraph T.2.X. Subsequent Verification Examination that was inadvertently overlooked by the Weighing Sector. 

A new paragraph T.2.X. Subsequent Verification Examination, which now appears in the recommendation, clarifies 

how field devices must operate under temperature conditions outside of the range for type evaluation. 

The Committee agreed it is appropriate to include a new tolerance paragraph based on Scales Code 

paragraph TN.2.3. Subsequent Verification Examinations to address what tolerances must apply during subsequent 

verification of the device when temperature conditions are outside of those during initial verification. The 

Committee made one editorial revision to text that appeared in its January 2007 agenda changing "or the 

examination" to "of the examination" in proposed new paragraph T.2.X. as shown in the above recommendation. 

The Committee believed the proposal with these modifications was ready for a vote at the July 2007 NCWM Annual 

Meeting. 

During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments that there may be some confusion with 

the use of the word “subsequent verification” and that the proposed tolerance paragraph would not be applicable to 

the initial verification after the device was installed. 

The Committee believed that “subsequent verification” as used in the AWS Code is any test other than type 

evaluation examinations, and the Committee has not received any comments of problems with similar terminology 

and language in Scales Code paragraph T.N.2.3. Subsequent Verification. The Committee noted that the definition 

for “initial verification” in HB 44 Appendix D may be the source of confusion. This definition, however, is only 

applicable to Section 2.21 Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems. 

Additionally, the Committee agreed to recommend numbering the proposed paragraph as shown above and 

renumbering current paragraph T.2.3. Multiple Range and Multi-Interval Automatic Weighing Systems to T.2.4. 

Consequently, the Committee agreed to present the modified item for a vote. 

324-3 I Appendix D; Definitions for Tare Mechanism, Gross Weight Value, Net Weight, Net Weight 

Value, Tare, and Tare Weight Value 

Source: S&T Committee 

Recommendation: Modify the definition for “tare mechanism” and add new definitions for “gross weight value,” 

“net weight,” “net weight value,” “tare,” and “tare weight value” to Appendix D that apply to Section 2.24. 

Automatic Weighing Systems. These are the definitions shown in the “Recommendation” for Item 320-9. 

Discussion: At the 2007 Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed that for procedural reasons a separate 

corresponding proposal should have appeared on its 2007 S&T Agenda in Section 324 for Automatic Weighing 

Systems. Therefore, the Committee developed a separate proposal for automatic weighing systems that now appears 

in this report as new S&T Item 324-3. The Committee recommends that new S&T Item 324-3 along with a 

corresponding proposal to apply these definitions to devices that fall under the Scales Code S&T Item 320-9, be 

discussed and considered jointly during all deliberations. In the interest of brevity, the Committee placed all 

recommendations, discussion, and background information for this proposal in S&T Item 320-9 because the 

proposed definitions apply to both applications; this ensures both proposals are addressed collectively. 

S&T - 41 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

330 LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES 

330-1 VC S.1.2.3. Value of the Smallest Unit 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Carryover Item 330-2. (This item originated from the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

(NTETC) Measuring Sector and first appeared on the Committee’s 2006 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Modify NIST HB 44 paragraph S.1.2.3. as follows: 

S.1.2.3. 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) 0.5 L (1 pt 0.1 gal) on retail devices with a maximum rated flow rate of 750 L/min (200 gal/min) 

or less;

(b) 5 L (1 gal) on wholesale devices with a maximum rated flow of more than 750 L/min 

(200 gal/min);.

(c) 5 L (1 gal) on meters with a rated maximum flow rate of 375 L/min (100 gal/min) or more used 

for jet fuel aviation refueling systems.

This requirement does not apply to manually operated devices equipped with stops or stroke-limiting means. 

(Amended 1983, 1986, and 2007) 

Background/Discussion: In 2004 the definition of a “retail device” in HB 44 was modified to include all devices 

used to measure product for the purpose of sale to the end user. At that time, the Committee believed all affected 

parties were aware of the proposal and there was no opposition to the change. The Committee had not considered 

applications where very large deliveries were made to the end user, typically at high flow rates. After the 2005 

edition of HB 44 was published and distributed, NIST WMD received input from a weights and measures 

jurisdiction that routinely tests large meters used to deliver fuel to fishing fleets and other large ocean-going boats. 

The jurisdiction stated that the average fuel delivery was approximately 300 000 gal and may be as much as 

1 000 000 gal. Prior to the revision of the definition of “retail,” these deliveries were classified as “wholesale” and 

the value of the smallest unit of the indicated delivery for these devices was permitted to be 1 gal. Most of these 

devices have mechanical registers which make it impractical to have a smallest indicated unit of 0.1 gal at the high 

flow rates used for such large deliveries. Because the fuel was being delivered to the end user, after January 2005 

with the revisions to the definition of retail device, HB 44 would define these meters as making retail deliveries and 

would require a smallest unit of delivery of not more than 0.5 L (1 pt or 0.125 gal) for these devices. 

To remedy this issue the NTETC Measuring Sector developed the original recommendation in the Committee’s 

2006 agenda. The Measuring Sector believed that, because the maximum flow rate for many applications has 

increased, 200 gal/min is an appropriate “break point” for determining what the smallest unit of measurement should 

be. 

At the 2006 NCWM Interim Meeting, it was suggested the Committee revisit the discussion on suitability of liquidmeasuring devices discussed by the NCWM from 1991 through 1993. In these earlier discussions, the NCWM was 

unable to reach a consensus on any changes to HB 44, and the item was withdrawn from the Committee's agenda. 

The Committee was informed there was interest expressed at the 2005 NTETC Measuring Sector meeting in 

developing new criteria addressing suitability as it relates to flow rate, minimum measured quantity (MMQ), and 

smallest unit of measure for applications using liquid-measuring devices. The Committee encouraged the NTETC 

Measuring Sector to pursue the development of suitability requirements for the Committee’s consideration and was 

interested in input from the weights and measures community on this approach. 

During the 2006 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee received input from several aircraft refueling equipment 

manufacturers regarding a safety concern with stationary refueling systems capable of delivering jet fuel through 

S&T - 42 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

two different sized hoses at different flow rates using two different meters. In this scenario, the operators of the 

refueling facility wanted both meters to have the same unit of indication, that is, 5 L (1 gal). The Committee 

understood the concern, but was reluctant to modify the recommendation based on the limited information available 

at the meeting. The Committee recommended the aircraft refueling industry propose a change to HB 44 during the 

next Conference cycle through the NTETC Measuring Sector and the regional associations. However, the 

Committee recognized that a legitimate problem might exist with existing jet aircraft refueling equipment and 

encouraged weights and measures jurisdictions to consider safety implications before taking official action on 

existing jet aircraft refueling devices that may not meet the requirements of paragraph S.1.2.3. During the voting 

session there appeared to be concern that, if this item were adopted, weights and measures officials could be 

perceived as ignoring safety issues for aircraft refueling. There was lack of support for the proposal without an 

exemption for jet aircraft refueling; therefore, the Committee changed the status of the proposal from a Voting item 

to an Information item to allow sufficient time to address these areas of concern. 

At its fall 2006 meeting, the CWMA agreed with the original recommendation, but proposed an accompanying user 

requirement be added to HB 44 to address aircraft refueling applications. The intent of the CWMA proposal was to 

require a 0.1 gal increment for equipment used to fuel smaller aircraft. 

At its fall 2006 meeting, the WWMA discussed the proposed amendment to paragraph S.1.2.3. and also discussed 

the issues the aviation industry has when refueling aircraft using a combination of meters that register in 0.1 gal and 

1 gal increments. The aviation industry was not present at that meeting, but the WWMA was made aware of the 

aviation industry’s safety concerns about under-filling fuel tanks and tanks with an unbalanced load because of 

misread meter indications. The WWMA recognized industry’s concerns but believes this is a training issue for 

aircraft refuelers. The WWMA agreed there is an immediate need to provide guidelines for fishing fleet and similar 

applications; therefore, it recommended the proposal move forward as written as a Voting item even if an exemption 

for aircraft fueling is not added. 

At their fall 2006 meetings, the NTETC Measuring Sector and the SWMA reviewed a proposal to add a new 

subparagraph (c) to the original proposal to address the smallest acceptable unit of measure for jet aircraft refueling 

applications. The Measuring Sector considered the proposed marked maximum flow rate of 575 L/min 

(150 gal/min), but agreed it should be changed to 375 L/min (100 gal/min) to harmonize with a similar requirement 

in HB 44 Section 3.31. paragraph S.1.1.3. Value of the Smallest Unit (c). The Measuring Sector and the SWMA 

supported the modified proposal as shown above. The SWMA agreed to forward the proposal to the NCWM S&T 

Committee with the recommendation that the new subparagraph (c) be added to the original proposal. 

At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee considered the SWMA proposal which included a new 

paragraph (c) as shown above and a proposal from the CWMA for a corresponding user requirement as follows: 

UR.XX 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) 0.5 L (0.1 gal) on devices with a flow rate of 750 L/min (200 gal/min) or less;

(b) 5 L (1 gal) on devices with a flow rate of more than 750 L/min (200 gal/min);

(c) 5 L (1 gal) on meters with a rated maximum flow of 375 L (100 gal/min) or more used for 

aviation turbine fuels.

This user requirement allows high-volume meters to sell in 1 gal increments to the end user and requires 

0.1 gal increment deliveries only from meters delivering at less than 200 gal/min.

(Added 200X)

The Committee did not believe that the user requirement proposed by the CWMA would provide the desired result 

of providing a smaller display increment for applications fueling smaller aircraft. If a metering device is installed 

with two different sized hoses and nozzles for fueling different sized aircraft or for over-the-wing and under-thewing fueling, the flow rate of the meter would be based on the size of the larger hose. Even though the rate of flow 

through the smaller hose might fall into the category intended to require a 0.1 gal increment, the “rated flow” for the 

S&T - 43 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

meter would allow an increment of 1 gal. Therefore, the Committee did not include the CWMA proposal. The 

Committee agreed to forward the SWMA proposal without additional changes for a vote at the 2007 NCWM Annual 

Meeting. 

330-2 V S.1.6.5.5. Display of Quantity and Total Price and S.1.6.5.6. Display of Quantity and Total Price, 

Aviation Refueling Applications 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Recommendation: Modify HB 44 Section 3.30. paragraph S.1.6.5.5. and add a new paragraph S.1.6.5.6. as 

follows:

S.1.6.5.5. Display of Quantity and Total Price. – Except for aviation refueling applications, Wwhen a 

delivery is completed, the total price and quantity for that transaction shall be displayed on the face of the 

dispenser for at least 5 minutes or until the next transaction is initiated by using controls on the device or other 

customer-activated controls. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1994] 

(Added 1992) (Amended 1996 and 2007) 

S.1.6.5.6. Display of Quantity and Total Price, Aviation Refueling Applications.

(a) The quantity shall be displayed throughout the transaction.

(b) The total price shall also be displayed under one of the following conditions:

i. The total price can appear on the face of the dispenser or through a controller adjacent to the 

device.

ii. If a device is designed to continuously compute and display the total price, then the total price 

shall be computed and displayed throughout the transaction for the quantity delivered.

(c) The total price and quantity shall be displayed for at least 5 minutes or until the next transaction 

is initiated by using controls on the device or other customer-activated controls.

(d) A printed receipt shall be available and shall include, at a minimum, the total price, quantity, and 

unit price.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2008]

(Added 2008)

Background/Discussion: The typical self-serve installation for aviation fuels does not use an analog or digital 

“gasoline dispenser” that simultaneously displays money and volume or that is equipped with a unit price display. 

In most cases the self-serve user interface is a credit card console/controller that handles the transaction. These 

devices display only quantity and are not set up for the simultaneous display of quantity and total price. This 

proposal provides an exemption for aviation refueling based on the position that the information provided by 

equipment that complies with the proposal is sufficient for the customers using these devices. The submitter stated 

that pilots are an informed group of customers that necessarily pay attention to the quantity of fuel put onboard the 

aircraft during a refueling operation, but are less concerned about the total cost of the commodity until the end of the 

transaction. As long as a unit price is posted, they have the ability to verify that the total price is correct on the 

receipt that is available at the end of the transaction. 

Some designs of aviation self-serve dispensing systems use a meter-register that is a PD meter that can have a 

mechanical register and pulser, an electronic register with pulse output, or an “industrial” dispenser with a “volume 

only display” and a pulse output. The meter-register sends pulses to the credit card console/controller. In the 

S&T - 44 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

example given all three components including the console/controller have separate NTEP certificates, but were not 

evaluated as a system. 

In June 2006 a jurisdiction reviewed a couple of planned installations at airports and completed installations that had 

received grant funds to upgrade their fueling equipment. The jurisdictions informed the installing company that the 

equipment was required to be a “retail motor-fuel dispenser” (RMFD) that included a continuous display of 

“quantity and total sale.” At some other airports “card-lock systems” were opened to other self-serve customers. 

This started a series of exchanges of information among several parties including two console/controller 

manufacturers, several equipment suppliers, and the weights and measures jurisdiction. 

The manufacturer of the equipment used in some of these installations stated that neither high-flow diesel dispensers 

nor typical “retail gasoline dispensers” that have the simultaneous display of quantity and total price capability are 

designed, in terms of materials of construction, for aviation gasoline or jet fuel, and neither have the appropriate 

flow-rate capability for stationary jet refueling applications. 

One company that assembles dispensers could make a unit to meet the materials of construction and minimum flow 

requirements of aviation refueling applications. Their NTEP certificate currently covers diesel and gasoline 

applications on their simultaneous display dispenser. They could use the appropriate aviation-approved materials of 

construction components for applications up to 50 gal/min and simultaneously display quantity and total price. 

However, these devices are not commonly used in the aviation industry and the maximum flow rate of the meter 

might be inadequate for some jet fuel applications. 

At their fall 2006 meetings, the NTETC Measuring Sector and the SWMA reviewed a proposal to allow devices 

used in aircraft refueling to either display or print the total price and quantity delivered at the end of the transaction. 

The Measuring Sector took no position on the proposal because most members did not feel qualified to make an 

informed recommendation concerning the proposal. The SWMA believed that a printed receipt containing, at a 

minimum, the quantity, unit price, and total price should be required for all deliveries; therefore, the SWMA 

modified the above proposal to allow devices used in aircraft refueling to display the total price either throughout 

the transaction or at the end of the transaction provided a printed receipt was available. The SWMA agreed to 

forward the modified proposal to the NCWM S&T Committee with the recommendation that it be a Voting item on 

the Committee’s 2007 agenda. 

At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received letters from the National Air Transportation 

Association (NATA), the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association (AOPA), and Alabama Weights and Measures. 

The NATA supported the modification of paragraph S.1.6.5.5. and the addition of a new paragraph S.1.6.5.6. The 

AOPA did not believe the new paragraph S.1.6.5.6. was needed if the proposed exemption in S.1.6.5.5. was adopted. 

However, if S.1.6.5.6. is adopted the exemption in S.1.6.5.5. for aircraft refueling becomes a necessity and should 

also be adopted. Alabama Weights and Measures opposed the exemption for aircraft refueling because it could limit 

the amount of transaction information available to the consumer. The Committee heard a concern that if the 

exemption is adopted, other RMFD users could ask for the same exemption. The Committee also heard concerns 

that if many small airports throughout the United States were required to replace their existing equipment, they 

might stop providing fueling services for small aircraft. That would cause considerable inconvenience and possible 

safety issues for small aircraft pilots. The Committee also heard a concern that if a dispenser was designed with full 

computing capability, that function should not be allowed to be disabled. The Committee agreed that computing 

capability should not be disabled on a full computing device and modified the proposal accordingly. The 

Committee discussed all of the testimony and input received. The Committee also reviewed a series of photographs 

of the equipment in question at an actual installation at an airport, as well as similar equipment installed on a VTM 

for aircraft refueling at the same airport. The Committee agreed there was little difference in the two devices. The 

primary difference was that the VTM was operated by airport personnel and the stationary meter was operated by 

the pilot of the aircraft. The Committee agreed to present the modified proposal for a vote at the 2007 NCWM 

Annual Meeting. 

At the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee recognized that the term “full computing capability” as used in 

the SWMA recommendation was not defined in HB 44. Even though the SWMA had what most would describe as 

a “typical RMFD” in mind when this proposal was developed, the Committee believed some officials might not 

understand the intent. Therefore, the Committee agreed with the WMD recommendation to modify the proposed 

S&T - 45 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

paragraph S.1.6.5.6. (as shown above) to make it clear what was intended by “full computing” and change the 

formatting to facilitate reading and understanding of the proposal. 

This wording also addressed concerns that language that appeared in the 2007 NCWM Publication 16 could be 

misinterpreted as allowing scrolling messages on aircraft refueling devices (e.g., weather information) in place of 

the continuous computation and display of the total price during a delivery. 

330-3 V S.3.1. Diversion of Measured Liquid 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Carryover Item 330-4. (This item originated from the Central Weights and Measures Association 

(CWMA) and first appeared on the Committee’s 2006 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Amend paragraph S.3.1. as follows: 

S.3.1. Diversion of Measured 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. Two or more delivery outlets may be 

installed only if automatic means are provided to ensure that: 

(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. 

An manually controlled outlet that may be opened for purging or draining the measuring system or for 

recirculating, if recirculation is required in order to maintain the product in a deliverable state, suspension

shall be permitted only when the system is measuring food products, or agri-chemicals, biodiesel, or 

biodiesel blends. Effective automatic 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, 1995, and 1996, and 2007) 

Background/Discussion: The CWMA noted that the requirements in paragraph S.3.1. in Section 3.30. of the 

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code and paragraph S.4.1. Diversion of Measured Product in Section 3.37. of the Mass 

Flow Meters Code of HB 44 are not consistent with each other. Paragraph S.3.1. bans manual valves for 

recirculating product or for purging or draining the measuring system, except for foods and agri-chemicals. 

Paragraph S.4.1. allows manual and automatic valves and it makes no distinction for types of products measured as 

long as the system meets the specified requirements.

Cold weather and physical characteristics make recirculation necessary for a number of products not currently 

recognized in paragraph S.3.1., for example, #6 fuel oil and B100 biodiesel. Liquid-measuring devices exist which 

have NTEP CCs for these high viscosity products; however, the current wording of HB 44 forces vendors of these 

products to use mass flow meters if they wish to recirculate their product in order to keep it in a deliverable state. 

This inconsistency appears to be the unintended result of the fact that the two codes were written at different times 

with input from different segments of industry. The CWMA does not believe retailers of these products should be 

restricted to using only mass flow meters for commercial measurements if other suitable technologies are available. 

Likewise, the CWMA believes both manual and automatic valves are suitable for recirculating products in discharge 

lines of liquid-measuring devices, and the requirements for either type of meter should be the same. 

The Committee believes the means to prevent passage of liquid through any such outlet during normal operation of 

the measuring system and to inhibit meter indications should be automatic. Therefore, the Committee modified the 

proposal accordingly. 

At the 2006 NCWM Annual Meeting, this proposal, along with a corresponding proposal to modify the Mass Flow 

Meters Code, was presented for a vote. The Committee received input regarding the inappropriateness of allowing 

S&T - 46 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

diversion of product on all types of liquid-measuring device applications. The vote on this item did not yield a 

sufficient number of positive or negative votes for the item to be accepted or defeated and, therefore, it was returned 

to the Committee for further action. The corresponding proposal under 2006 S&T Agenda Item 337-2, 

S.4.1. Diversion of Measured Product to similarly modify the Mass Flow Meters Code was adopted. 

At its fall 2006 meeting, the CWMA affirmed that this proposal was drafted primarily to address an inequity 

between mass flow meters and other liquid-measuring devices in metering biodiesel and #6 fuel oil at terminals and 

marine fuelers. The objections to the proposal at the 2006 NCWM Annual Meeting seemed to center on the idea 

that passage of this proposal would lead to widespread recirculation at retail motor-fuel pumps and in applications 

with products other than biodiesel and #6 fuel oil. Minnesota, which adopted this proposal by rule in 2005, has 

experienced neither of these phenomena. 

It has been Minnesota’s experience that, because recirculation systems are expensive to install and operate, industry 

has utilized it only as a last resort. Recirculation has been confined to the marine fuelers on Lake Superior; a 

handful of terminals in the coldest regions of the state; and milk meters where recirculation has always been 

allowed. Minnesota has received no complaints about these installations and has seen no evidence that allowing 

recirculation has led to the facilitation of fraud. 

The WWMA discussed an objection to the proposal because it would allow diversion and recirculation of all 

products. The WWMA believes it may not be appropriate to recirculate some products and might facilitate 

fraudulent practices. The WWMA recognizes that jurisdictions are preparing for sales of alternate fuels, but is 

uncertain at what point biodiesel products and blends need recirculating (low temperature limits or specific blend 

ratios). The WWMA S&T Committee agreed the list of products should be limited but should recognize all 

biodiesel products and blends. Consequently, the WWMA developed an alternate proposal as shown in the 

recommendation above and recommended it move forward as a Voting item on the 2007 S&T Committee’s agenda. 

The SWMA agreed with the WWMA’s alternate proposal. 

NEWMA supported the original proposal as shown in the 2007 NCWM Publication 15. 

At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the jurisdiction that originally developed the proposal stated they were willing 

to support that proposal if the WWMA proposed text were more acceptable to having biodiesel included as a 

product allowed to be recirculated. The Committee agreed to present the WWMA alternate proposal for a vote at 

the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

330-4 I Temperature Compensation for Liquid Measuring Devices Code 

Source: 2007 S&T Committee 

Discussion/ Background: The Committee is considering a proposal to make the following modifications to 

Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices (LMD) Code to recognize temperature compensation for retail devices as 

follows: 

S.1.6.8. Recorded Representations from Devices with Temperature Compensation. – Receipts issued 

from devices or systems with automatic temperature compensation must include a statement that the 

volume of the product has been adjusted to the volume in liters at 15 °C for liters or the volume in 

gallons at 60 °F for gallons.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X] (Added 200X)

S.1.6.89. Lubricant Devices, Travel of Indicator. – The indicator shall move at least 2.5 cm (1 in) in 

relation to the graduations, if provided, for a delivery of 0.5 L (1 pt). 

S.2.6. Temperature Determination and Wholesale Devices. – For test purposes, means shall be provided to 

determine the temperature of the liquid either: 

(a) in the liquid chamber of the meter, or 

S&T - 47 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

(b) immediately adjacent to the meter in the meter inlet or discharge line. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1985]

(Added 1984) (Amended 1986 and 200X) 

S.2.7. Wholesale Devices Equipped with Automatic Temperature Compensators.

S.2.7.1. Automatic Temperature Compensation. – A device may be equipped with an adjustable

automatic means for adjusting the indication and registration of the measured volume of product to the 

volume at 15 °C for liters or (60 °F) for gallons.

S.2.7.2. Display of Net and Gross Quantity. – A device equipped with automatic temperature 

compensation shall indicate or record, both the gross (uncompensated) and net (compensated) volume 

for testing purposes. It is not necessary that both net and gross volume be displayed simultaneously.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

S.2.7.23. Provision for Deactivating. – On a device or system equipped with an automatic 

temperature-compensating mechanism that will indicate or record only in terms of liters compensated to 

15 °C or gallons compensated to (60 °F), provision shall be made for deactivating the automatic 

temperature-compensating mechanism so that the meter can indicate, and record if it is equipped to or

record, in terms of the uncompensated volume.

(Amended 1972 and 200X) 

S.2.7.34. Provision for Sealing Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems. – Provision shall be 

made for applying security seals in such a manner that an automatic temperature-compensating system 

cannot be disconnected and that no adjustment may be made to the system without breaking the seal or 

providing a record of the action. 

S.2.7.4.5. Temperature Determination with Automatic Temperature-Compensation. – For test 

purposes, means shall be provided (e.g., thermometer well) to determine the temperature of the liquid 

either: 

S.4.3. Wholesale Devices.

S.4.3.1. Discharge Rates. - A wholesale device shall be marked to show its designed maximum and 

minimum discharge rates. However, the minimum discharge rate shall not exceed 20 % of the maximum 

discharge rate.

S.4.3.2. Temperature Compensation. – If a device or system is equipped with automatic temperature 

compensation, the primary indicating elements, recording elements, or recorded representation shall be 

clearly and conspicuously marked to show that the volume delivered has been adjusted to the volume at 

15 °C for liters or (60 °F) for gallons.

(Amended 200X)

S.4.34. Wholesale Devices, Discharge Rates. – A wholesale device shall be marked to show its designed 

maximum and minimum discharge rates. However, the minimum discharge rate shall not exceed 20 % of 

the maximum discharge rate.

Renumber successive paragraphs S.4.4. to S.4.5. 

N.4.1.1. Wholesale Devices Equipped with Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems. – On 

wholesale devices equipped with automatic temperature-compensating-systems, normal tests shall be 

conducted: 

(a) by comparing the net (compensated) volume indicated or recorded to the actual delivered volume 

corrected adjusted to 15 °C for liters or 60 °F for gallons, and

S&T - 48 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

(b) with the temperature-compensating system deactivated, comparing the gross (uncompensated)

volume indicated or recorded to the actual delivered volume. (For some devices this may require 

that the temperature compensator be deactivated.)

The first test shall be performed with the automatic temperature-compensating system operating in the "as 

found” condition. On devices that indicate or record both the compensated and uncompensated volume for 

each delivery, the tests in (a) and (b) may be performed as a single test. 

(Amended 1987 and 200X)

N.5. Change in Product Temperature Correction on Wholesale Devices. – CorrectionsAdjustments shall be 

made for any changes in volume resulting from the differences in liquid temperatures between time of passage 

through the meter and time of volumetric determination in the prover or test measure. When adjustments are 

necessary, appropriate petroleum measurement tables should be used. 

(Amended 1974 and 200X) 

UR.3.6. Temperature Compensation.

UR.3.6.1. Automatic.

UR.3.6.1.1. When to be Used of Automatic Temperature Compensation. – If a device is equipped 

with a mechanical automatic temperature compensatorcompensation, it shall be connected, operable, 

and in use at all times. An electronic or mechanical automatic temperature-compensating system may 

not be removed, nor may a compensated device be replaced with an uncompensated device, without 

the written approval of the responsible weights and measures jurisdiction with statutory authority 

over the device.

[Note: This requirement does not specify the method of sale for product measured through a meter.] 

(Amended 1989) 

UR.3.6.1.2. Recorded Representations (Invoices, Receipts, and Bills of Lading).

(a) An written invoice based on a reading of a device or recorded representation issued by a 

device or system that is equipped with an automatic temperature compensator shall show that the 

volume delivered has been adjusted to the volume at 15 °C for liters or (60 °F) for gallons and 

decimal subdivisions or fractional equivalents thereof.

(b) The invoice issued from an electronic wholesale device equipped with an automatic 

temperature-compensating system shall also indicate: (1) the API gravity, specific gravity or 

coefficient of expansion for the product; (2) product temperature; and (3) gross reading. 

(c) On request, the owner or operator of a retail device equipped with an active automatic 

temperature compensator shall provide the official with statutory authority the bills of 

lading for at least the last two deliveries.

(Amended 1987 and 200X) 

UR.3.6.1.3. Temperature Determination. – Means for determining the temperature of measured 

liquid in an automatic temperature-compensating system shall be so designed and located that, 

in any “usual and customary” use of the system, the resulting indications and/or recorded 

representations are within applicable tolerances.

(Added 200X)

UR.3.6.4. Temperature Compensated Sale. – All sales of products, when the quantity is determined 

by an approved measuring system with temperature compensation, shall be in terms of the liter at 

15 °C or the U.S. gallon of 231 in3 at 60 °F.

(Added 200X)

S&T - 49 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Prior to the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee recognized via reports from the regional L&R 

committees and other sources that there was increasing support within the weights and measures community to 

address temperature compensation features for the retail sale of petroleum products in the Liquid-Measuring Devices 

Code. In response to these concerns and to encourage uniformity in applications where temperature compensation is 

being used, the Committee developed this proposal to provide design and performance requirements and testing 

criteria for retail metering systems that incorporate temperature compensation capability. The Committee was also 

concerned that if the current L&R Committee proposed language for the Method of Sale of Commodities in NIST 

HB 130 is adopted, retail motor-fuel devices could be placed in service with no guidelines in HB 44 for type 

approval and field testing. The L&R proposed language would permit the temperature-compensated sale of 

petroleum products at all levels of distribution. 

At the 2007 Interim Meeting, the L&R Committee moved forward with a Method of Sale proposal containing 

permissive language for retail sales of petroleum products using automatic temperature compensation (see L&R 

Item 232-1). Although the Committee recognized this S&T item was still not fully developed, it felt it could resolve 

the remaining issues in time for the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting; therefore, the Committee unanimously voted to 

make this item a “priority” Voting item as described in Section H of the Introduction of HB 44 since it felt it was 

very important for there to be a corresponding S&T item that provided HB 44 guidance if the L&R item passed. 

Following the Committee vote, the Committee chairman went before the NCWM Board of Directors (BOD) for their 

input. The BOD instructed the Committee to make this an Information item. Irrespective of the concerns about the 

timing of adoption of language in HB 130, the Committee, after further deliberation, concurred with the BOD and 

added the proposal to its agenda as an Information item. The BOD further informed the Committee of its plan to 

form a steering committee to provide guidance and give support to both the S&T and L&R Committees on 

temperature compensation issues. The Committee looks forward to working with the steering committee on this 

important issue. 

This item is still in development. Some of the issues the Committee is currently working on are outlined below. 

Recorded Representations (S.1.6.7.): What, if any, abbreviations are acceptable for devices equipped with 

ATC (e.g., gal at 60 oF)? 

API Gravity: How should the API gravity be entered in the device and what API gravity should the inspector 

use during a test? Should an average API gravity be used (national or state)? The Committee will work on 

gathering API data in order to resolve this issue. 

Difference between Net and Gross (T.4.): Is the current tolerance of 0.1 % (electronic) appropriate for 

field-testing of retail devices with ATC? Will maintaining our current tolerances mean taking extra drafts to 

obtain a stable temperature? The Committee will work on gathering data concerning temperature measurement. 

The Committee will continue work on this issue and will seek input from the regions and other interested parties in 

the weights and measures community. 

331 VEHICLE-TANK METERS 

331-1 V Temperature Compensation 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Carryover Item 331-3. (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association 

(WWMA) and first appeared on the Committee’s 2000 agenda.)

Discussion/Background: The Committee considered a proposal to modify Section 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters 

(VTM) Code by adding the following new paragraphs to recognize temperature compensation as follows: 

S&T - 50 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

S.2.5. Automatic Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products.

S.2.5.1. Automatic Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products. – A device may be 

equipped with an automatic means for adjusting the indication and registration of the measured 

volume of product to the volume at 15 °C for liters or the volume at (60 °F) for gallons and decimal 

subdivisions or fractional equivalents thereof where not prohibited by state law.

S.2.5.2. Provision for Deactivating. – On a device equipped with an automatic 

temperature-compensating mechanism that will indicate or record only in terms of liters (gallons) 

compensated to 15 °C (60 °F), provision shall be made for deactivating the automatic temperaturecompensating mechanism so the meter can indicate and record, if it is equipped to record, in terms of 

the uncompensated volume.

S.2.5.3. Gross and Net Indications. – A device equipped with automatic temperature compensation 

shall indicate or record, if equipped to record, both the gross (uncompensated) and net 

(compensated) volume for testing purposes. It is not necessary that both net and gross volume be 

displayed simultaneously.

S.2.5.4. Provision for Sealing Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems. – Adequate provision 

shall be made for an approved means of security (e.g., data change audit trail) or physically applying 

security seals in such a manner that an automatic temperature-compensating system cannot be 

disconnected and no adjustment may be made to the system.

S.2.5.5. Temperature Determination with Automatic Temperature Compensation. – For test 

purposes, means shall be provided (e.g., thermometer well) to determine the temperature of the 

liquid either:

(a) in the liquid chamber of the meter, or

(b) immediately adjacent to the meter in the meter inlet or discharge line.

(Added 2007)

S.5.6. Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products. – If a device is equipped with an 

automatic temperature compensator, the primary indicating elements, recording elements, and recorded 

representations shall be clearly and conspicuously marked to show the volume delivered has been 

adjusted to the volume at 15 °C for liters or the volume at (60 °F) for gallons and decimal subdivisions or 

fractional equivalents thereof.

(Added 2007)

N.4.1.3. Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems for Refined Petroleum Products. – On 

devices equipped with automatic temperature-compensating systems, normal tests shall be 

conducted:

(a) by comparing the compensated volume indicated or recorded to the actual delivered volume 

corrected to 15 °C for liters or (60 °F) for gallons and decimal subdivisions or fractional 

equivalents thereof; and

(b) with the temperature-compensating system deactivated, comparing the uncompensated 

volume indicated or recorded to the actual delivered volume.

The first test shall be performed with the automatic temperature-compensating system operating in 

the "as-found" condition. On devices that indicate or record both the compensated and 

uncompensated volume for each delivery, the tests in (a) and (b) may be performed as a single test.

(Added 2007)

S&T - 51 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

N.5. Temperature Correction for Refined Petroleum Products. – Corrections shall be made for any 

changes in volume resulting from the differences in liquid temperatures between the time of passage 

through the meter and the time of volumetric determination in the prover. When adjustments are 

necessary, appropriate petroleum measurement tables should be used.

(Added 2007)

T.2.1. Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems. – The difference between the meter error 

(expressed as a percentage) for results determined with and without the automatic temperaturecompensating system activated shall not exceed:

(a) 0.4 % for mechanical automatic temperature-compensating systems; and

(b) 0.2 % 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 2007)

UR.2.5. Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products.

UR.2.5.1. Automatic.

UR.2.5.1.1. When to be Used. – In a state that does not prohibit, by law or regulation, the 

sale of temperature-compensated product, a device equipped with an operable automatictemperature compensator shall be connected, operable, and in use at all times. An electronic 

or mechanical automatic temperature-compensating system may not be removed, nor may a 

compensated device be replaced with an uncompensated device, without the written 

approval of the responsible weights and measures jurisdiction.

[Note: This requirement does not specify the method of sale for products measured through 

a meter.]

UR.2.5.1.2. Invoices. – An invoice based on a reading of a device that is equipped with an 

automatic temperature compensator shall show that the volume delivered has been adjusted 

to the volume at 15 °C for liters or the volume at (60 °F) for gallons and decimal subdivisions 

or fractional equivalents thereof).

(Added 2007)

This proposal was developed to provide design requirements and testing criteria for vehicle-tank metering systems 

that incorporate temperature-compensation capability. When this item was originally submitted, several officials 

reportedly were confused about the specific applications of a meter covered by an NTEP CC that included a 

temperature-compensation feature. The WWMA acknowledged some jurisdictions permit temperature-compensated 

deliveries in applications not addressed by HB 44. Some states do not allow the use of automatic temperature 

compensation for the delivery of products using a VTM. At the 2002, 2003, and 2004 NCWM Annual Meetings, 

this proposal did not achieve a majority vote to pass or fail and, therefore, was returned to the Committee for further 

consideration. 

At the 2006 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed to leave the proposal on its agenda as an Information 

item because the L&R Committee was close to fully developing a corresponding method of sale requirement that 

was acceptable to most jurisdictions. The Committee encouraged the weights and measures community to review 

the newly modified L&R item along with the proposal shown in the recommendation above and provide input to the 

Committee prior to the 2007 January NCWM Interim Meeting. 

At their 2006 fall meetings the CWMA, NEWMA, the SWMA, and the WWMA supported the proposal as a Voting 

item on the 2007 NCWM S&T Committee’s agenda. The SWMA recommended the development of an additional 

requirement that the device have the ability to display both gross and net indications, but did not have a specific 

S&T - 52 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

proposal to offer at the time. The WWMA reiterated that temperature-compensated devices were already in use in 

some jurisdictions. 

At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the L&R Committee agreed to propose additional language in L&R 

Item 232-1 for a corresponding Method of Sale of Commodities requirement in HB 130 that permits the 

temperature-compensated sale of petroleum products at all levels of the distribution chain, provided it does not 

conflict with existing laws and regulations in a jurisdiction. The Committee believed that if the L&R proposal was 

adopted, there should be appropriate language in the VTM Code to assist weights and measures officials in 

conducting tests of devices or systems that include automatic temperature-compensation capability. To address 

concerns over the additional time required to test devices equipped with automatic temperature compensation, the 

Committee modified paragraph S.2.5.3. to require that, for test purposes, devices or systems must indicate or record 

both a “net” and a “gross” volume for each test draft. The Committee agreed to present Item 331-1 as modified for a 

vote at the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee stated that this proposal supported jurisdictions that currently 

permit the use of or have automatic temperature-compensated vehicle-tank meters. The proposal provided both the 

weights and measures official and the NTEP laboratories with the proper criteria to use when evaluating a VTM 

with automatic temperature compensating capability. 

For additional background on this item, see the 2000 through 2006 S&T Final Reports. 

356(a) GRAIN MOISTURE METERS 

356(a)-1 VC S.1.2. Grain or Seed Kind and Class Selection and Recording and Table S.1.2. Grain Types 

Considered for Type Evaluation and Calibration and Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector

Recommendation: Modify HB 44 Section 5.56.(a) Grain Moisture Meters paragraph S.1.2. and Table S.1.2. to 

include minimum acceptable abbreviations for “multi-class” grain moisture calibrations as follows: 

S.1.2. Grain or Seed Kind Type and Class Selection and Recording. – Provision shall be made for selecting 

and recording the kindtype and class or multi-class group (as appropriate) of grain or seed to be measured. 

The means to select the kindtype and class or multi-class group of grain or seed shall be readily visible and the 

kindtype and class or multi-class group of grain or seed selected shall be clearly and definitely identified. 

Abbreviations for grain types and multi-class groups indicated on the meter must meet the minimum 

acceptable abbreviations listed in Table S.1.2. Meters shall have the capability (i.e., display capacity) of 

indicating the grain type using a minimum of four characters in order to accommodate the fourcharacter abbreviations listed in Table S.1.2.

(Amended 1993, and1995, and 2007)

S&T - 53 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Table S.1.2. Grain Types and Multi-Class Groups Considered for Type Evaluation 

and Calibration and Their Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations

Grain Type Grain Class Minimum Acceptable 

Abbreviation

Durum Wheat DURW 

Soft White Wheat SWW 

Hard Red Spring Wheat HRSW 

Hard Red Winter Wheat HRWW 

Soft Red Winter Wheat SRWW 

Hard White Wheat HDWW 

All-Class Wheat* WHEAT 

Wheat 

Wheat Excluding Durum* WHTEXDUR 

Corn --- CORN 

Sunflower seed (Oil) --- SUNF 

Grain Sorghum --- SORG or MILO 

Soybeans --- SOYB 

Two-Rowed Barley TRB 

Barley Six-Rowed Barley SRB 

 All-Class Barley* BARLEY 

Oats --- OATS 

Long Grain Rough Rice LGRR 

Medium Grain Rough 

Rice Rice MGRR 

All-Class Rough Rice* RGHRICE 

Small Oil Seeds 

(under consideration) --- --- 

[Note: Grain Types marked with an asterisk (*) are “Multi-Class Calibrations”] 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1998]

(Table Added 1993) (Amended 1995, 1998, and 2007) 

Add new definitions to Appendix D as follows: 

multi-class. A description of a grouping of grain classes, from the same grain type, in one 

calibration. A multi-class grain calibration may include (1) all the classes of a grain type (all-class 

calibration), or (2) some of the classes of a grain type within the calibration.[5.56.(a)]

(Added 2007) 

all-class. A description of a multi-class calibration that includes all the classes of a grain 

type.[5.56.(a)]

(Added 2007) 

grain class. Different grains within the same grain type. (For example, there are six classes for the 

grain type “wheat”: Durum Wheat, Hard Red Spring Wheat, Hard Red Winter Wheat, Soft Red 

Winter Wheat, Hard White Wheat and Soft White Wheat.)[5.56(a)]

(Added 2007) 

grain type. See “kind of grain.”[5.56.(a)]

(Added 2007) 

Background/Discussion: The GMM type evaluation criteria in Publication 14 were amended to allow multi-class 

moisture calibrations. “Multi-class” describes the grouping of grain classes in a calibration. There are a total of 15 

NTEP grains, which include wheat, rice, and barley, all of which have different classes. There are six classes of 

S&T - 54 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

wheat, two classes of barley, and two classes of rice. A manufacturer may decide to have: (1) a separate calibration 

for each individual class of wheat, rice, or barley; or (2) have a single calibration for all the classes of wheat, rice, or 

barley (“All-Class Wheat, All-Class Rice, or All-Class Barley”); or (3) have a calibration that includes all the classes 

of wheat except durum wheat (“WHTEXDUR,” Wheat Excluding Durum). Examples (2) and (3) are “multi-class” 

calibrations. Currently, the acceptable abbreviations (and grain types) in Table S.1.2. of HB 44 do not address the 

groupings and the types acceptable for use when selecting and recording “multi-class” calibrations. At its 

August 2006 meeting, the NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector agreed “multi-class” groups should be added to 

Table S.1.2. Grain Types Considered for Type Evaluation and Calibration and Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations 

by grain type and their corresponding minimum acceptable abbreviations for each “multi-class” group, and 

paragraph S.1.2. Grain or Seed Kind and Class Selection and Recording should be modified to recognize “multiclass” groupings. 

Paragraph S.1.2. Grain or Seed Kind and Class Selection and Recording specifies that the means to select the kind 

and class of grain or seed be readily visible and that the kind and class of grain or seed selected be clearly and 

definitely identified. A multi-class grain calibration that includes all the NTEP classes of a given grain type (e.g., 

two-rowed barley and six-rowed barley) can be clearly and definitely identified by a single type name (e.g., 

BARLEY). Similarly, both long-grain and medium-grain rough rice could be identified as "rough rice." However, a 

multi-class grain calibration that does not include all of the NTEP classes of a grain type may not be identified using 

a single grain type name (e.g., WHEAT). For example, a calibration for "all wheat except durum" cannot be labeled 

"WHEAT" because the grain type "WHEAT" (i.e., “All-Class Wheat”) includes "Durum Wheat." 

At its August 2006 meeting the NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector agreed the originally suggested multi-class groups 

(soft wheat, hard wheat, red wheat, and white wheat) were confusing and subject to potential misuse. Only the 

following multi-class groups should be considered for type evaluation: 

All-Class Wheat 

Wheat Excluding Durum 

All-Class Barley 

All-Class Rough Rice 

A poll of manufacturers present at the 2006 NTETC Grain Analyzer Meeting revealed that increasing the fourcharacter display requirement of paragraph S.1.2. to eight characters would not be a problem with instruments in 

current production; therefore, it was agreed that up to eight characters could be used for multi-class group 

abbreviations. The Sector agreed that the sentence specifying the display capacity was not needed because the 

necessary display capacity was obvious from the number of characters in the longest minimum acceptable 

abbreviation listed in Table S.1.2. 

The Sector agreed to modify paragraph S.1.2. and Table S.1.2. as shown above and forward its recommendation to 

the 2007 NCWM S&T Committee for consideration. 

The SWMA recommended the proposal move forward to the NCWM S&T Committee as a Voting item on its 2007 

agenda. 

The NIST technical advisor to the Grain Analyzer Sector proposed adding new definitions for “multi-class” and 

“all-class” to the proposal to assist weights and measures officials in understanding the differences between those 

classes of grain. Prior to the 2007 Interim Meeting, the technical advisors balloted the Sector and received its 

approval to include three new definitions and have the term "grain type" cross reference "kind of grain" in 

Appendix D. 

At the 2007 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings, the Committee received no comments opposing this item and, 

therefore, agreed to present it for a vote. 

S&T - 55 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

357 NEAR-INFRARED GRAIN ANALYZERS 

(This item was adopted) 

357-1 VC S.1.2. Selecting Grain Class and Constituent and Table S.1.2. Grain Types Considered for Type 

Evaluation and Calibration and Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations 

Source: NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

Recommendation: Modify NIST HB 44 Section 5.57. Near-Infrared (NIR) Grain Analyzers paragraph S.1.2. 

Selecting Grain Class and Constituent and Table S.1.2. Grain Types Considered for Type Evaluation and Calibration 

and Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations to include minimum acceptable abbreviations for “multi-class” constituent 

(protein, starch, and oil) calibrations as shown below. 

S.1.2. Selecting and Recording Grain Class and Constituent. – Provision shall be made for selecting, and 

recording the type or class or multi-class group of grain and the constituent(s) to be measured. The means to 

select the grain type or class or multi-class group and the constituent(s) shall be readily visible and the type or 

class or multi-class group of grain and the constituent(s) selected shall be clearly and definitely identified in 

letters (such as HRWW, HRSW, WHEAT, etc. or PROT, etc.). A symbol to identify the display of the type or class 

or multi-class group of grain and constituent(s) selected is permitted provided that it is clearly defined adjacent to 

the display. Minimum acceptable abbreviations are listed in Table S.1.2. Meters shall have the capability (i.e., 

display capacity) of indicating the grain type using a minimum of four characters in order to accommodate the 

abbreviations listed in Table S.1.2.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003] 

If more than one calibration is included for a given grain type, the calibrations must be clearly distinguished 

from one another. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004] 

Table S.1.2. Grain Types and Multi-Class Groups Considered for Type Evaluation 

and Calibration and Their Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations

Grain Type Grain Class Minimum Acceptable 

Abbreviation

Durum Wheat DURW 

Soft White Wheat SWW 

Hard Red Spring Wheat HRSW 

Hard Red Winter Wheat HRWW 

Soft Red Winter Wheat SRWW 

Hard White Wheat HDWW 

All-Class Wheat* WHEAT 

Wheat 

Wheat Excluding Durum* WHTEXDUR 

Two-Rowed Barley TRB 

Barley Six-Rowed Barley SRB 

 All-Class Barley* BARLEY 

Corn --- CORN 

Soybeans --- SOYB 

[Note: Grain Types marked with an asterisk (*) are “Multi-Class Calibrations”] 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1998]

(Table Added 1993) (Amended 1995, 1998, and 2007) 

 (Amended 2003 and 2007) 

S&T - 56 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Add new definitions to Appendix D as follows: 

multi-class. A description of a grouping of grain classes, from the same grain type, in one 

calibration. A multi-class grain calibration may include (1) all the classes of a grain type (all-class 

calibration), or (2) some of the classes of a grain type within the calibration.[5.57.]

(Added 2007) 

all-class. A description of a multi-class calibration that includes all the classes of a grain type.[5.57.]

(Added 2007) 

grain class. Different grains within the same grain type. (For example, there are six classes for the 

grain type “wheat”: Durum Wheat, Hard Red Spring Wheat, Hard Red Winter Wheat, Soft Red 

Winter Wheat, Hard White Wheat and Soft White Wheat.)[5.57.]

(Added 2007) 

grain type. See “kind of grain.”[5.57.]

(Added 2007) 

Background/Discussion: At its August 2006 Sector meeting, the NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector agreed to amend 

the NIR type evaluation criteria in Publication 14 and the NIST Handbook (HB 44) NIR Code to allow multi-class 

calibrations. These changes correspond to amendments to the GMM type evaluation criteria in Publication 14 to 

allow multi-class moisture calibrations. “Multi-class” describes the grouping of grain classes in a calibration. There 

are several NTEP grains, including wheat and barley, many of which have different classes. There are six classes of 

wheat, two classes of barley, and two classes of rice. (Note: Rice is only a grain type in the GMM code of NIST 

HB 44). A manufacturer may decide to have: (1) a separate calibration for each individual class of wheat, rice, or 

barley; (2) have a single calibration for all the classes of wheat, barley, or rice (“All-Class Wheat, All-Class Barley, 

or All-Class Rice”); or (3) have a calibration that includes all the classes of wheat except durum wheat 

(“WHTEXDUR,” Wheat Excluding Durum). Examples (2) and (3) are “multi-class” calibrations. Currently, the 

acceptable abbreviations (and grain types) in Table S.1.2. of HB 44 do not address the groupings and the names that 

are acceptable for use when selecting and recording “multi-class” calibrations. At its August 2006 meeting, the 

NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector agreed that “multi-class” groups should be added to Table S.1.2. Grain Types 

Considered for Type Evaluation and Calibration and Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations by grain type and the 

corresponding minimum acceptable abbreviations for each “multi-class” group, and paragraph S.1.2. Selecting Grain 

Class and Constituent should be modified to recognize “multi-class” groupings. 

The Sector recommended changes to the GMM and the Near-Infrared Code to recognize specific multi-classes of 

grains and to provide minimum acceptable abbreviations that identify multi-class groupings when user selection of a 

multi-class group is performed using the group name or an abbreviation of the name. 

The Sector agreed to modify paragraph S.1.2. and Table S.1.2. as shown above and forward its recommendation to 

the 2007 NCWM S&T Committee for consideration. 

The SWMA recommended the proposal move forward to the NCWM S&T Committee as a Voting item on its 2007 

agenda. 

The NIST technical advisor to the Grain Analyzer Sector proposed adding new definitions for “multi-class” and 

“all-class” to the proposal to assist weights and measures officials in understanding the differences between those 

classes of grain. Prior to the 2007 Interim Meeting, the technical advisors balloted the Sector and received its 

approval to modify the Sector’s original proposal to include three new definitions and have the term "grain type" 

cross reference "kind of grain" in Appendix D. 

At the 2007 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings, the Committee received no comments opposing this item and 

agreed to present it for a vote. 

S&T - 57 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

360 OTHER ITEMS 

360-1 I International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Report 

Many issues before the OIML, the Asian-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF), and other international groups 

are within the purview of the Committee. Additional information on OIML activities will appear in the Board of 

Directors Agenda and Interim and Final Reports and on the OIML website at http://www.oiml.org. NIST WMD 

staff provided the latest updates on OIML activities during the open hearing sessions at NCWM meetings. For more 

information on specific OIML-related device activities, contact the WMD staff listed in the table below. The OIML 

projects listed below represent only currently active projects. For additional information on other OIML device 

activities that involve WMD staff, please contact WMD using the information listed below: 

S&T - 58 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) 

Contact List for International Activities 

Contact Information Responsibilities 

Postal Mail and Fax for 

All Contacts: 

NIST WMD 

100 Bureau Drive MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Tel: (301) 975-4004 Fax: (301) 975-8091 

Mr. Kenneth Butcher 

(LMG) 

(301) 975-4859 

kenneth.butcher@nist.gov 

• D 1 "Elements for a Law on Metrology" 

• TC 3 "Metrological Control" 

• TC 3/SC 1 “Pattern Approval and Verification” 

• TC 3/SC 2 "Metrological Supervision" 

• TC 6 "Prepackaged Products" 

Mr. Steven Cook (LMDG) 

(301) 975-4003 

steven.cook@nist.gov

• R 50 "Continuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments (Belt Weighers)" 

• R 51 "Automatic Catchweighing Instruments" 

• R 60 “Metrological Regulations for Load Cells” 

• R 76 “Non-automatic Weighing Instruments” 

Dr. Charles Ehrlich 

(ILMG) 

(301) 975-4834 

charles.ehrlich@nist.gov 

• CIML Member 

• B 10 “Framework for a Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) on OIML Type 

Evaluations” 

• TC 3/SC 5 “Expression of Uncertainty in Measurement in Legal Metrology 

Applications,” “Guidelines for the Application of ISO/IEC 17025 to the 

Assessment of Laboratories Performing Type Evaluation Tests,” & “OIML 

Procedures for Review of Laboratories to Enable Mutual Acceptance of Test 

Results and OIML Certificates of Conformity” 

Mr. Richard Harshman 

(LMDG) 

(301) 975-8107 

richard.harshman@nist.gov

• R 106 “Automatic Rail-weighbridges” 

• R 107 “Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments” (totalizing 

hopper weighers) 

• R 134 “Automatic Instruments for Weighing Road Vehicles In-Motion and 

Measuring Axle Loads” 

Ms. Diane Lee McGowan 

(LMDG) 

(301) 975-4405 

diane.lee@nist.gov

• R 59 “Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds” 

• R 92 "Wood Moisture Meters-Verification Methods and Equipment" 

• R 121 "The Scale of Relative Humidity of Air Certified Against Saturated Salt 

Solution" 

• TC 17/SC 8 “Measuring Instruments for Protein Determination in Grains” 

Mr. Ralph Richter (ILMG) 

(301) 975-3997 

ralph.richter@nist.gov

• R 35 “Material Measures of Length for General Use” 

• R 49 “Water Meters” (Cold Potable Water & Hot Water Meters) 

• R 71 “Fixed Storage Tanks” 

• R 80 “Road and Rail Tankers” 

• R 85 “Automatic Level Gauges for Measuring the Level of Liquid in Fixed Storage 

Tanks” 

• R 105 & R 117 “Measuring Systems for Liquids Other Than Water” (all measuring 

technologies) 

• R 118 “Testing Procedures and Test Report Format for Pattern Examination of Fuel 

Dispensers for Motor Vehicles” 

• TC 3/SC 4 “Verification Period of Utility Meters Using Sampling Inspections” 

• TC 8/SC 7 P1 “Measuring Systems for Gaseous Fuel” (i.e., large pipelines) 

• TC 8/SC 7 P2 “Compressed Gaseous Fuels Measuring Systems for Vehicles” 

• TC 8/SC 8 “Gas Meters” (Diaphragm, Rotary Piston, & Turbine Gas Meters) 

S&T - 59 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) 

Contact List for International Activities 

Contact Information Responsibilities 

Dr. Ambler Thompson 

(ILMG) 

(301) 975-2333 

ambler@nist.gov

• D 16 “Principles of Assurance of Metrological Control” 

• D 19 “Pattern Evaluation and Pattern Approval” 

• D 20 “Initial and Subsequent Verification of Measuring Instruments and Processes” 

• D 27 Initial Verification of Measuring Instruments Using the Manufacturer’s Quality 

Management System” 

• R 34 “Accuracy Classes of Measuring Instruments” 

• R 46 “Active Electrical Energy Meters for Direct Connection of Class 2” 

• TC 5/SC 2 “General Requirements for Software Controlled Measuring Instruments” 

Ms. Juana Williams 

(LMDG) 

(301) 975-3989 

juana.williams@nist.gov

• R 21 “Taximeters” 

LIST OF ACRONYMS

ILMG – International Legal 

Metrology Group

LMDG – Legal Metrology 

Devices Group 

LMG – Laws and Metrics 

Group 

B – Basic Publication 

CIML – International Committee 

of Legal Metrology 

D – Document

P – Project 

R – Recommendation 

SC – Subcommittee 

TC – Technical Committee

360-2 Developing Items 

The NCWM established a category of items called “Developing Items” as a mechanism to share information about 

emerging issues which have merit and are of national interest, but that have not received sufficient review by all 

parties affected by the proposal or that may be insufficiently developed to warrant review by the Committee. These 

items are currently under review by at least one regional association, technical committee, or organization. 

Developing items are listed in Appendix A according to the specific HB 44 code section under which they fall. 

Periodically, proposals will be removed from the Developing item agenda without further action because the 

submitter recommends it be withdrawn. Any remaining proposals will be renumbered accordingly. 

The Committee encourages interested parties to examine the proposals included in Appendix A and send their 

comments to the contact listed in each item. The Committee asks that the regional associations and NTETC Sectors 

continue their work to develop fully each proposal. Should an association or Sector decide to discontinue work on 

an item, the Committee asks that it be notified. 

Michael J. Sikula, New York, Chairman (1) 

Carol P. Fulmer, South Carolina (2) 

Todd R. Lucas, Ohio (3) 

Brett Saum, San Luis Obispo County, California (4) 

Kristin Macey, Colorado (5) 

Ted Kingsbury, Measurement Canada, Technical Advisor 

Steven Cook, NIST, Technical Advisor 

Richard Suiter, NIST, Technical Advisor 

Juana Williams, NIST, Technical Advisor 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

S&T - 60 
 S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

Appendix A 

Item 360-2: Developing Items 

Part 1, Item 1 Scales: S.1.4.6. Height and Definition of Minimum Reading Distance, UR.2.10. Primary 

Indicating Elements Provided by the User, UR.2.11. Minimum Reading Distance and Definitions of 

Minimum Reading Distance and Primary Indications 

Source: NTETC Weighing Sector 

Note: This proposal was Carryover Item 320-2 in the Committee’s 2006 Agenda and appeared on the Committee’s 

2007 Agenda as Item 320-4. (This item originated from the 2005 NTETC Weighing Sector and first appeared on 

the Committee’s 2006 agenda.) Although the Committee believed the proposal has merit, there was not a consensus 

on the size and quality of primary indication information on devices used in direct and indirect sales transactions or 

an enforcement date for such requirements. Therefore, the Committee moved Item 320-4 from its agenda and made 

it a Developing item 360-2 Part 1, Item 1 to allow sufficient time for the community to fully develop requirements 

acceptable to those affected. 

Recommendation: The Committee considered the Weighing Sector’s first attempt at a proposal that adds new 

paragraphs S.1.4.6., UR.2.10., and UR.2.11. to the Scales Code. 

S.1.4. Indicators. 

S.1.4.6. Height. – All primary indications shall be indicated clearly and simultaneously.

(a) On digital devices that display primary indications during direct sales to the customer, the 

numerical figures displayed to the customer shall be at least 9.5 mm (0.4 in) high.

(b) The units of mass and other descriptive markings or indications, such as lb, kg, gross, tare, net, 

etc., shall be clearly and easily read and shall be at least 2 mm (0.08 in) high.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

(Added 200X)

UR.2. Installation Requirements

UR.2.10. Primary Indicating Elements Provided by the User. – Primary indicating elements that 

are not the same as the primary indicating elements provided by the original equipment 

manufacturer (e.g., video display monitors) shall comply with the following:

(a) On digital devices that display primary indications during direct sales to the customer, 

the numerical figures displayed to the customer shall be at least 9.5 mm (0.4 in) high.

(b) The units of mass and other descriptive information, such as gross, tare, net, etc., shall 

be displayed or marked on the device and shall be at least 2 mm (0.08 in) high.

(Added 200X)

UR.2.11. Minimum Reading Distance – On digital devices that display primary indications, the 

height of the numbers expressed in millimeters should be not less than three times the minimum 

reading distance expressed in meters, without being less than 2 mm (0.08 in). (Example: If the 

height of the primary indications is 10 mm, then the minimum reading distance should not be 

greater than 30 m).

(Added 200X)

S&T - A1 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

Add new definitions of “minimum reading distance” and “primary indications” to Appendix D as follows:

minimum reading distance. The shortest distance that an observer is freely able to approach the 

indicating device to take a reading under normal conditions of use. This approach is considered to be 

free for the observer if there is a clear space of at least 0.8 m in front of the indicating device. However, if 

the minimum reading distance “S” in Figure X below is less than 0.8 m, then the minimum reading 

distance is “L” in Figure X.[2.20]

(Added 200X)

Figure X

primary indications. Weight or other units of measurement values that are displayed by a primary 

indicating element. The primary indications are used as the determining factor in arriving at the sale 

representation when the device is used commercially. (Examples of primary indications include the 

measurement value, unit price or count, and total price on instruments capable of price computing. 

Primary indications do not include indications from auxiliary indicating devices such as totalizing 

registers and pre-determined stop mechanisms.)[1.10], [2.20]

(Added 200X)

This proposal was developed to address a growing problem with the readability of weight indications and the values 

that define transaction information. Field and laboratory officials indicate both are becoming increasingly smaller, 

as demonstrated in the following example of a weight display where the actual size of the weight values are 23 mm 

in height, but the unit of measurement (g) is 4 mm in height. 

S&T - A2 
 S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

Field and laboratory officials need more specific requirements to consistently determine if indications are suitable 

for the environment in which the device is used. Currently only the Taximeters, Grain Moisture Meters, and NearInfrared Grain Analyzers Codes include requirements that specify the minimum height of figures, words, and 

symbols. The size requirements for all three device technologies were developed primarily because of concerns 

about the visibility of indications from the customer’s position. HB 44 and NCWM Publication 14 include no 

uniform size requirements or specific guidelines on how to evaluate display information for clarity and readability 

for equipment other than these three device types. 

The Committee agreed that although the clarity and readability of indications is a growing issue, the current 

proposal has only limited support from the public and private sectors. The Committee recognized the proposal 

requires a significant amount of work before the language is clear, technically correct, and deemed applicable to the 

different types of installations and technologies in current use. The Committee has concerns about whether or not 

the proposed 2 mm height requirements for units of measurement and other markings are adequate. The Committee 

also questioned the clarity of the proposed user requirements for the minimum reading distance. 

The Committee recommends the submitter consider several points in its review of the current proposal: 

• The proposed 2 mm height limits in the proposal may possibly be an error due to a miscommunication 

within the Weighing Sector. The value was intended to be closer to that of the figure in the example display 

which was 4 mm. 

• Any specification and corresponding user requirement should provide laboratory and field officials with 

uniform guidelines: 

- to determine if the required markings on a new equipment design from the manufacturer or a device 

recently modified by the owner or a service company are suitable for continued use in a particular 

application; and 

- to remove all ambiguity or subjectivity when assessing if primary indications can be observed from a 

reasonable customer and operator position. 

• A size requirement for figures and their corresponding descriptive symbols and characters that are specified 

as a percentage might be a good approach. This approach was explored by the 2006 Weighing Sector in its 

review of the relationship of size requirements for taximeter indications. The legibility of primary 

indications is dependent upon or relative to not only the distance the reader is from the information, but also 

the total area (square footage) of the display panel where those markings are posted. For example, a 9.5 mm 

figure is not a suitable size for a primary indication on a typical vehicle scale scoreboard because of the 

distance of the scoreboard from the typical customer position. 

• Corresponding new language in HB 44 similar to that which exists in HB 130 for labels might be needed. 

This language may be necessary to provide guidelines to ensure sufficient contrast between the color and 

illumination of all required markings and their background. For example, a requirement might specify, "all 

S&T - A3 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

required markings shall be prominent, definite, plain, and conspicuous as to size and style of symbols, 

letters, and numbers and as to color that is in contrast to the background and presented so that there is 

adequate free area surrounding those markings." This language would be consistent with current General 

Code requirements or might be added to a specific code section of HB 44. 

• A recognized vision standard such as those used to determine visual acuity (eye exam charts, etc.) might be 

a good source for establishing specific distance limits. 

• When the size of indications becomes a selectable configuration parameter, access to this feature must be 

sealed. 

For more background information refer to the Committee’s 2006 Final Report. 

During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee was informed that the NTETC Weighing Sector will 

continue to develop this item. 

To comment on this proposal, contact Steven Cook, NIST technical advisor to the NTETC Weighing Sector, by 

e-mail at steven.cook@nist.gov, by telephone at (301) 975-4003, by fax at (301) 975-8091, or by postal mail at 

NIST WMD, 100 Bureau Drive MS 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600. 

Part 2, Item 1 Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems: UR.3.2.(c) Maintenance; Zero Load Tests 

Source: 2005 Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: Modify UR.3.2.(c) as follows: 

UR.3.2. Maintenance. – Belt-conveyor scales and idlers shall be maintained and serviced in accordance with 

manufacturer's instructions and the following requirements: 

(c) Zero-load and load (simulated or material) tests,Ssimulated load tests, or material tests, and zero 

load tests shall be conducted at periodic intervals between official tests in order to provide reasonable 

assurance that the device is performing correctly. 

(Amended 200X)

The action to be taken as a result of the zero-load tests is as follows:

(Added 2000X)

- if the change in zero is less than ± 0.1 %, make no adjustment, record results and proceed to 

simulated load tests; or

- if the change in zero is ± 0.1 % to ± 0.25 %, inspect the conveyor and weighing area for 

compliance with UR.2. Installation Requirements and retest.

(Added 200X)

The action to be taken as a result of the simulated load or material tests or simulated load tests is as follows: 

(Amended 2002)

- if the error is less than 0.25 %, no adjustment is to be made; 

- if the error is at least 0.25 % but not more than 0.6 %, inspect the conveyor and weighing area 

for compliance with UR.2. Installation Requirements and repeat the test adjustment may be 

made if the official with statutory authority is notified; 

 (Amended 1991 and 200X) 

S&T - A4 
 S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

- if the result of tests, after compliance with UR.2. Installation Requirements is verified, 

remain greater than ± 0.25 %, a span correction shall be made and the official with statutory 

authority notified;

- if the error is greater than 0.6 % but does not exceed 0.75 %, inspect the conveyor and weighing 

area for compliance with UR.2. Installation Requirements and repeat the test;

(Amended 1991 and 200X) 

- if the result of tests, after UR.2. Installation Requirements compliance is verified, remains 

greater than ± 0.25 %, a span correction shall be made, the official with statutory authority 

shall be notified, and an official test shall be conducted;

- if the error is greater than 0.75 %, an official test is required. 

(Amended 1987 and 200X) 

Discussion: HB 44 gives limited guidance on what to do with zero-load test results. Belt loss is not the only factor 

which may require the scale operator to make physical adjustments to the belt-conveyor system to correct for 

deficiencies. For example, a dirty scale structure or a worn belt scraper will increase the zero-reference number and 

the test results may exceed tolerances. 

The scale user/owner has to protect his interest between weighing transactions. At present, some belt-conveyor 

systems may have errors greater than 0.5 % in zero reference over a 24-hour period. The belt is part of tare (net 

load) on any empty running system, and the system must be maintained to within tolerance at all times. 

During its 2006 meeting, the WWMA recommended the alternate industry proposal shown above. The WWMA 

also recommended the alternate proposal be considered at a future meeting of the USNWG on Belt-Conveyor Scale 

Systems. The WWMA recommended the alternate proposal remain a Developing item to allow sufficient time for a 

review by the WG. The CWMA and the SWMA concur with the WWMA's recommendation. 

During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard testimony that a work group of the National 

Weighing and Sampling Association is working on this item and will have a recommendation for the WWMA prior 

to their 2007 Annual Technical Conference. 

To comment on this proposal, contact Steven Cook, NIST technical advisor to the NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scales 

Sector, by e-mail at steven.cook@nist.gov, by telephone at (301) 975-4003, by fax at (301) 975-8091, or by postal 

mail at NIST WMD, 100 Bureau Drive MS 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600. 

Part 3, Item 1, Liquid-Measuring Devices: T.5. Predominance – Retail Motor-Fuel Devices 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA)

Recommendation: The CWMA recommends withdrawing its earlier proposal (to add a new 

paragraph G-UR.4.1.1. to the General Code) and replacing it with the following new proposal developed by the 

Nebraska Weights and Measures Division to add a new paragraph T.5. to HB 44 Section 3.30. as follows: 

T.5. Predominance – Retail Motor-fuel Devices. – The retail motor-fuel devices in service at a single 

place of business shall be considered maintained in proper operating condition when evaluation of 

normal test results indicate the following parameters are met:

(a) The number of meters with minus test errors in excess of one-half maintenance tolerance shall be 

less than 60 % of the meters at the location, and

S&T - A5 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

(b) When there are three or more meters of a single grade or type of fuel, the average error of the 

meters shall not be a minus value exceeding one-half maintenance tolerance. Meter test results 

that exceed maintenance tolerance shall not be included in determining the average meter error 

of a single grade or type of fuel.

(Added 200X)

In 1991 this same topic was brought before the NCWM as an Information item. The intent of the proposal at that 

time was to provide guidance to states in the interpretation of General Code paragraph G-UR.4.1. Maintenance of 

Equipment. In 1993 the State of Wisconsin adopted a policy that defined “predominance” as shown in the proposal. 

That policy was similar to the one proposed in 1991, except Wisconsin felt that one-third acceptance tolerance was 

too stringent because there was a need to take into account normal variability in testing procedures, equipment, and 

environmental conditions found in the field. Wisconsin, therefore, adopted a “greater-than-one-third” maintenance

tolerance guideline. In 2003 the Wisconsin policy was further refined by deleting the language “all devices are 

found to be in error in a direction favorable to the device user.” The new guideline for permissible errors was “60 % 

or more of the devices are found to be in error in favor of the device owner/user by more than one-third of the 

maintenance tolerance.” Both of these criteria were seldom used in the field because they made the policy 

confusing. 

Recently NIST conducted a national survey of retail motor-fuel dispenser testing, and the results pointed to a need to 

gain more uniformity in the application of tolerances. There is a wide variation in how different states handle the 

“predominance” question. Strides should be continually made to gain uniformity. Adoption of the proposed new 

paragraph G-UR.4.1.1. would be one step toward gaining greater uniformity. With more than five years of history 

using the proposed criteria, Wisconsin saw a relatively low number of devices rejected on the basis of 

“predominance,” and most station owners and all service companies have a working understanding of 

predominance. 

In 2005 the CWMA agreed to submit the modified proposal to the NCWM S&T Committee with a recommendation 

that it be placed on the Committee’s agenda as a Developing item. 

At their fall 2006 meetings, NEWMA, the SWMA, and the WWMA considered an earlier CWMA proposal to 

modify a General Code requirement and set limits on how to determine predominance in favor of the device 

operator. NEWMA believed the item was addressed adequately in HB 44 and recommended it be withdrawn from 

the NCWM S&T Committee’s 2007 agenda. The SWMA recommended this item remain “developing” as a user 

requirement in the General Code. The SWMA encouraged the jurisdictions to review the proposed policy and use it 

on a trial basis. The WWMA considered the limits in the proposal too stringent given the effects of temperature and 

other uncertainties. The WWMA was concerned dispensers will be set to the limits in the proposal rather than as 

close as practical to zero error. Since the current General Code adequately addresses predominance, and 

jurisdictions may establish policy to gain uniformity in determining predominance, the WWMA recommended this 

proposal be withdrawn from the agenda. 

At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee considered proposals to withdraw this item from its agenda. 

However, because a jurisdiction involved in developing the current proposal indicated their intent to provide the 

Committee with considerable data and continue further development of the item, the Committee agreed to keep 

Part 2, Item 1 on its agenda as a Developing item through 2007. 

Part 3, Item 2 Liquid-Measuring Devices: Price Posting and Computing Capability and Requirements for a 

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser (RMFD) 

Source: WMD and all Regional Associations 

Recommendation: Review and update NIST HB 44 requirements that address RMFD pricing and computing 

capability. This issue is under development and not ready for committee action.

Background/Discussion: In the early 1990s, various sections of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code in HB 44 

(including paragraphs S.1.6.4. Display of Unit Price and Product Identity, S.1.6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price, UR.3.2. 

Unit Price and Product Identity, and UR.3.3. Computing Device) were modified to address multi-tier pricing 

S&T - A6 
 S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

applications such as cash-credit. Since that time, marketing practices have evolved and recent years have seen the 

addition of new practices such as frequent shopper discounts and club member discounts. Numerous questions have 

been posed to WMD regarding the requirements for posting unit prices, calculation of total price, customer-operated 

controls, and other related topics such as the definitions for associated terminology. 

It was clear from these questions that changes were needed to HB 44 to ensure the requirements adequately address 

current marketplace conditions and practices. WMD raised this issue with the NCWM S&T Committee and also 

discussed a variety of pricing practices with individual state and local weights and measures jurisdictions. 

NIST WMD is now in the process of reviewing the existing requirements and their application to current market 

practices. WMD collected information on a number of scenarios, including the following:* 

(1) Frequent shopper discounts (8) Full Service 

(2) Club member discounts (9) Self Service 

(10) Progressive discounts based on volume of 

 motor-fuel purchased 

(3) Discount for prepaying cash (to prevent "drive-

 offs") 

(11) Coupons for discounts on immediate or future 

 purchases 

(4) Prepay at the cashier for credit sales 

(5) Discounts for purchasing store products 

(12) Rebates (e.g., use of oil company credit card) 

(13) Day-of-the-Week Discounts 

(6) Discounts for purchasing a service (e.g., 

 carwash) 

(7) Targeted group discounts (e.g., Tuesday-Ladies 

 5 cents off per gallon) 

*(Note: The conditions under some of these scenarios may not typically fall under the authority of weights and 

measures jurisdictions.) 

WMD is interested in receiving input from the weights and measures community about the various practices and 

pricing structures in use. Working with input from the weights and measures community, WMD plans to introduce 

proposed modifications to current requirements through the regional weights and measures associations and 

technical committees. In the meantime, WMD welcomes opportunities to discuss this issue at regional weights and 

measures associations to ensure the issue is adequately addressed. 

The WWMA acknowledged that marketing practices change on a daily basis and the task to ensure HB 44 codes 

address each scenario is monumental. However, the WWMA encourages NIST in its efforts to tackle this ongoing 

issue. Therefore, the WWMA recommends this issue be considered and move forward to the national level as a 

Developing item. 

The CWMA recommends that State Directors compile information regarding whether or not they are enforcing the 

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code in HB 44 (including paragraphs S.1.6.4. Display of Unit Price and Product Identity, 

S.1.6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price, UR.3.2. Unit Price and Product Identity, and UR.3.3. Computing Device). If 

jurisdictions are not enforcing the specific code requirement, it should be stated why not (for example, overriding 

state statute). Information is to be sent to: 

James Truex, Chief Phone: (614) 728-6290 

Division of Weights and Measures Fax: (614) 728-6424 

8995 E. Main Street E-mail: truex@mail.agri.state.oh.us 

Reynoldsburg, Ohio 43068 

NEWMA looks forward to further development of this item. 

The SWMA recommends adding this item to the NCWM S&T Committee’s 2007 Agenda as a Developing item. 

At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed to add this proposal to its agenda as a Developing item. 

S&T - A7 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

To comment on this proposal, contact NIST technical advisors to the NCWM S&T Committee: Steve Cook at 

steven.cook@nist.gov or by telephone at (301) 975-4003; Richard Suiter at richard.suiter@nist.gov or by telephone 

at (301) 975-4406; or either by fax at (301) 975-8091 or by mail at NIST WMD, 100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600, 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600. 

Part 4, Item 1 Water Meters: UR.2.1. Accessibility for Reading 

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph UR.2. to HB 44, Section 3.36. Water Meters, as follows: 

UR.2. Accessibility for Reading. – A water meter shall be so located that there is reasonable access to 

obtain a reading by means of the primary indicating element or a remote indicating element. Otherwise, 

it shall be the responsibility of the device owner or operator to make available, within 24 hours of a 

request being received by the owner or operator from a current lessee, mortgagee, or titleholder, the 

necessary labor and support to provide the consumer a means to obtain a meter reading, provided such 

requests are made with a frequency consistent with the normal billing cycle of the utility.

The WWMA also considered an alternate proposal developed by the California Division of Measurement Standards 

(DMS) to add new paragraph UR.2.1. to the Water Meters Code as follows: 

UR.2.1. Accessibility of Customer Indication. – An unobstructed standing space of at least 30 in wide, 

36 in deep, and 78 in high shall be maintained in front of an indication intended for use by the customer 

to allow for reading the indicator. The customer indication shall be readily observable to a person 

located within the standing space without necessity of a separate tool or device.

Industry Position: The industry proposal is intended to assist enforcement personnel in properly and uniformly 

enforcing the applicable regulations for obtaining meter readings. The proposed language is more appropriate than 

(1) trying to define inherently ambiguous and subjective terms like “reasonable” and “ordinary circumstances,” or 

(2) defining specific height requirements that insure visibility for customers and/or officials. Proposed new 

paragraph UR.2.1. Accessibility for Reading should be added to Section 3.36. Water Meters Code of HB 44 because 

of the need for language to describe acceptable and applicable provisions. 

Industry members stated that existing language in General Code paragraphs G-UR2.1.1. and G-UR.3.3. includes 

terms such as “reasonable” and “readily observable” which are subjective requirements; it is not possible to 

understand the installation requirements without relying on each local authority’s interpretation of these terms, 

which varies even within the same jurisdiction. 

Water submetering locations in a vast majority of cases are NOT chosen by the service agency or the property/meter 

owner, but are dictated by the engineers and architects who use both national and state building and plumbing codes 

as their primary guide. 

The regulation which is most commonly cited on notices of violation for register visibility issues is 

paragraph G-UR.3.3. Position of Equipment. HB 44 defines direct sale as “a sale in which both parties in the 

transaction are present when the quantity is being determined ....” Industry notes that paragraph G-UR.3.3. is being 

misapplied and should have no bearing on a water submeter since both parties are not present when the quantity is 

determined. Furthermore, the antonym of a direct sale would be an indirect sale. NIST HB 130, Packaging and 

Labeling, Section 11. Exemptions, Subsection 11.1.1. Indirect Sale of Random Packages gives examples of indirect 

sales, several of which are exact examples of how water-submetering bills are paid. Examples of such indirect 

methods include on-line bill payments, phone bill payments, fax bill payments, and bill payments by mail. 

Since water submetering is typically billed on a monthly cycle and since water submetering is not a direct sale where 

both parties are present at the time of the transaction, accessibility requirements for reading water meters should not 

be the same as those enforced on direct sale devices where transactions take place frequently and with both parties 

present. 

If the interpretation of the terms “reasonable and readily observable” continue to be enforced as they are currently, 

many meter owners will choose to abandon their systems for alternative billing methods such as “remote utility 

S&T - A8 
 S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

billing service” (RUBS) because re-plumbing existing water lines within walls is costly to building and coop/condo 

owners. Since there is no framework in place to know how to perform such a plumbing retrofit, the work will be 

compliant with all interpretations of “reasonable” and “readily observable.” 

A detailed 12-month sampling of call center complaints from California properties showed that not a single 

complaint about the difficulty in obtaining a water meter reading had been received. 

Regional Association Positions: 

HB 44, Water Meters Code paragraph S.1.1.1. General permits a remote display as long as it is “readily accessible to 

the customer.” 

The industry proposed language is no more definitive than existing language. The industry proposal removes the 

requirement for providing a readily accessible customer indicator. The California DMS alternative language would 

remove the vagueness from the current requirement while providing flexibility to installers. 

Property owners do not read the indicators on each meter or they would be placed in a more convenient reading 

location. With remote reading, however, many meters are now being placed in inaccessible locations. Hardware is 

being installed to permit remote readings for billing purposes, but not for customers’ use. 

Complaints have been lodged where the remote billing did not match the meter readings and customers should be 

able to monitor easily their actual use without involving the property owner. Occasionally disputes exist between 

the property owner or manager and tenants that make requesting assistance a less desirable solution to reading a 

meter for verification. 

The industry in California has been advised that remote customer indications are permissible. However, industry 

has not submitted devices for California DMS type evaluation. Between better planning for the installation of future 

meters and submitting remote indicators to be approved for use by customers, this problem can be resolved in a 

manner more consistent with other device applications. 

The WWMA considered a proposal developed by industry and an alternate recommendation developed by 

California DMS. The industry proposal permits access to indications either through a primary indicator or a remote 

indicator, or requires the operator to provide a means for customer access to meter indications when given 24-hour 

notice within a billing cycle. The California DMS proposal specifies the dimensions for a clear, unobstructed 

perimeter surrounding the device to ensure accessibility for viewing meter indications. 

The WWMA acknowledged that a device used to submeter a utility service is commercial equipment that presents a 

unique set of circumstances because the customer making the purchase does not observe the entire measurement 

operation but receives a bill on a periodic cycle based on meter indications. In some cases the operator/meter owner 

may be offsite and not required to observe primary meter indications, and may not be familiar with the unusual 

plumbing configurations that make it difficult to install an accessible meter and read a meter. Consequently, no one 

General Code or Water Meter Code requirement appears to provide a complete and uniform set of guidelines that 

specifies all conditions for making meter indications available so the consumer can verify the measurement and 

allow the official to conduct an inspection. Some jurisdictions have developed policies to address this situation. In 

2002 paragraph S.1.1. was modified to ensure remote indications remain accessible to the customer. 

In any case, requirements and jurisdiction policies should address the needs of the customer and the official for 

access to meter indications without placing an undue burden on the operator or customer, and they should not deter a 

customer from making a legitimate complaint. In the marketplace it is essential to have all components used in 

determining utility charges transparent; this includes meter indications that are available to all parties involved in the 

transaction. 

The WWMA agreed that each proposal has some elements necessary to address meter accessibility and indicator 

accessibility. Therefore, the WWMA recommends the proposal become a Developing item to allow time to rework 

the text to establish uniform guidelines to fully address accessibility. The guidelines should include the following 

points: (1) installation and location is such that there is no obstruction of the meter or indications, and 

S&T - A9 
S&T Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Item 360-2: Developing Items 

(2) indications are accessible for viewing by the customer and official without the use of tools separate from the 

device. 

The WWMA encouraged the California DMS and industry to work together to develop a proposal for regional 

consideration. 

At the fall 2006 CWMA meeting, there was discussion that LP gas, natural gas, and electric meters should be 

included in this proposal; however, the CWMA did not submit any additional language at this time. 

The SWMA supported the proposal moving forward as a Developing item on the NCWM S&T Committee’s 2007 

Agenda. 

At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed to add this proposal to its agenda as a Developing item. 

To comment on this proposal, contact Ken Lake, California Division of Measurement Standards, by e-mail at 

klake@cdfa.ca.gov or by telephone at (916) 229-3047. 

S&T - A10 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Final Report of the 

Professional Development Committee (PDC)1

Agatha Shields, Chairman 

Franklin County Weights and Measures 

Columbus, Ohio 

Reference 

Key Number 

400 INTRODUCTION 

This is the report of the Professional Development Committee (hereinafter referred to as the “Committee” or PDC) 

for the 92nd Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights & Measures (NCWM). This report is based on 

the Interim Report offered in NCWM Publication 16, testimony heard at public hearings, comments received from 

the Regional Weights and Measures Associations and other parties, the Addendum Sheets issued at the Annual 

Meeting, and actions taken by the membership at the Voting Session of the Annual Meeting. The informational 

items presented below were adopted as presented when the Committee’s report was approved. 

Table A identifies the agenda items in the Report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. Item numbers 

are those assigned in the Interim Meeting Agenda. A voting item is indicated with a “V” after the item number. An item 

marked with an “I” after the reference key number is an information item. An item marked with a “D” after the reference 

key number is a developing item. The developing designation indicates an item has merit; however, the item was returned 

to the submitter for further development before any action can be taken at the national level. Table B lists the Appendix to 

the Agenda. 

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference 

Key Number Title of Item Page 

400 INTRODUCTION..........................................................................................................................................1

401 EDUCATION .................................................................................................................................................2

401-1 I National Training Program (NTP).........................................................................................................2

401-2 I Create a Curriculum Plan ......................................................................................................................3

401-3 D Instructor Improvement .........................................................................................................................4

401-4 D Certification...........................................................................................................................................5

401-5 D Recommended Topics for Conference Training....................................................................................6

402 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT......................................................................................................................7

402-1 I Safety Awareness ..................................................................................................................................7

402-2 V Standard Categories of Weighing and Measuring Devices ...................................................................8

402-3 D PDC Publication ....................................................................................................................................9

Table B 

Appendix

Appendix Title Page 

A Strategic Direction for the Professional Development Committee...............................................................A1

B Curriculum Package (Guideline for Creating a Basic Inspector Curriculum).............................................. B1

C National Training Curriculum Outline ......................................................................................................... C1

D NCWM Curriculum Work Plan....................................................................................................................D1

1

 Note: Report content is published as received with the exception of minor editorial and format changes. 

PDC - 1 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Table C 

Voting Results 

House of State Representatives House of Delegates Reference Key Number

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

Results

402-2 41 0 41 0 Passed 

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

401 EDUCATION 

401-1 I National Training Program (NTP) 

Source: The Committee (2003) 

Background: The Board of Directors established the Committee at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting in Sparks, 

Nevada. The first critical charge given to the Committee was to develop a National Weights and Measures 

Professional Development Program in cooperation with its partners including:

• State and local weights and measures departments; 

• Private industry at all levels; and 

• Technical advisors from NIST Weights and Measures Division and Measurement Canada 

The NTP will address the following tasks in order of priority: 

(a) The education and professional development of weights and measures officials and the promotion of 

uniformity and consistency in the application of weights and measures laws and regulations; 

(b) The education of industry personnel with regard to weights and measures laws and regulations, including 

all areas from device manufacturer to service technician; 

(c) Quality standards for weights and measures activities and programs; 

(d) Safety awareness for weights and measures-related activities; and 

(e) Development of a firm partnership with the state and local weights and measures departments, private 

industry, and the NCWM. It is critical that NIST Weights and Measures Division (NIST WMD) partner 

with the Committee, and, where appropriate, provide technical advice. Measurement Canada is also 

encouraged to participate in Committee activities. 

The Committee began developing the concept of a National Certification Program for weights and measures 

officials during the 2004 NCWM Annual Meeting. The Committee’s continued work on this issue is reported 

in Item 401-4 of this report. 

The Committee’s overall strategic direction is summarized in Appendix A. 

Discussion: The regions continue to support the proposed direction of the NTP. In addition, the Western Weights 

and Measures Association (WWMA) suggested that the PDC establish an action plan and timeline to identify those 

tasks which must be completed for the establishment of the NTP. The regions have submitted curricula for several 

topic areas, and the PDC is in the process of developing curriculum guidelines and certification models for review 

by the jurisdictions. 

The Committee reviewed the WWMA’s suggestion to establish an action plan and timeline. The Committee agreed 

that timelines need to be established; however, the Committee believes it is premature to establish timelines for the 

tasks until the curricula for the core areas are completed. 

PDC - 2 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

401-2 I Create a Curriculum Plan 

Source: The Committee (2003) 

Background: The Committee agreed the following steps must be addressed for the NTP to be viable: 

(a) Develop and maintain a curriculum plan in cooperation with our partners that establishes uniform and 

consistent training objectives for weights and measures professionals in all fields and at all levels. 

(b) Develop objectives of the curriculum plan representative of a consensus of our partners and organize those 

objectives by scope, sequence, and level of complexity to assist those developing the curriculum materials. 

The development of a training program should follow the steps below: 

(a) Study training programs of state and local weights and measures jurisdictions and outside agencies. 

(b) Establish knowledge goals for weights and measures officials and administrators. 

(c) Develop curriculum based upon the findings and results of steps (a) and (b) above. 

(1) Coordinate the development of curriculum materials to be used in the delivery of training (i.e., lesson 

plans, digital presentations, slide shows, testing guides, etc.) using a variety of formats (e.g., selfstudy, traditional instruction). 

(2) Consider creating a network of interested parties to establish priorities, share training resources, foster 

cooperation to reduce redundancy, and promote uniformity and consistency. 

(d) Develop examinations, quizzes, or tests based on the content of the materials developed under step (c)(1). 

(e) Gather and share information from trainers on highly effective training techniques, visual aids, and other 

materials that have been used to facilitate learning. Use as many of these resources as available. 

The Committee reviewed the notes from the NIST-sponsored administrators’ workshops held in Denver, Colorado, 

and Baltimore, Maryland, and plans to explore many of these ideas. 

During the 2004 Annual Meeting, the Committee discussed the idea of using work groups to develop courses that 

could be used for self-study or for traditional classroom settings. The Committee agreed that the initial priority 

should be high profile devices (e.g., motor-fuel dispensers and retail computing scales). The Committee studied the 

survey results to focus on the memberships’ needs and desires. 

There were several recommendations submitted by the regional associations. The CWMA commented that the 

Committee should draw upon other sources, both external and internal, for establishment of curricula. The WWMA 

recommended the Committee review current training courses on the NIST website at http://www.nist.gov/owm to 

establish and identify various levels of training. The WWMA also suggested the Committee review and update all 

existing NIST training courses, and recommended that WMD post them on the NIST website. The Northeast 

Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) recommended the Committee set standards for education that 

include provisions for field tests. 

During the 2005 Interim Meeting, recommendations were made to develop course curriculum with specific learning 

objectives and development of tests to determine mastery of the learning objectives. Training responsibility to meet 

the objectives would rest with the jurisdictions. It was recommended that the Committee oversee development of 

the tests to be administered for each course. Upon successful testing, certificates would be issued. Protocol for 

preserving the integrity of the tests and the testing system would need to be developed. 

Following the 2006 Annual Meeting, the PDC forwarded to the regional associations a small-scale example format 

developed in 2002 by the prior Administration and Public Affairs Committee (A&P) and the documents provided by 

New York as example formats. These documents were also posted to the PDC page on the NCWM website. The 

regional associations began work on their designated curriculum plans. The regional committee responsible for 

developing the curriculum segment was reminded to focus on a level of competency expected of the entry-level 

inspector. As the regions developed the curriculum, they were encouraged to begin development of the written 

certification questions needed to verify that the curriculum goals were met. 

PDC - 3 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Discussion: The Committee thanks the following regions for submitting curricula for consideration: the Southern 

Weights and Measures Association (SWMA), Class III and III L scales; WWMA, Retail Motor-fuel Dispensers; the 

NEWMA, Small Scales; and CWMA, Package Checking. Based on comments from several of the regions and its 

own assessment, the Committee decided that it is essential to have a standardized format to ensure the end product is 

uniform. Based on a collective review of samples received, the Committee is working to create a sample template 

and example for regions to use in developing other curricula. The Committee also supports the general approach 

used in the “California Core Competency Model for the First Course in Accounting,” which provides a model for 

improving the quality of education in a select discipline. The Committee plans to include this information as a 

general guideline for the regions to use as they develop other curriculum topics. In addition, the Committee will ask 

those jurisdictions that have already submitted curricula to make revisions based on the Committee’s 

recommendations for formatting. 

The Committee prioritized those subjects of interest based on survey results collected in 2004. The four main topics 

of interest are: Retail Motor-fuel Dispensers, Small-capacity Scales, Handbook 44, and Safety. The Committee is 

pleased that the work in progress covers the first three of these main areas of interest. Regional workgroups are 

encouraged to work with the PDC on the next highest prioritized subjects. The Committee is also pursuing efforts in 

conjunction with Item 402-1 of its agenda to respond to the interest expressed in safety training. Since the needs of 

weights and measures officials and service companies change over time, the Committee also encourages continued 

input from these groups to ensure that changing priorities are addressed as the Committee’s work proceeds. 

The Committee is working on a curriculum package to send to the regions, which will include the following: 

• Cover Memorandum (guide to curriculum development); 

• California Accounting Core Competency Guide Model (emphasis on the Introduction and the three 

Appendices); 

• NCWM Curriculum Template (curriculum guideline); 

• NCWM Sample Curriculum (examples of desired format); 

• Guide to Writing Test Questions (including examples); 

• National Training Curriculum Outline (updated from 2004 version); and 

• NCWM Curriculum Work Plan (2007) 

The Cover Memorandum, California Accounting Core Competency Guide Model, and Guide to Writing Test 

Questions are included in Appendix B. 

The Committee is working to agree upon and refine the model template and examples which will be posted to the 

PDC page of the NCWM website as soon as they are complete. 

After the Committee reviews the revised curricula, they will be forwarded to the State Certification Coordinators 

(SCC) and selected organizations, industry, or individuals for review and comment. 

At the NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee revisited the original “National Training Curriculum Outline” from 

its 2004 NCWM final report. The Committee prepared an accompanying “NCWM Curriculum Work Plan,” which 

is intended to assist in the management of curriculum development. The original outline and the new accompanying 

Work Plan are included in Appendices C and D. The Committee is making revisions to the original curriculum 

outline to match the Work Plan and will include the revised version in the Curriculum Package. The Committee will 

agree upon a final format for the curriculum and will distribute the template along with the complete package to the 

development team in each region following the 2007 Annual Meeting.

401-3 D Instructor Improvement 

Source: The Committee (2003) 

Background: One Committee goal is to work with all interested parties to improve the competence of instructors 

and the uniformity of curriculum delivery. 

PDC - 4 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

The Committee concluded there are two parts to the instructor improvement strategy. The first part is educating 

trainers in effective methods of instruction. A variety of courses and training methods are available from state, 

federal, and private sources to develop instructional skills and techniques. Jurisdictions are encouraged to seek out 

and send selected staff to participate in this type of training. 

The second area of instructor improvement is to provide trainers with the knowledge of the technical aspects of all 

types of devices. The Committee believes that NIST WMD continued leadership and participation is a valuable 

asset in this area and recommends that WMD continue to provide the technical training for instructors. The 

Committee invites and looks forward to working with WMD as a resource to consult with trainers and to work with 

the Committee to keep the curricula current as changes to the handbooks occur, new technologies are developed, and 

emerging issues evolve. 

Industry has continued to support and sponsor training on their new technology for weighing and measuring devices. 

NIST has assured the committee they will continue their work towards providing technical training for the trainers. 

Discussion: The Committee, while recognizing the importance of this item, is maintaining it as a “Developing” 

item on its agenda until progress is made in other areas of the NTP plan. 

401-4 D Certification 

Source: The Committee (2003)

Background: In December 2004 several Committee members met in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to further develop 

the concept of a National Certification Program. The participants agreed the NTP should take the following 

directions: 

(a) Responsibility of training remains with the state and local jurisdictions; 

(b) Administrator training must be added to the curriculum; and 

(c) Training and structure used by agencies outside the NCWM should be explored and used as models. 

The participants also acknowledged that: (1) the CWMA offered to assist the Committee in determining what 

knowledge and prerequisites are required for beginning and advanced inspectors; and (2) the WWMA recommended 

course outlines for shorter training courses. 

The Committee believes an NCWM certification program should be developed based on a curriculum plan with 

measurable levels of competency. The Committee agrees that weights and measures officials must pass written 

examinations to receive certification. Certificates could be presented at the Annual Meeting to administrators and 

weights and measures officials who complete training classes and pass the course examination. In 2004, then 

Chairman Dennis Ehrhart indicated the Board of Directors would consider requests to fund training. 

The WWMA and CWMA submitted extensive comments and recommendations regarding this item prior to the 

2004 NCWM Annual Meeting. The 2005 NCWM Certification Proposal was redrafted to reflect the NCWM’s role 

in issuance of the certificates and was posted on the PDC page on the NCWM website. 

Subsequent to the 2006 NCWM Annual Meeting, all states not previously contacted were sent a letter requesting the 

name of their State Certification Coordinator (SCC). The state director will be deemed the default SCC in the 

absence of a designated contact. The list of SCC contacts is posted on the PDC page of the NCWM website. 

Discussion:

The Committee continues to hear support from the regions concerning the establishment of a certification program. 

In addition to expressing support for this effort, the WWMA stated its support for having the states meet the 

requirements established by the NCWM. The WWMA commented that after demonstrating competency, the 

NCWM would be the appropriate entity to issue the certificate. 

PDC - 5 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

By exposing weights and measures inspectors to standardized training methodology, this certification process will 

lead to uniformity. However, the Committee believes it is time to begin the process of building the infrastructure of 

the program. We must determine what the program will look like and establish the roles of the states and the 

NCWM. It is unrealistic for the NCWM to fund a complete certification program. It is critical that the states take 

an active role in the process if the program is to be successful. The WWMA also recommends that the certification 

program not be limited to weights and measures personnel. NCWM certification could be offered for a fee to 

manufacturers, service companies, or individuals providing they meet the criteria set forth by the PDC. 

The Committee will be contacting the SCC of each state to gather information on its current training and 

certification programs. The Committee will develop model certification programs that will be presented to the 

jurisdictions to determine workability. The Committee appreciates comments received from the regions and will 

consider these as it develops possible models. 

The Committee will include a guide for writing test questions in the curriculum package referenced in Item 401-2. 

Test questions subsequently generated by the regional volunteers should provide a bank of questions, which can be 

used in a certification program and in training activities. NEWMA has provided an example of a draft statute, based 

on the Massachusetts statute, to establish a certification program. The Committee will study the sample with the 

possibility that it might ultimately be used to establish model criteria for a certification program. 

The Committee agreed to maintain this issue as a Developing item on its agenda as it continues work on this issue. 

401-5 D Recommended Topics for Conference Training 

Source: The Committee (2003) 

Background: The Board has charged the Committee with responsibility for selecting appropriate topics for the 

technical sessions at future Annual Meetings. The Board asked that the Committee review and prioritize possible 

presentations and submit those to the chairman. The chairman would then work with NCWM staff to make the 

arrangements and schedule the sessions. 

The Committee continues to carry the following list and recommends these topics for possible training seminars, 

roundtables, or symposia for presentation at the NCWM meetings: 

(a) Risk-based Inspections (Robert Williams, Tennessee, volunteered to present his state’s RMFD testing 

program); 

(b) Marketplace Surveys; 

(c) Auditing the Performance of Field Staff (Will Wotthlie, Maryland, volunteered to lead the session); 

(d) Alternative Fuels (including motor-fuel trends and technology updates); 

(e) Device Inspections Using a Sampling Model; and 

(f) Emerging Issues. 

Discussion: The Committee received the following additional suggestions (listed in no particular order) for 

educational topics at the 2007 Annual Meeting: 

(a) Nebraska 52-week Dispenser Field Study (offered by presenters Steve Malone, Nebraska, and Henry 

Oppermann, Weights and Measures Consulting, LLC); 

(b) Temperature Compensation Report (presenter Ross Andersen, New York); 

(c) Training session on BioDiesel Issues (offered by presenter Paul Hoar, AgriFuels LLC) 

(d) Proper Lifting Techniques (recommended by Ken Deitzer, Pennsylvania); 

(e) Overview of OIML and its Relationship to Standards Development (recommended by Julie Quinn, 

Minnesota); 

(f) Back and Stress Techniques (recommended by Don Onwiler); 

(g) Public Relations, specifically dealing with aggressive/angry people (recommended by the SWMA); 

(h) Inspector Investigative Procedures (recommended by the SWMA), 

(i) General Safety Issues (recommended by the WWMA); 

(j) Defensive Driving (recommended by the WWMA); 

PDC - 6 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

(k) Administrative Civil Penalty Process (recommended by the WWMA); 

(l) Price Verification (recommended by the WWMA); and 

(m) Customer Service (recommended by the WWMA). 

The Committee also received comments from the CWMA that high fuel prices make cheating on quantity a lucrative 

business for unscrupulous station owners. Some jurisdictions have uncovered retail motor-fuel fraud schemes that 

operate at nonstandard hours or that employ difficult-to-detect technology. The CWMA is recommending that 

industry and knowledgeable jurisdictions conduct a technical/information session at the Annual Meeting to apprise 

everyone of all the known retail motor-fuel fraud schemes. All jurisdictions would then have the knowledge to 

determine the best approach for fraud detection and deterrence. 

The Committee acknowledged the value and anticipated interest by NCWM members of the many topic ideas 

submitted. For the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting Technical Education Sessions, the Committee recommended 

using Steve Malone and Henry Oppermann’s results from the Nebraska 52-week Dispenser Field Study, and Ross 

Andersen’s Temperature Compensation Report. The Committee was pleased that both of these sessions were 

selected for presentation at the 2007 Annual Meeting. At the January 2008 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee 

will discuss ideas for educational sessions to be presented the July 2008 NCWM Annual Meeting and encourages 

people to submit ideas for the sessions to the Committee Chair, c/o NCWM Headquarters, before the Interim 

Meeting. 

402 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 

402-1 I Safety Awareness 

Source: The Committee (2003) 

Background: In the past, the Committee’s responsibility extended to the identification of safety issues in the 

weights and measures field and included efforts to increase safety awareness. 

At the 2005 Annual Meeting, Past-Chairman Dennis Ehrhart recommended the committee make training its highest 

priority. The Voluntary Quality Assurance Assessment program, NCWM Associate Membership Scholarships, and 

safety awareness efforts were carryover items from the Committee on Administration and Public Affairs (A&P) and 

not PDC items. 

Jurisdictions should send their safety reports and issues to their regional safety liaison, who in turn will forward 

them to Charles Gardner, the NCWM Safety Coordinator. Charles recommends the reports or report summaries be 

published in the NCWM newsletter. At the 2005 Interim Meeting, a CD-ROM on safety produced for the 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was made available for review. The Committee believes safety awareness 

should be a part of every aspect of training for NCWM stakeholders. 

Discussion: The Committee reiterated the importance of safety awareness and education in weights and measures 

inspection and service activities. In an effort to continue emphasizing this issue, the Committee will reach out to the 

regional safety liaisons to ask that they write newsletter articles designed to raise safety awareness within and 

provide safety tips to the weights and measures community. These articles will also be archived on the PDC page of 

the NCWM website. The NCWM newsletter is published three times a year and all articles should be e-mailed to 

the NCWM headquarters office, at ncwm@mgmtsol.com, by the deadline dates listed below. The Committee has 

suggested the following schedule: 

Association Issue Article Deadline 

CWMA 2007, Issue 2 March 15, 2007 

NEWMA 2007, Issue 3 July 15, 2007 

SWMA 2008, Issue 1 November 15, 2007 

WWMA 2008, Issue 2 March 14, 2008 

PDC - 7 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

The Committee is pleased to report that the CWMA submitted an article for Issue 2 of the 2007 NCWM newsletter, 

and has been advised that NEWMA will be submitting an article for Issue 3. 

402-2 V Standard Categories of Weighing and Measuring Devices 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) (2005) 

Recommendation: The Committee recommends the following standardized category codes be adopted for use in 

NCWM studies and other data collection efforts. 

NCWM DEVICE CATEGORY CODES 

DEVICE 

CODE CATEGORY CAPACITY EXAMPLES

SP Scale, Precision < 5 g scale division jewelry, prescription scales 

SS Scale, Small < 300 lb retail computing scales 

SM Scale, Medium 301 to 5 000 lb dormant, platform scales 

SL Scale, Large > 5 001 lb livestock, recycler scales, hopper scales, belt 

conveyor

SV Scale, Vehicle > 40 000 lb vehicle, railway track scales 

MS Meter, Small < 30 gpm1 retail motor-fuel dispensers 

MM Meter, Medium 30 to 200 gpm vehicle-tank meters 

ML Meter, Large > 200 gpm agri-chemical meters, bulk oil meters, loading 

rack meters

MF Meter, Mass Flow All heated tanks of corn syrup (soft drinks) 

MW Meter, Water All water sub-meters for mobile homes & 

apartments 

MG Meter, LPG All propane sales 

MT Meter, Taxi All taximeters 

DT Device, Timing All clocks in parking garages 

DL Device, Length 

Measuring 

All cordage meters 

GM Grain Moisture Meter All 

GA Grain Analyzer All 

MD Multiple Dimension 

Measuring Device 

All 

MC Meter, Cryogenic All 1

 Retail motor-fuel dispenser counts are based on meters. 

Background: The WWMA A&P Committee recommended that standard categories of weighing and measuring 

devices be adopted to facilitate development of technical standards, inspector training, data collection, and program 

management. 

The final report of the Survey of Inspection Statistics Collected by State Weights and Measures Programs (2003), 

conducted during mid-2002, observed the absence of standard categories for weighing and measuring devices was a 

serious obstacle to data collection. For example, the way weights and measures programs categorize scales by type, 

use, or capacity often varies considerably. Retail motor-fuel dispensers are currently being counted either by 

dispenser, grade, or number of hoses or meters. The need for reliable weights and measures statistics is summarized 

in the final report conclusion as follows: 

Accurate statistics would be helpful in many ways at both the state and national level. For 

instance, performance measures are difficult to develop without statistics. Also, work plans 

PDC - 8 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

require accurate and detailed statistics. In addition, budget, staffing, and other elements of each 

state program demand statistics on inspection workloads. Finally, neither individual states nor the 

NCWM will be able to estimate and advertise the value of the nation’s weights and measures 

programs unless reliable statistics are available. 

To correct this problem, the WWMA developed Standard Categories for Weighing and Measuring Devices, and 

recommends that standard categories for weighing and measuring devices be adopted to facilitate the development 

of technical standards, inspector training, inspection data collection, and weights and measures program 

management.

At the 2005 Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed this item should remain Informational to allow for additional 

input on standardized categories of weighing and measuring devices. 

Discussion: During its deliberations at the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed that interested 

parties have had adequate time to review and comment on the proposed device category codes. Consequently, the 

Committee agreed to propose the category codes for a vote at the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting. The Committee 

heard some confusion about how the codes would affect the recordkeeping procedures currently in use in individual 

weights and measures jurisdictions. The purpose of agreeing on and adopting standardized codes is to facilitate the 

collection and comparison of data across weights and measures jurisdictions. Thus, jurisdictions participating in 

NCWM studies and other data collection efforts would need to submit data to the NCWM using the standardized 

codes. While the Committee encourages jurisdictions to consider using these codes in their own jurisdiction’s 

recordkeeping procedures, jurisdictions are under no obligation to use these codes. 

402-3 D PDC Publication 

Source: The Committee (2005) 

Many of the PDC items will continue to be carryover items from year to year as the broad scope of the Committee’s 

work progresses. To help NCWM members follow the history and work of the PDC, the Committee has created a 

PDC document archive. The NCWM will maintain the archive. To eliminate the cost of reprinting the more lengthy 

items in their entirety and to preserve the important aspects of the PDC work, a legacy document was developed. 

Following the 2006 Annual Meeting, the documents listed below were archived on the PDC page of the NCWM 

website for easy access and downloading as needed. 

• History of the PDC 

• Formal Scope of the PDC 

• NCWM Board of Directors Charge to the PDC 

• The PDC’s Role in the NCWM Strategic Plan 

• The PDC’s Strategic Plan 

• National Training Curriculum Outline 

• Suggested Topics for the NCWM Annual Conference 

• Standard Categories of Weighing and Measuring Devices 

• Safety Liaison Contact Information 

• List of State Certification Coordinators and Contacts 

• NCWM Issued Certification Program 

• Voluntary Quality Assurance Assessment Program 

When completed, the Committee’s revised “Curriculum Package (Guideline for Creating a Basic Inspector 

Curriculum)” will also be posted to the PDC page of the NCWM website. The PDC page will continue to be 

utilized and updated. 

PDC - 9 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

_____________________________

Agatha Shields, Chair, Franklin County, Ohio 

Kenneth Deitzler, Pennsylvania 

Ross Andersen, New York 

John Sullivan, Mississippi 

Stacy Carlsen, Marin County, California 

Tina Butcher, NIST Weights and Measures Division 

C. Gardner, New York, Safety Liaison 

Linda Bernetich, NCWM Staff Liaison 

Professional Development Committee 

PDC - 10 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Strategic Direction 

Appendix A 

Strategic Direction for the Professional Development Committee 

The Committee developed their strategic direction to define its roles and responsibilities to the NCWM and the 

weights and measures community. The Committee members wrote principles to guide them in their deliberations 

and defined four main areas to focus their efforts. The Committee recognizes that its direction and responsibilities 

may be changed by the Board of Directors. 

The guiding principles of the group were: 

• Keep things simple; 

• Develop programs that are realistic and achievable; 

• Minimize redundancy and administrative tasks; 

• Recognize that no one size fits all; and 

• Meet the needs of weights and measures officials, service companies, industry, and manufacturers. 

The four main areas for focusing their efforts were: 

National Training Program – The focus of the National Training Program (NTP) would be to increase technical 

knowledge, strengthen credibility, and improve the professionalism of the individual weights and measures official. 

A strong NTP would work to promote uniformity across the nation. 

National Certification System – A national certification system would be developed to recognize or accredit 

weights and measures programs as competent or capable. The program would include requirements around 

individual training, proper test standards, use of national handbooks, and a data gathering system. 

Conference Training Topics – The Committee would be the focal point for gathering and recommending 

workshops or symposia on leadership, management, and emerging issues to be presented during the annual 

conference. These topics would provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and discussion of changes in the 

marketplace. 

Uniformity of Data – The Committee would work to develop standard categories for devices and inspection areas 

so that such things as the number of devices, compliance rates, frequency of inspection and other areas could be 

compiled and compared at the national level. These statistics could be used to benchmark organizations and to 

communicate the value of weights and measures to the public and to decision makers (see Item 402-4). 

PDC - A1 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – Strategic Direction 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

PDC - A2 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

Appendix B

Curriculum Package 

National Conference on Weights and Measures “United by common purpose we can and shall prevail in all that we do.” 

15245 Shady Grove Rd. #130 • Rockville, MD 20850 • (240) 632-9454 • FAX (301) 990-9771 • E-mail: ncwm@mgmtsol.com • Web: www.ncwm.net

February 2007 

To: Curriculum Development Volunteers 

From: NCWM Professional Development Committee (PDC) 

Re: Guideline for Creating a Basic Inspector Curriculum 

Thank you for volunteering to work on the curriculum for a Basic Level Inspector. We define “basic” as the 

competency level required for the inspector to operate without direct supervision. In this work, we are moving to an 

outcome-based approach for setting educational standards and away from a textbook approach. The outcome 

approach is widely used in primary and secondary education and in the training of many professionals. Under this 

model, we focus on the outcomes and use these to describe the organization and coverage of the training course. 

The course materials become a means to an end rather than the end itself. The approach encourages innovation and 

creativity because it does not limit the trainer to a specific textbook or course presentation. The outcomes and 

milestones in the curriculum also will directly drive the certification program that we envision as the logical next 

step in the process. 

The curriculum lists the outcomes in terms of the specific knowledge and skills we expect the basic inspector to 

possess at the end of the training. Each outcome will be further defined by a set of milestones, or competencies, that 

specify the activities and tasks that will be used to measure the student’s mastery of the knowledge and skills, i.e., 

outcomes. The milestones must specify a single, clear objective, stating what the student will be able to do after the 

training. Milestones must be measurable and should lead to obvious test questions. Your task is to create the 

curriculum for a small segment of our profession. 

Since many groups will be working on selected pieces of the overall curriculum, the Committee has selected a 

format for the curriculum materials based on work of the California Society of Certified Public Accountants 

(CACPA). In their publication, The California Core Competency Model for the First Course in Accounting, they 

provide a model accounting curriculum, a discussion of their methodology, and the rationale for using that 

methodology. Before beginning your work, we strongly recommend you read the short introduction to that 

publication and the Appendices. This common format will ensure that the pieces that get developed mesh together 

without extensive reformatting and editing. 

The Committee is also asking that you review the three curriculum segments leading to small capacity retail scales 

prepared by New York State. These serve as a W&M example of the format we want to use and were prepared 

using the CACPA model. These segments also demonstrate the level of detail we want to see in the final product. 

As in the CACPA model document, our goal is to set standards rather than create a “lesson plan.” 

Please note the layered approach used in the small scale materials and how this limits redundancy in the curriculum. 

The first segment on general device inspection should be considered a prerequisite for the second segment on basic 

scales. Both are prerequisites for the segment on small capacity scales. The first segment is also a prerequisite for 

PDC - B1 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

any other measuring device area. For some devices, like timing devices, only one layer below this first layer is 

necessary. For liquid measuring devices, we would expect there to be two layers, a general layer that applies to all 

dynamic volume measuring and then a number of specific disciplines below that. Above all of these is a much 

broader segment that will include state and local laws and regulations, administrative procedures, enforcement 

policies, etc. that need not be included with each specific device segment. Please refer to Appendix A from the 

Profession Development Committee Final Report for the 2004 NCWM for a complete outline of the curriculum 

plan. 

Your task will be to identify the outcomes and the milestones that are pertinent to the area of Weights and Measures 

you chose to work on. 

We suggest a process that involves the following steps:

1. Brainstorm. Create a bullet list of knowledge and skills expected. Ask simple questions. What should the 

inspector know? What should the inspector understand? What should the inspector be able to do? 

2. Group the bullets to define a broad outcome. For a device segment, consider groupings like technology and 

terminology, classification and performance standards, markings and operational controls, technical 

requirements, user requirements, and test procedures. As a guideline, you should aim to have three to eight 

milestones under each outcome. 

3. Create a concise outcome statement for each outcome. See Appendix B in the CACPA document and the 

New York samples for explanation and examples. 

4. Group similar milestones to the extent practical into a broader category. For example, instead of listing 

expectations for use of zero, tare, units buttons, state a single expectation regarding typical controls on the 

device and consider listing specific controls parenthetically. 

5. Create a milestone statement, i.e. competency, using a verb from the list based on the levels of cognitive 

learning in Bloom’s Taxonomy in Appendix C of the CACPA document. For the basic inspector we 

recommend you limit your milestones primarily to the first three levels, i.e., knowledge, understanding, and 

application. The higher levels of learning in Bloom’s Taxonomy, analysis, synthesis, and evaluation, typically 

require practical experience not expected in the basic inspector. 

In Bloom’s Taxonomy:

• Knowledge refers to the ability to recall facts, terms, and basic concepts. 

• Understanding refers to the ability to interpret or explain concepts using your own words. 

• Application refers to the ability to put knowledge/understanding to practical use and demonstrate skills 

required actually to perform specific acts. 

As part of the process of developing curriculum segments, the Committee is asking work groups to draft sample test 

questions that evaluate whether the milestones in the segment have been met. The Committee has prepared a guide 

to developing test questions to aid in that process and will circulate that to the work groups and become part of the 

curriculum development package. The test questions will be used both as instructional tools in training but also for 

future certification programs. 

As a curriculum segment draft is completed, the Committee will do a quick review and suggest editing for 

uniformity of format. When it is ready, we will circulate the draft for review and comment. The critical questions 

we will ask are: What is missing from this curriculum segment and what should be removed or moved to another 

segment in another level? With this review process, we hope to build a consensus of agreement on the standards 

being set. The same would apply to sample questions. 

The Committee greatly appreciates your willingness to contribute to this project. Please send your comments or 

questions on the project to the current chair of the PDC committee with a carbon copy to Linda Bernetich at NCWM 

PDC - B2 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

Inc, lbernetich@mgmtsol.com. Ross Andersen has agreed to help with questions about the format and the CACPA 

model. Please contact him at ross.andersen@agmkt. 

PDC - B3 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

Curriculum Package 

THE CALIFORNIA CORE COMPETENCY MODEL 

FOR THE FIRST COURSE IN ACCOUNTING 

California Society of CPAs Committee on Accounting Education 

July 1995 

This document may be copied without restriction. 

The California Society of CPAs Committee on Accounting Education is proud to present this White Paper entitled 

The California Core Competency Model for the First Course in Accounting. 

The idea for this model began with a grassroots movement of accounting educators who wanted to reverse a 

deteriorating articulation process for the first course in accounting. This movement gained significant momentum 

when Bob Knox of the California Society of CPAs formed the Task Force on the First Course in Accounting in 

December of 1993. This Task Force's efforts were successfully completed when the California Society of CPAs 

Committee on Accounting Education formally approved the model on Apri1 24, 1995. During this two-year period, 

Paul Solomon of San Jose State University led the effort to improve articulation, develop the competencies, and 

secure their adoption. 

The model presented here is the result of the tireless efforts of Task Force members and extensive input from the 

Committee on Accounting Education, as well as the input of several hundred accounting educators, accounting and 

business professionals, and non-accounting business educators. This input was collected from a combination of 

nearly 30 presentations, workshops, panels, and receptions throughout the state over a period of two years. 

The hundreds of hours of time volunteered for this project is an impressive example of professional volunteerism at 

its best. Even more impressive is the fact that when conflicts arose, educators searched for creative solutions that 

would meet the needs of more than one point of view. Clearly, accounting educators consistently subordinated their 

individual views of the course to the greater good-the long-run improvement of accounting education. 

If you are an accounting educator in California, you are urged to share this model with your faculty and help 

improve accounting education state-wide by working for the model's endorsement. If you are an accounting 

educator outside California, we hope that this model will help you to facilitate the types of changes encouraged by 

the Accounting Education Change Commission in its Position Statement No.2 entitled The First Course in 

Accounting. 

PDC - B4 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

THE CALIFORNIA CORE COMPETENCY MODEL 

FOR THE FIRST COURSE IN ACCOUNTING 

BACKGROUND 

The first course in accounting offered at California's institutions of higher education represents a sizable 

expenditure of money for the State. It has been conservatively estimated that the instructional costs of this course - 

taught at 107 community colleges, 20 California State Universities (CSU), and a majority of the 9 universities 

within the California University system (UC) - are over $50 million! Additional costs for this course are incurred at 

a significant number of private universities. 

The first course in accounting has several major stakeholders. For example, one major stakeholder is nonaccounting faculty who rely on the first course to provide part of the foundation knowledge required of all business 

students by the American Assembly of Collegiate Schools of Business. Since over 80% of all students enrolled in 

the first course are non-accounting majors, it is reasonable that these non-accounting faculty have input into the 

design of this course. Another major stakeholder is the accounting community, in other words, accountants in 

industry, government, and public accounting. 

The California Society of CPAs (CSCPA), with approximately 29,000 members, has strongly urged accounting 

educators to deliver better prepared students to the accounting profession. The CSCPA believes that if students' first 

exposure to accounting is positive, then more high quality students are likely to choose accounting as their major. 

Because of the interest of these stakeholders, the CSCPA, through its Committee on Accounting Education, 

established the Task Force on the First Course in Accounting. 

THE MISSION OF THE TASK FORCE ON THE FIRST COURSE IN ACCOUNTING 

The mission of this task force is to improve the quality of education in the first accounting course by helping faculty 

implement the changes recommended in the AECC's Position Statement Number Two entitled The First Course in 

Accounting. Like the AECC, our task force defines the first course in accounting to mean the full introductory 

accounting sequence commonly taught over two semesters or three quarters. 

Since the California community colleges are such an integral part of the accounting education system-teaching as 

many as 90 % of the students who take introductory accounting in California and over 50 % of the students who 

enroll in the California State University system-our mission includes facilitating first course articulation among twoyear and four-year accounting programs. 

Although our focus is on accounting education in California, we hope that our approach will also help accounting 

programs outside of California. 

ACCOMPLISHING OUR MISSION 

We have accomplished our mission by identifying expected student outcomes and core competencies as a basis for 

articulation agreements. The diversity of emerging instructional models for the first course in accounting has made 

the process of articulation very difficult for the great majority of California's institutions of higher learning. To 

reduce the severity of this problem requires a dramatic change in how course equivalencies between institutions are 

measured. It is, therefore, proposed that the basis for articulation agreements shift from the current textbook/topic 

approach to one that focuses on identifying desirable outcomes students should achieve and core competencies that 

measure their achievement. The current version of these outcomes and core competencies-referred to as the 

"California Core Competency Model" or CCCM-is included in this White Paper. Milestones for accomplishing this 

part of our mission as well as definitions of "outcome" and "competency" are included in Appendices A and B. 

THE TASK FORCE MEMBERS 

The members of the Task Force on the First Course in Accounting were: 

Curtis DeBerg California State University - Chico [Co-Chair] 

Roger Gee San Diego Mesa College 

Ken Harper De Anza Community College 

PDC - B5 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

Bob Hurt Cal-Poly Pomona 

Patrick Kelly Price Waterhouse LLP 

Bob Knox California Society of CPAs (CSCPA), Director, Relations with Educators 

Joe Mori San Jose State University CSCPA Chair, Committee on Accounting Education 

Jim Peters Ernst & Young LLP 

Bonnie Slager Rancho Santiago College (Orange) 

Paul Solomon San Jose State University [Co-Chair] 

GENERAL PHILOSOPHY ABOUT HOW TO USE THIS MODEL 

Identifying outcomes and core competencies is an important step in the process of improving accounting education. 

How accounting educators help students master these outcomes and competencies and how they simultaneously 

measure student mastery are equally important tasks. Thus, our next task will be to publish a Guide to Competency 

Implementation and Assessment. The Guide will be based on input collected from hundreds of educators and 

business professionals at numerous CSCPA-sponsored workshops conducted throughout the state in 1994 and 1995 

and will be presented at the 1996 California Colloquium on Accounting Education. 

Our intention is not to develop a "statewide lesson plan" for the first course in accounting. Instead, we want 

individual faculty to be creative in implementing the common set of outcomes and core competencies described in 

this White Paper. Moreover, as Appendix B explains, we hope each accounting program will develop a set of 

outcomes and special competencies that will reflect the unique perspective of its faculty and the special needs of its 

students. Thus, our philosophy encourages diversity. Although we want students to attain the educational 

objectives of the Accounting Education Change Commission, we do not expect them to attain these objectives in a 

prescribed manner. 

SOME SPECIFIC NOTES ABOUT THE CALIFORNIA CORE COMPETENCY 

MODEL 

• The outcomes and core competencies you see are derived from the Accounting Education Change Commission's 

Position Statement Number Two entitled The First Course in Accounting. We strongly recommend that you 

study this document as background preparation before you view our model. 

• Like the AECC, our task force defines the first course in accounting to mean the full introductory accounting 

sequence commonly taught over two semesters or three quarters. 

• Do not interpret the user orientation of our financial accounting outcomes and competencies to mean that 

students should no longer prepare statements. Although we do not include the traditional detailed treatment of 

debits and credits in the core competencies, we do want students to develop the skills needed to intelligently use 

such financial reports as are found in an annual report. Accordingly, students must be able to prepare simple 

financial statements. 

• Our model contains twelve outcomes divided into three categories of competencies: financial accounting 

(31 competencies), managerial accounting (29 competencies), and active learning (9 competencies). The active 

learning skills are intended to facilitate accounting content. That is, whenever possible, instructors should 

require their students to use active learning skills to master both financial and managerial outcomes. For 

example, a student should be able to identify the assumptions and possible positions underlying an ethical issue 

for any of the financial and managerial outcomes. Also, these active learning competencies are not designed to 

be mutually exclusive. That is, when a student analyzes a case study in a group setting, the assignment may also 

involve one or more communication skills and problem solving skills. 

• Each competency in the model contains a concrete verb that denotes action. An inventory of such concrete verbs 

is included in Appendix C. 

• The model is a "living document." It will be re-evaluated annually to consider the evolving content and 

pedagogy of the first course in accounting. Thus, if you wish to comment on any aspect of the model, please 

contact Paul Solomon at: 

 Phone Number: (408) 924-3487 

 Fax Number: (408) 252-6882 

PDC - B6 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

 E-mail Address: psolomon@sjsuvm1.sjsu.edu 

 Mailing Address: 1210 Stafford Drive, Cupertino, CA 95014 

PDC - B7 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

THE CALIFORNIA CORE COMPETENCY MODEL 

The primary objective of this course is to help students learn how accounting meets the information needs of various 

users by developing and communicating information that is useful for decision-making. This objective will be 

achieved by requiring the following outcomes and core competencies. 

Financial Accounting Outcomes with Core Competencies 

[1] Accounting's Role in Society 

Part A: How does accounting meet the information needs of investors and creditors? 

• identify the types of decisions investors and creditors make and describe what information in the 

financial statements and/ or related disclosures meets the information needs of each group. [lA-I] 

• discuss what role ethics plays in the preparation of financial statements. [1A-2] 

• identify and discuss examples of how U.S. accounting measurement techniques and financial 

statements differ from the measurement techniques and financial statements of other countries. [1A-3] 

Part B: How does accounting meet the information needs of regulatory agencies and taxing 

authorities? 

• describe how information sources other than the annual report (e.g., SEC Form 10-K) can be used to 

learn more about the nature of an entity's business. [1B-1] 

• identify some of the differences between the objectives of tax accounting and financial accounting and 

at least one difference between taxable income and financial accounting income. [lB-2] 

• explain how a tax return is actually a special version of the income statement. [1B-3] 

[2] Fundamental Business Concepts: How do businesses operate and how does accounting serve 

them? 

• explain the meanings of key business terms (e.g., assets, budget, collateral, financing, limited liability, 

and lease). [2-1] 

• distinguish among profit, governmental and other nonprofit entities by identifying their respective 

goals and by looking at the content of their financial reports. [2-2] 

• identify the characteristics of the corporate, partnership, and sole proprietorship forms of entity and 

discuss the advantages and disadvantages of each form. [2-3] 

• classify business transactions into operating, investing, and financing activities. [2-4] 

• describe the key differences in the financial statements of merchandisers, manufacturers, non-financial 

service companies (e.g. United Air Lines), and financial service companies; and explain how these 

differences reflect the operating, investing, and financing activities of each type of entity. [2-5] 

[3] Fundamental Accounting Concepts Underlying Financial Statements: What are the elements of, 

the relationships among, and the accounting concepts underlying the primary financial statements?

• discuss what information is typically found in the balance sheet, income statement, statement of 

owners' equity, and statement of cash flows. [3-1] 

• apply the fundamental accounting equation (A = L + OE) to: 

(a) analyze the effects of accounting transactions on the elements of the balance sheet. [3-2a] 

(b) prepare a balance sheet that reports the financial condition of any entity (e.g., a person, sole 

proprietorship, partnership, corporation, etc.). [3-2b] 

• apply the income statement equation (R - E = NI) to: 

PDC - B8 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

(a) discuss the criteria used to determine when revenue is recognized, and apply these criteria to a 

specific entity to determine when its revenue should be recognized. [3-3a] 

(b) discuss the process used to recognize expense. [3-3b] prepare an income statement that reports the 

results of operations for any entity. [3-3c] 

(c) prepare an income statement that reports the results of operations for any entity. [3-3c] 

• distinguish between the accrual and the cash basis of income measurement by preparing both an 

accrual basis and a cash basis income statement from the same set of business transactions. [3-4] 

• differentiate the balance sheet from the income statement by being able to classify account titles into 

asset, liability, owners' equity, and non-balance sheet accounts. [3-5] 

• describe how the amounts reported on the income statement and balance sheet are determined by: 

(a) distinguishing among the following valuation methods: historical cost, current cost, current 

market value, and the present value of cash flows. [3-6a] 

(b) identifying the generally accepted valuation method for each of the major asset and liability 

accounts. [3-6b] 

(c) describing how the balance in each major asset, liability, owners' equity, revenue, and expense 

account is calculated (e.g., accounts receivable and depreciation expense). [3-6c] 

• link the following related financial statements-balance sheet, income statement, statement of cash 

flows, and statement of owners' equity. [3-7] 

• classify cash receipt and cash payment transactions as well as significant non-cash transactions into 

the appropriate statement of cash flow activity. [3-8] 

[4] Uses and Limitations of Financial Statements: What are the uses and limitations of financial 

statements and related information in making both business and personal financial decisions?

• identify several ways in which financial accounting information is used to make business and personal 

decisions. [4-1] 

• calculate at least one financial statement ratio within each of the following four categories and discuss 

its usefulness and limitations in making decisions: 

(a) liquidity-e.g., current ratio and acid test ratio 

(b) activity or turnover-e.g., average collection period 

(c) financial leverage-e.g., debt to equity ratio 

(d) profitability-e.g., profit margin ratio and return on equity (e) valuation-e.g., price-earnings ratio 

and dividend yield [4-2] 

(e) valuation-e.g., price-earnings ratio and dividend yield [4-2] 

• explain how percentage analysis can be used to uncover important relationships and trends in the 

financial statements. [4-3] 

• explain how inventories and accounts receivable can be mismanaged and describe how a manager can 

use financial statement analysis to monitor and control them. [4-4] 

• explain the relationship between net income and cash flows and discuss how a highly profitable, fastgrowing business might face liquidity problems that could force it into bankruptcy. [4-5] 

• identify several limitations of the financial statements found in the annual report. [4-6] 

• discuss the basic principles of internal control and describe the attributes of an effective and efficient 

internal control system. [5A-2] 

PDC - B9 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

• identify the strengths and weaknesses of an internal control system and, if appropriate, suggest 

improvements to this system. [5A-3] 

Part B: How are business transactions input, processed by an accounting information system, 

and output by that same system to produce financial statements? To appreciate the role 

of technology in this process, students should work with one or more of the following tools: 

a spreadsheet, an accounting software package, a database, or other technology.

• identify and apply the essential conditions necessary for a business event to qualify as an accounting 

transaction and, therefore, be recorded in the accounting information system. [5B-1] 

• distinguish between the recording phase and the reporting phase of the accounting process or cycle by 

being able to: 

(a) record the effects of accounting transactions in an accounting information system. [5B-2a] 

(b) transfer the effects of these explicit transactions to individual asset, liability, and owners' equity 

accounts. [5B-2b] 

(c) analyze whether an adjustment or correction is needed in a particular situation. [5B-2c] 

(d) record and transfer the effects of adjustments and corrections to individual asset, liability, and 

owners' equity accounts. [5B-2d] 

(e) prepare the financial statements. [5B-2e] 

• explain the significance of debits and credits as they are used in an accounting information system. 

[5B-3] 

Managerial Accounting Outcomes with Core Competencies 

[6] Role of the Management Accountant 

Part A: How does management accounting differ from that of financial accounting and what 

role does the management accountant playas a member of the management team? 

• distinguish between the usefulness of managerial and financial accounting by considering the 

activities of planning, evaluating, controlling, and decision making. [6A-l] 

• explain why managerial accounting applies to all types of industries (e.g., merchandising, 

manufacturing, non-financial services, financial services, government and other nonprofit entities). 

[6A-2] 

• describe different ways in which the management accountant's advice can help an entity to operate 

more effectively. [6A-3] 

• analyze a company's financial statements and/or management reports and identify several strengths 

and several weaknesses of the company from this analysis. [6A-4] 

Part B: Why do management accountants need to have both a broad and in-depth 

understanding of their entity to fully participate in decisions about the products and 

services provided? 

• discuss, using specific examples, the cause and effect relationship between expenses and revenues and 

how they affect operating decisions. [6B-l] 

• discuss the need for and uses of a management control system and how accounting information 

facilitates control. [6B-2] 

• explain how the operating philosophies of continuous improvement, total quality management and 

just-in-time manufacturing are used to manage optimal inventory levels; and discuss how the 

accounting function can be used to support their implementation. [6B-3] 

PDC - B10 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

[7] Using Accounting Information to Make Decisions 

Part A: How is accounting information used to make and communicate short-term 

management decisions needed to run the entity? 

• distinguish between fixed costs, variable costs, and mixed costs by categorizing various costs of an 

entity into these three categories. [7A-l] 

• explain the usefulness and discuss the limitations of Cost-Volume Profit (CVP) analysis as a decision 

making tool. [7 A-2] 

• read a CVP graph and explain the significance of the components illustrated. [7 A-3] 

• calculate fixed and variable costs, contribution margin, contribution margin ratio, break-even point in 

sales dollars and units, and target sales volume in dollars and units. [7 A-4] 

• calculate the effects of changes in sales volume, sales price, variable costs and/or fixed costs on 

company contribution margin, breakeven point, and operating income for both multi-product and 

single product situations. [7 A-5] 

• explain how pricing decisions are made, including transfer pricing decisions. [7 A-6] 

• identify the relevant costs in a make-or-buy decision and discuss both the qualitative and quantitative 

factors considered in this decision. [7 A-7] 

Part B: How is accounting information used to make and communicate long-term strategic 

decisions needed to position the firm for competitive advantage? 

• identify and explain the long-term strategic decisions that management needs to make. [7B-l] 

• calculate both return on investment (ROI) and residual income (RI) and explain how each method is 

used. [7B-2] 

[8] Using Accounting Information To Analyze and Improve Operational Efficiency: How is 

accounting information used to analyze and improve efficiency in operating, financing, and 

administering the entity?

• explain the purposes of budgets and prepare both a simple operating budget and a simple cash budget. 

[8-1] 

• explain the relationship between budgeting and strategic planning. [8-2] 

• discuss the limitations of budgets in managing organizations. [8-3] 

• explain the relationship between accounting budgets and nonfinancial performance measures, e.g. 

cycle time, defect rate, and ontime delivery. [8-4] 

• explain how the concept of responsibility accounting applies to cost centers, profit centers, and 

investment centers. [8-5] 

• distinguish between controllable and non-controllable costs and discuss why the distinction is 

important. [8-6] 

• explain how the concept of cost control is used to compare budgeted to actual amounts and to interpret 

any significant variances. [8-7] 

[9] Processing Managerial Accounting Information: What is the importance and proper use of 

automated information processing in managerial accounting?

• identify alternative ways costs are tied to inventory and expense accounts (including the systematic 

and rational allocation associated with financial accounting). [9-1] 

• trace the flow of costs in both a job order cost and process cost manufacturing system. [9-2] 

PDC - B11 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

• explain the causes and appropriate dispositions of over-applied and under-applied manufacturing 

overhead. [9-3] 

• distinguish between a periodic and a perpetual inventory system for a merchandiser and a 

manufacturer. [9-4] 

• describe the information benefits of maintaining a perpetual inventory. [9-5] 

• distinguish between an activity-based cost accounting system and a traditional cost accounting system. 

[9-6] 

Active Learning Outcomes With Core Competencies 

[10] Communication Skills: How can students demonstrate their ability to communicate effectively in 

both oral (speaking and listening) and written form?

• engage in one or more of the following in-class speaking activities: 

(a) summarize an accounting-related newspaper or magazine article 

(b) present an accounting concept or homework problem applying a concept 

(c) debate at least one side of an accounting issue 

(d) present an analysis of an assigned case 

(e) present the results of a research assignment or project [10-1] 

• engage in one or more of the following in-class listening activities: 

(a) listen to someone speak, summarize what they say, and ask them for feedback about your 

summary 

(b) listen to someone's response to a question or assignment and compare it to your own 

(c) compare notes you have taken to those taken by another student and evaluate the effectiveness of 

your listening skills [10-2] 

• engage in one or more of the following written communication activities: 

(a) accumulate a written record of the concepts and terminology learned in the course, e.g. a writing 

journal 

(b) summarize the content of assigned readings, e.g. a reading log 

(c) describe what was learned in class, e.g. a one-minute response 

(d) submit questions about concepts or problems 

(e) submit potential exam questions 

(f) respond to discussion questions or cases 

(g) respond in essay form to questions in quizzes and exams 

(h) submit an essay describing a particular issue [10-3] 

[11] Group Work Skills: How can students demonstrate their ability to work effectively in groups?

• participate in groups whose task is to do one or more of the following: 

(a) solve problems 

(b) discuss readings from the financial press 

(c) analyze financial statements 

(d) analyze case studies [11-1] 

PDC - B12 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

• perform the following tasks that are commonly associated with collaborative or cooperative learning: 

(a) facilitate the discussion and keep the group on task 

(b) record the group's results 

(c) report the results of the group's work to the class 

(d) keep time, assist the leader, and fill vacant roles [11-2] 

[12] Problem Solving Skills: How can students demonstrate their ability to reason creatively and 

critically rather than to memorize?

• identify the problem, alternate ways of solving the problem, alternate positions, and position 

arguments for a controversial issue. [12-1] 

• identify the assumptions and possible positions underlying an ethical issue. [12-2] 

• evaluate a speaker's or writer's content for the appearance of underlying assumptions and of facts 

versus opinions. [12-3] 

• analyze an unstructured problem that has no single correct answer. [12-4] 

APPENDIX A: MILESTONES FOR IMPLEMENTING COMPETENCY-BASED 

ARTICULATION

The intent of the Committee on Accounting Education is to promote the widespread acceptance of essential student 

outcomes and competencies, while encouraging individual programs to implement these outcomes and competencies 

in ways that best suit their own students. The following milestones are used to evaluate progress in implementing 

this competency-based articulation system: 

MILESTONE 1: Derive expected student outcomes (knowledge and skills) from AECC Position Statement No.2. 

MILESTONE 2: Create core competencies (activities expressed in behavioral terms) that are logically derived 

from the expected student outcomes. The core competencies are developed from the input of the CSCPA Task 

Force and extensive feedback from both accounting educators and accounting practitioners. 

MILESTONE 3: Promote a competency-based articulation approach by conducting workshops for interested 

faculty on how to implement and assess core competencies. The purpose if these workshops is to: 

1. explain how the use of core competencies reduces the volume of material covered in the first course and 

provides: 

(a) more time to develop the communication, group work and critical thinking skills of students. 

(b) more flexibility to cover special topics that individual accounting programs or faculty believe their 

students must learn (i.e. special competencies). 

2. describe how faculty at each school can develop their own special competencies to clearly communicate 

the unique aspects of their first course in accounting. 

3. provide numerous examples of how faculty can test the degree to which their students have mastered the 

core competencies. This effort will culminate in the distribution of a Guide to Competency Implementation 

and Assessment. 

MILESTONE 4: Establish acceptance of a single set of outcomes and core competencies–The 

California Core Competency Model–as the basis for articulation among all California four-year and twoyear accounting programs. 

PDC - B13 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

APPENDIX B: DEFINITIONS: OUTCOMES AND COMPETENCIES

HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH AN OUTCOME FROM A COMPETENCY? 

An outcome is "what" you expect your students to achieve, whereas a competency demonstrates "how" your 

students can achieve that outcome. Think of an outcome as an end and a competency as a means to that end. 

Outcomes are the knowledge and skills recommended in the AECC’s Position Statement Number Two entitled The 

First Course in Accounting. Competencies are the specific activities used to measure a student’s mastery of the 

knowledge/skills or outcomes. 

The outcome/competency approach is different from the traditional textbook/topic approach to accounting 

instruction. First, the choice of a textbook no longer dictates the organization and coverage of the course. Instead, 

the outcomes and competencies become the driver and the textbook becomes their vehicle. A related difference is 

that the course is driven by an output measure (outcomes/competencies) rather than an input measure 

(textbook/topics). Finally, students more clearly know the content they are expected to study and the precise 

activities they must perform on examinations and other forms of evaluation by studying the outcome/competency 

pairings and working problems that reflect them. 

AN EXAMPLE OF THE DISTINCTION 

Outcome: Students completing the first accounting course should understand the elements of, the relationships 

among, and the accounting concepts underlying the primary financial statements. This understanding will be 

implemented if students can: 

Competency 1: discuss what information is typically found in the balance sheet, income statement, statement of 

owners' equity, and statement of cash flows. 

Competency 2: apply the fundamental accounting equation ASSETS = LIABILITIES + OWNERS' EQUITY–

to prepare a balance sheet that reports the financial condition of any entity (e.g., a person, sole proprietorship, 

partnership, corporation, etc.). 

HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH CORE COMPETENCIES FROM SPECIAL COMPETENCIES?

Our task force's articulation approach includes both core competencies and special competencies. 

Core competencies are competencies required of students in all accounting programs that subscribe to the 

outcome/competency articulation approach. Special competencies are competencies that are required by an 

individual accounting program to meet the special needs of its students. 

It is expected that faculty at each school will identify and develop special competencies to communicate clearly the 

unique aspects of their first course in accounting. 

WHAT COMPETENCIES ARE REQUIRED FOR ARTICULATION? 

As the name implies, a core competency is an essential component of an articulation agreement, whereas a special 

competency is not. If a two year program can document that its students are required to satisfy all of the core 

competencies, its course fulfills the articulation agreement. It is not required to fulfill any of the four-year program's 

special competencies. For a more concrete understanding, consider the following example: 

Core Competency: Record the effects of accounting transactions in an accounting information system. 

Special Competency: Record accounting transactions in journal entry form (i.e., debit-credit form). 

Notice that two-year programs that teach debits and credits in their first course through the special competency can 

articulate with four-year programs that do not teach debits and credits. All the two-year program has to do is 

document that its students are required to comply with the core competency above and all other core competencies. 

If, instead, the four-year program teaches debits and credits in its first course through the special competency, it 

cannot deny articulation to a two-year program that teaches the core competency but not the special competency. 

Instead, the four year program will have to provide transferring students some vehicle (e.g. software materials or a 

one-unit bridge course) to master this special competency. 

PDC - B14 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

APPENDIX B: CHARACTERISTICS OF WELL-CONSTRUCTED COMPETENCIES

A well constructed behavioral learning objective or competency has the following characteristics: 

• it expresses one objective; 

• it is specific; 

• it states what the student will be able to do after the learning experience; and 

• it uses a concrete verb to specify the desired activity that must be performed by the student to demonstrate 

competency. 

INVENTORY OF CONCRETE VERBS DENOTING ACTION TAKEN IN COMPETENCIES 

The following suggested verbs are arranged in the six cognitive domains identified in Bloom's Taxonomy. 

1. Knowledge 2. Comprehension 3. Application 

arrange 

define 

duplicate 

label 

list 

memorize 

name 

order 

recognize 

relate 

recall 

repeat 

reproduce 

classify 

describe 

discuss 

explain 

express 

identify 

indicate 

locate 

record 

report 

restate 

review 

select 

tell 

translate 

apply 

choose 

demonstrate 

dramatize 

employ 

engage 

illustrate 

interpret 

operate 

practice 

schedule 

sketch 

solve 

transfer 

use 

4. Analysis 5. Synthesis 6. Evaluation 

analyze 

appraise 

calculate 

categorize 

compare 

contrast 

convert 

criticize 

diagram 

differentiate 

discriminate 

distinguish 

examine 

experiment 

inventory 

question 

test 

arrange 

assemble 

collect 

compose 

construct 

create 

design 

formulate 

justify 

manage 

organize 

plan 

prepare 

present 

propose 

setup 

suggest 

summarize 

write 

appraise 

argue 

assess 

attach 

choose 

compare 

debate 

defend 

estimate 

evaluate 

judge 

predict 

rate 

score 

select 

support 

value 

The model is a "living document." It will be re-evaluated annually to consider the evolving content and pedagogy of 

the first course in accounting. Thus, if you wish to comment on any aspect of the model, please contact: 

Paul Solomon, Chair 

Task Force on the California Core Competency Model 

1210 Stafford Drive 

Cupertino, CA 95014 

Phone: (408) 924-3487 

Fax: (408) 252-6882 

psolomon@Sjsuvm1.sjsu.edu

PDC - B15 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

Guide for Developing Test Questions 

For the National Training and Certification Program 

Prepared by the 

NCWM Professional Development Committee 

First Draft - January 2007 

This guide was prepared to assist those work groups preparing curriculum materials as they prepare test questions. 

These test questions will be used both as aids to training delivery and also as a measuring stick in any future 

certification effort. If the certification program is to have credibility, it is vital that the test questions adequately 

evaluate that the student has achieved the multiple milestones in each curriculum area. 

As you write your questions, please remember that we have set the bar at a level of application, the third in Bloom’s 

taxonomy. Thus, we expect that the trainee will KNOW certain things, UNDERSTAND other things, and be able to 

APPLY the remainder. We are not looking for higher learning levels in Bloom’s Taxonomy for basic inspectors and 

we will not be testing for analysis, integration, or evaluation. 

Testing for Knowledge – A test question for knowledge is usually in the form of a true/false, multiple choice, or fillin-the blank question. At this point, the Committee is suggesting that developers focus on multiple choice and fillin-the blank questions, such as questions 1 and 2 below. With true/false the person has a 50-50 chance of guessing 

and getting the right answer. Please note that at this level the trainee need only demonstrate that he/she knows the 

information and not necessarily that he/she understands it or can apply it. 

1. Which statement best describes the legal standing of NIST Handbook 44? (Answer: B) 

A. Handbook 44 is a federal regulation published by the National Institute of Standards and Technology that 

preempts the states. 

B. Handbook 44 is adopted either by act of the state legislature or through promulgation in regulation by the 

state. 

C. Handbook 44 is amended each year and all states agree to abide by the actions of the National Conference 

on Weights and Measures. 

D. Handbook 44 is adopted as part of the administrative policy by order of the state director. 

2. A paragraph beginning with “S.” in any of the NIST Handbook 44 Codes is a ______________________. 

(Answer: Specification) 

Testing for Understanding – A test question for understanding is usually a multiple choice question, such as 

questions 3 and 4 below. Questions concerning understanding often ask the trainee to pick the best response in 

situations where more than one answer could be correct in some respect. For example, in Question 3, answer B 

could be a correct answer if the equipment was manufactured after the effective date. Answer C. is a better answer 

since it is more specific and also includes items brought into the state after the effective date. Please note for 

understanding the trainee needs to demonstrate that he/she knows and understands the information and not 

necessarily that he/she can apply it. 

3. A nonretroactive requirement is best described by which of the following statements? (Answer: C) 

A. A nonretroactive requirement is enforceable on all equipment up to the terminal date. 

B. A nonretroactive requirement is enforceable only on new equipment after the effective date. 

C. A nonretroactive requirement is enforceable on equipment manufactured after the effective date or brought 

into the state after the effective date. 

D. A nonretroactive requirement is enforceable on equipment with an NTEP Certificate granted after the 

effective date. 

PDC - B16 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

4. Which of the following best describes the difference between “d” and “e” in the Scales Code? 

(Answer: D)

A. The value of “e” is always displayed while “d” may or may not be. 

B. The value of “d” is always smaller than or equal to “e”. 

C. The display of values for “d” must always be different in size or character from “e”. 

D. When “d” does not equal “e,” the tolerances are applied to the value of “e”. 

Testing for Application – A test question for application should be either be a multiple-choice question or a “Yes/No 

with reason” question, such as questions 5 and 6 below. Questions concerning application will usually require the 

trainee to perform multiple steeps to reach the correct answer. In the field, they will not be guided to the correct 

section of the handbook, but will have to find it based on their knowledge and experience. For example, the 

question may provide information about the situation and some test results. The trainee must then decide whether to 

apply maintenance or acceptance tolerances and then evaluate the test results against the appropriate tolerances for 

that test. In question 5 below, the person must see that the scale is subject to the non-retroactive requirement in 

Scales Code S.1.7.(b) and then correctly deduce that the only correct response is an overload error. The Yes/No 

with reason question (question 6) also requires several steps but goes further in that it also requires the trainee to 

state the nature of any violation and cite the section of the Handbook that is violated. This is critical as this reason 

and citation would have to be indicated on any official stop-use order issued for the violation. Please note that the 

trainee needs to demonstrate that he/she knows, understands, and can apply the requirements. 

5. You are inspecting a new price-computing sale (30 x 0.01 lb) in a deli that was placed in service last week. 

It has an NTEP CC # 99-205. You place a 1 lb weight on the scale and press the tare key. You then 

place an additional 29.2 pounds of test weights on the scale. Which of the following is an acceptable 

indication for this test load? (Answer: A)

A. Overload error 

B. 29.24 lb 

C. 29.18 lb 

D. 29.16 lb 

6. You are inspecting the scale at right and find that it 

has no zero tracking. With the scale at zero as indicated, 

you add 0.1 d (0.002 lb) to the platform and the scale 

indicates a stable 0.02 lb. Is this acceptable? 

Yes or No (No must include reason and citation)

________________________________________

Answer: No –The digital zero indication must be maintained accurate within +/- 1⁄4 d of true zero or the scale must 

have a center zero indicator. Scales Code S.1.1.1. 

Initially the Committee is looking to build a bank of test questions that evaluate if the trainee has reached the 

milestones in each curriculum segment and cover a range of difficulty. Any exam that is prepared will include a mix 

of questions at each appropriate level in Bloom’s Taxonomy from the curriculum, and varying levels of difficulty 

from easy to challenging. In that way, the test can be fair yet still differentiate those that really have mastered the 

discipline from those that haven’t. 

After the questions are prepared and tested (testing method to be developed), the Committee would then split the 

questions into two groups. The first group, called “sample questions,” would be widely circulated for use in training 

programs. Instructors could use the sample questions in their training or as part of quizzes or final exams to measure 

effectiveness of the training. Most important, trainees would be exposed to the kinds of questions and the range of 

difficulty that would be included in a certification exam. 

The second group of questions would be secured for use in a certification exam program. The Committee envisions 

charging some group to administer the certification exam and assist in the grading. That group would also create 

PDC - B17 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – Curriculum Package 

alternative exams or periodically change the questions so the exam is not the same for candidates that fail to pass the 

first time. Please look to set the bar so it is fair yet represents the high level of ability you want working for you. 

A long journey begins with one-step. We are counting on our curriculum development teams to start generating our 

bank of test questions (with an answer key) based on the milestones they choose in the curriculum segment(s) they 

are preparing. If we work together to create a good range of difficulty in those questions, we can be well on our way 

toward that certification program we are shooting for. There is plenty of room for creativity in this effort, including 

the use of graphics and photographs. 

Thanks again for your willingness to contribute. Please call or email Ross Andersen, New York, with questions or 

comments at (518) 457-3146 or ross.andersen@agmkt.state.ny.us. 

PDC - B18 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – National Training Curriculum Outline 

Appendix C 

National Training Curriculum Outline 

2004 Version 

Weights & Measures 

General/State Policies 

Market Practices 

Laws and 

Regulations 

NIST 

Handbook 130

General Devices 

NIST 

Handbook 44

Weights & 

Measures 

Administration 

Laboratory 

Metrology 

• State Administrative Issues 

- Completion of 

administrative forms 

- Review of rules and 

policies 

• History 

• Roles in Society 

• Need for W&M 

• System of W&M 

• W&M in U.S. & Your State 

• Metrology 

• State Laws 

• Relationship to National & 

International W&M 

• Associations 

- Regional, State, Federal 

• Federal Agencies

Price 

Verification 

• Terminology 

• NIST H-130 

Specifications & 

Requirements 

• Safety 

• Support 

Equipment 

• General 

Enforcement 

Guidelines

Test Purchases 

• Examination 

Specifications 

• EPO 

• Purchasing 

Process 

• Check for 

Validity of 

Purchase 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises

E-Commerce 

• Terminology 

• NIST H-130 

Requirements & 

Specifications 

• Packaging & 

Labeling 

Regulations 

• Exemptions 

• Indirect Sale of 

Random 

Packages

Fuel Quality 

• Terminology 

• NIST H-130 

Specifications & 

Requirements 

• Uncertainty 

• Safety 

• Support 

Equipment 

• Sampling 

• General 

Enforcement 

Guidelines

Commodities General 

• Terminology 

• Wet/Dry Tare 

• NIST H-133 Specifications & 

Requirements 

• Uncertainty 

• Safety 

• Support Equipment 

• General Enforcement Guidelines

Standard Pack 

(WT) 

• Examination 

Specifications 

• Contents of EPO 

- Test Equipment 

- Examination 

- Test Specifications 

- Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises

Random Pack (wt) 

• Examination 

Specifications 

• Contents of EPO 

- Test Equipment 

- Examination 

- Test Specifications 

- Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises

Sale by Volume 

• Examination 

Specifications 

• Contents of EPO 

- Test Equipment 

- Examination 

- Test 

Specifications 

- Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises

Sale by Count 

• Examination 

Specifications 

• Contents of EPO 

- Test Equipment 

- Examination 

- Test 

Specifications 

- Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises 

General Devices NIST 

Handbook 44 • Terminology 

• NIST Handbook 44 

• Fundamental Consideration 

• Uncertainty 

• Safety 

• Support Equipment 

• Seals 

• Supports 

• General Enforcement Guidelines

PDC - C1 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – National Training Curriculum Outline 

Weighing Devices • Terminology 

• Scale Types 

• Technology 

• Suitability 

• User Requirements 

• Operation/Markings 

• Scale Classes & Tolerances 

• Basic Scale Test Procedures 

• Basic Inspection

Measuring Devices • Terminology 

• Measuring Device Types 

• Technology 

• Suitability 

• User Requirements 

• Operation & Markings 

• Tolerances for LMDs 

• Basic LMD Test 

• Basic LMD Inspections

Other Devices • Terminology 

• Other Device Types 

• Technology 

• Suitability 

• User Requirements 

• Operation & Markings 

• Tolerances for LMDs 

• Basic Test 

• Basic Inspections

Retail 

Computing 

Scales 

• Common traits 

• Examination 

Specifications 

• Test Equipment 

• Examination, 

Installation, & 

Maintenance 

• Test 

Specifications 

• Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises 

Platform Scales 

• Common traits 

• EPO 

- Examination 

Specifications 

- User 

Requirements 

- Suitability 

- Test Equipment 

- Examination, 

Installation, & 

Maintenance 

- Test 

Specifications 

- Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises

Vehicle Scales 

• Common traits 

• Contents of EPO 

- Examination 

Specifications 

- User 

Requirements 

- Suitability 

- Test Equipment 

- Examination, 

Installation, & 

Maintenance 

- Test 

Specifications 

- Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises 

Vehicle Scales 

Advanced 

• Initial Verification 

Railroad Track

• Common traits 

• Contents of EPO 

- Examination 

Specifications 

- User 

Requirements 

- Suitability 

- Test 

Equipment 

- Examination, 

Installation, & 

Maintenance 

- Test 

Specifications 

- Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises

Hopper 

• Common traits 

• Contents of EPO 

- Examination 

Specifications 

- User Requirements 

- Suitability 

- Test Equipment 

- Examination, 

Installation, & 

 Maintenance 

- Test Specifications 

- Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises

Point-of-Sale 

Scales 

• Common 

traits 

• Examination 

Specifications 

• User 

Requirements 

• Suitability 

• Test 

Equipment 

• Examination, 

Installation, & 

Maintenance 

• Test 

Specifications 

• Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises

Precision 

Scales 

Class I/II 

• Common 

traits 

• Examination 

Specifications 

• User 

Requirements 

• Suitability 

• Test 

Equipment 

• Examination, 

Installation, & 

Maintenance 

• Test 

Specifications 

• Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises 

PDC - C2 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – National Training Curriculum Outline 

Measuring Devices 

 

Retail Motor-Fuel 

Dispensers • Common Traits 

• Examination 

Specifications 

• Test Equipment 

• Examination, 

Installation & 

Maintenance 

• Test Specifications 

• Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises

Liquid Propane Gas 

Meters - Basic • Common Traits 

• EPO 

- Examination 

Specifications 

- User Requirements 

- Suitability 

- Test Equipment 

- Examination, 

Installation & 

Maintenance 

- Test Specifications 

- Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises

Vehicle-Tank 

Meters • Common Traits 

• Contents of EPO 

- Examination 

Specifications 

- User Requirements 

- Suitability 

- Test Equipment 

- Examination, 

Installation & 

Maintenance 

- Test Specifications 

- Evaluation 

• Field/Practical Exercises 

Loading-Rack 

Meters - Basic • Common Traits 

• Contents of EPO 

- Examination 

Specifications 

- User Requirements 

- Suitability 

- Test Equipment 

- Examination, 

Installation & 

Maintenance 

- Test Specifications 

- Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises 

 

 

Liquid Propane 

Gas Meters – 

Advanced • Initial Verification 

Vehicle-Tank 

Meters – 

Advanced • Initial Verification 

Loading-Rack 

Meters – 

Advanced • Initial Verification 

Water Meters • Common Traits 

• Contents of EPO 

- Examination 

Specifications 

- User Requirements 

- Suitability 

- Test Equipment 

- Examination, 

Installation & 

Maintenance 

- Test Specifications 

- Evaluation, 

• Field/Practical Exercises

Mass Flow Meters 

• Common Traits 

• Contents of EPO 

- Examination 

Specifications 

- User Requirements 

- Suitability 

- Test Equipment 

- Examination, 

Installation & 

Maintenance 

- Test Specifications 

- Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises

Others • Common Traits 

• Contents of EPO 

- Examination 

Specifications 

- User Requirements 

- Suitability 

- Test Equipment 

- Examination, 

Installation & 

Maintenance 

- Test Specifications 

- Evaluation 

• Field/Practical 

Exercises

PDC - C3 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – National Training Curriculum Outline 

Weights & Measures Administration 

Weights & Measures Administration • Understanding the Commercial Measurement System 

• Responsibilities of W&M Regulatory Official 

- Consumer Protection 

- Fair Competition 

- Facilitating Value Comparisons 

• Funding Considerations 

- Licensing of W&M Devices 

- Licensing of Service Agencies 

- Conflicts of Interest 

• Roles of Stakeholders 

- Manufacturers 

- Packagers 

- Retailers 

- Service Agencies 

• Powers & Duties of Officials 

- Weighmaster Considerations 

• Type Evaluation, Initial Verification & Subsequent Inspection 

- Economic Impact 

• Complete Scope of Weights & Measures Inspections 

• Concurrent Federal & State Jurisdiction 

• Federal Pre-emption 

• Organizational Structure 

• Budget 

• Personnel

- Knowledge, Skills & Abilities 

- Training 

• Strategic Planning & Goals 

• Education 

- Officials 

- Administrative Staff 

- Public 

• Publicity 

• Public Relations 

• Communication 

• Record Keeping 

• Forms 

• Legal Considerations 

- Due Process 

- Stop Orders 

- Standards Development 

- Prosecution 

- Court 

Laboratory Metrology Administration • Purpose of the Laboratory 

• Responsibilities of the Metrologist 

• NIST Expectations of the Laboratory 

• Rationale for the Requirements for Recognition of the Laboratory 

• Important Considerations for Laboratory Operation 

• Factors Driving Changes in Laboratory Requirements 

• Quality System 

• NVLAP Accreditation 

• Hierarchy of Laboratory Standards 

• Calibration Intervals for All Standards 

• Annual RMAP Round Robins & Training 

• Laboratory Facility Requirements 

• Uncertainty Analysis 

• Management Review of Laboratory Operations 

PDC - C4 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – National Training Curriculum Outline 

Laboratory Metrology 

Concepts - Basic • Introduction 

• Statistics 

• Uncertainty 

• Measurement Assurance 

• Standard Operating Procedures 

- Mass 

- Volume 

• Calibration 

• Calculations 

• Traceability 

Concepts – Advanced • Program Philosophy 

• New Technology 

• Calibration Design Concepts 

• Computerized Workshops 

• Statistics for Quality 

- t-tests 

- F-tests 

• Workshop on Errors 

• Advanced Uncertainties 

• Software Workshop 

• Integration of Advanced Concepts 

PDC - C5 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – National Training Curriculum Outline 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK 

PDC - C6 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NCWM Curriculum Work Plan 

Appendix D 

NCWM Curriculum Work Plan 

Revised July 9, 2007 

Segment / Subject 

 Level 1 /Level 2/ Level 3 

0. W&M General/State Policies 

0.1 Introduction to W&M Programs 

0.2 W&M Laws and Regulations 

0.3 Official Powers & Duties 

0.4 Field Standards & Test Equipment 

0.5 State Program Scope and Overview 

1. W&M Administration 

1.1 Program Organization 

1.2 Administration Functions (Personnel, Management, Budget, Safety, etc.) 

1.3 Legislation and Regulations (Interaction with legislature, stakeholders, industry) 

1.4 Regulatory Control (Device inspection, commodities, complaints) 

2. Laboratory Metrology 

2.1 NIST Basic Metrology 

2.2 NIST Advance Metrology 

3. Device Control Program 

3.0 Introduction to Device Control 

3.0.a Safety Considerations 

3.1 Weighing Systems General 

3.1.1 Static Electronic Weighing Systems, General 

3.1.2 Static Mechanical and Hybrid Weighing Systems, General 

3.1.3 Dynamic Weighing Systems, General 

3.1.4 Precision Weighing Systems Class I and II 

3.1.5 Small Capacity Weighing Systems Class I 

3.1.6 Medium Capacity Weighing Systems Class III 

3.1.7 Vehicle Scale Class III or IIIL 

3.1.8 Railroad Track Scales 

3.1.9 Hopper Scale Systems 

3.1.10 Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems 

3.1.11 Automatic Weighing Systems 

3.1.12 Belt Conveyor Weighing Systems 

3.1.13 Multiple Dimension Measuring Systems 

3.1.14 In-Motion Railroad Track Scales 

3.1.15 In-Motion Monorail Scales 

3.1.16 Other Specialty Weighing Systems 

3.2 Dynamic Volume Measuring Systems, General 

3.2.1 Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers 

3.2.2 Loading Rack and Other Stationary Metering Systems 

3.2.3 Vehicle Tank Meter Systems 

3.2.4 Milk Metering Systems 

3.2.5 Water Meters 

3.2.6 LPG/Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid Metering Systems 

PDC - D1 
PDC 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NCWM Curriculum Work Plan 

3.2.7 LPG Vapor Meter Systems 

3.2.8 Mass Flow Metering Systems 

3.2.9 Other Metering Systems (Cryogenics, Carbon Dioxide, etc.) 

3.3 Static Volume Measuring Systems, General 

3.3.1 Liquid Measures 

3.3.2 Farm Milk Tanks 

3.3.3 Dry Measures 

3.4 Other Measuring Systems 

3.4.1 Taximeters and Odometers 

3.4.2 Wire and Cordage Measuring Systems 

3.4.3 Linear Measures 

3.4.4 Timing Devices 

3.4.5 Weights 

3.5 Quality Measuring Devices 

3.5.1 Grain Moisture Meters 

3.5.2 NIR Grain Analyzers 

3.5.3 Fat Measuring Devices 

4. Market Practices, Laws and Regulations (NIST HB 130) 

4.0.a Safety Considerations 

4.1 General Provisions of NIST Handbook 130 

4.1.1 Packaging and Labeling Regulations 

4.1.2 Method of Sale Regulations 

4.1.3 Price Verification 

4.1.4 Test Purchases 

4.1.5 E-Commerce 

4.1.6 Quality of Automotive Fuels and Lubricants 

4.2 Package Net Contents Control, NIST HB 133 (General) 

4.1.1 Packages Labeled by Weight, Standard and Random 

4.1.2 Packages Labeled by Weight, Special 

4.2.3 Packages Labeled by Liquid Volume, Volume and Gravimetric 

4.2.4 Packages Labeled by Liquid Volume, Special 

4.2.5 Packages Labeled by Length/Area 

4.2.6 Packages Labeled by Count 

4.2.7 Other Package Types 

Note: Initial Verification has been intentionally left off this listing and will be addressed later. 

PDC - D2 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Report of the 

National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee 

Don L. Onwiler, Chairman 

Program Manager 

Nebraska Department of Weights and Measures 

Reference 

Key Number 

500 INTRODUCTION 

The National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee (hereinafter referred to as “Committee”) submits its 

report for consideration by the 92nd National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This consists of the 

Interim Report presented in NCWM Publication 16 as amended in the Addendum Sheets issued during the Annual 

Meeting that was held July 8 - 12, 2007, in Salt Lake City, Utah. The Committee considered communications 

received prior to and during the 92nd Annual Meeting that are noted in this report. 

Table A identifies the agenda items in the report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The item 

numbers are those assigned in the Committee’s Interim Meeting Agenda. A voting item is indicated with a “V”

after the item number or, if the item was part of the consent calendar, by the suffix “VC.” An item marked with an 

“I” after the reference key number is an information item. An item marked with a “W” was withdrawn by the 

Committee and generally will be referred to the regional weights and measures associations because it either needs 

additional development, analysis, and input or does not have sufficient Committee support to bring it before the 

NCWM. 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. 

This report contains many recommendations to revise or amend National Conference on Weights and Measures 

(NCWM) Publication 14, Administrative Procedures, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures or other 

documents. Proposed revisions to the publication(s) are shown in bold face print by striking out information to be 

deleted, and underlining information to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed 

in italics.

Note: The policy of NIST 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 units. 

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items 

Reference 

Key Number Title of Item Page 

500 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................1

1. Test Data Exchange Agreements........................................................................................................................3

2. NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluation Reports..................................................................................4

3. NTETC Sector Reports.......................................................................................................................................5

4. NTEP Participation in U.S. National Work Group on Harmonization of NIST Handbook 44, NCWM 

Publication 14, and OIML R 76 and R 60 ..........................................................................................................7

5. Software Sector...................................................................................................................................................7

6. Conformity Assessment Program .......................................................................................................................9

7. NTEP Certification of Residential-type Water and Vapor Meters......................................................................9

8. Use of NTEP Logo ...........................................................................................................................................10

9. NTEP Certification of Medical Scales..............................................................................................................15

NTEP - 1 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Table B 

Appendices 

Appendix Title Page 

A NTEP Certification Mark License.......................................................................................................................A1

B NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting Summary............................................................................................. B1

C NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting Summary .................................................................................................... C1 

D NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary......................................................................................................D1 

E NTETC Software Sector Meeting Summary....................................................................................................... E1 

 Table C 

Glossary of Acronyms* 

BIML Bureau of International Legal Metrology IR International Recommendation 

BOD NCWM Board of Directors MAA Mutual Acceptance Arrangement 

CC NTEP Certificate of Conformance NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures 

CD Committee Draft1 NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee 

CIML International Committee of Legal Metrology OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology 

CPR Committee on Participation Review PTB Physikalisch-Technischen Bundsanstalt

DD Draft Document2 R Recommendation 

DR Draft Recommendation2 SC Subcommittee 

DV Draft Vocabulary2 TC Technical Committee 

DoMC Declarations of Mutual Confidence WD Working Document3

1

 CD: a draft at the stage of development within a technical committee or subcommittee; in this document, successive 

drafts are numbered 1 CD, 2 CD, etc. 

2 DD and DR: draft documents approved at the level of the technical committee or subcommittee concerned and sent 

to BIML for approval by CIML.

3

 WD: precedes the development of a CD; in this document, successive drafts are number 1 WD, 2 WD, etc. 

* Explanation of acronyms provided by OIML.

Table D 

Voting Results 

Reference House of State Representatives House of Delegates Results

Key Number Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

500 (In its 

entirety) 

voice vote 

All Yeas No Nays All Yeas No Nays Passed 

NTEP - 2 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number)

1. Test Data Exchange Agreements 

Background/Discussion: This item was included on the Committee’s agenda in 1998 to provide an update on 

NTEP’s work to establish bilateral and multilateral agreements. Under such agreements and arrangements, 

manufacturers would be able to submit their equipment to any of the participating countries for testing to 

OIML-recommended requirements. The resulting test data would be accepted by other participants as a basis for 

issuing each country’s own type approval certificate. Following is a report on the three types of test data exchange 

agreements: 

Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA):

Background: During the 2006 NCWM Interim Meeting, the full NCWM Board carefully considered this issue and 

the recommendation of the NTEP Committee. Significant discussion was held on this issue with the primary focus 

on the desire to become a utilizing member (Country B) for the DoMC that will cover OIML R 60 Load Cells. 

Significant comments also came from the full membership during the 2006 NCWM Interim Meeting open hearings 

on this issue. In addition, a very large group attended a late evening meeting on this topic. The participants in this 

meeting asked many important questions and demonstrated a high level of interest in the NCWM's direction 

regarding MAAs. The NTEP Committee acknowledges and thanks this group of participants for their significant 

contributions in discussing this issue. 

The decision of the Board was to accept the recommendation of the NTEP Committee and indicate the intention of 

signing the DoMC for OIML R 60 Load Cells as a utilizing participant. The NCWM Board indicated no interest at 

this time in being an issuing participant for OIML R 76 “Non-automatic Weighing Instruments” (NAWI). The 

intent is to investigate various alternatives and determine if a laboratory can be established that will allow the 

NCWM to be an issuing participant in the DoMC for OIML R 76. It was clearly stated that this laboratory would 

have to be "viable" and that the NCWM must fully understand the effect such a signing may have on NTEP, existing 

NTEP labs, and our standards development process in the NCWM. It was also stated that it is not clear at this time 

if funding for such a laboratory is available. 

The DoMC for OIML R 60 was signed by NCWM Chairman Don Onwiler at the 2006 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

During the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, it was reported that on September 29, 2006, the International Bureau of 

Legal Metrology (BIML) issued a circular notifying CIML members and OIML Issuing Authorities that the first two 

Declarations of Mutual Confidence (DoMCs) for OIML R 60 (Load Cells) and R 76 (Non-automatic Weighing 

Instruments) have been officially published on the MAA pages of the OIML website (www.oiml.org). The 

publication is in the form of two summaries of the individual registration forms signed by each participant. Five 

countries signed the R 60 DoMC as both Issuing and Utilizing Participants (an ‘Issuing Participant’ is one that 

performs tests and issues certificates under the DoMC), and another eleven countries signed as only Utilizing 

Participants (Country B’s). The United States (National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc.) is listed as a 

Utilizing Participant. Seven countries signed the R 76 DoMC as both Issuing and Utilizing Participants, and another 

eight countries signed as only Utilizing Participants. The United States did not sign the R 76 DoMC. The complete 

listing can be found on the OIML website. 

The NCWM and NTEP look forward to the opportunity to work with our international partners in the DoMC for 

OIML R 60. The NTEP director reported that NTEP is now prepared to accept OIML MAA Evaluation Reports for 

R 60 submitted along with an appropriate NTEP application. After review of the information contained in the 

OIML Evaluation Report and any additional requirements that may be required, and provided that all requirements 

have been met, an NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) will be issued. 

Now that the DoMCs for R 60 and R 76 have been signed, the ‘definitive’ CPR is established (the NCWM is a 

member). All Issuing Participants of the DoMC must now issue OIML MAA Certificates for R 60 and R 76 

devices, except for what are being called ‘basic’ (old-style) certificates that had already been applied for earlier. A 

NTEP - 3 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

termination date for issuing ‘basic’ certificates was discussed at the 41st CIML meeting in Cape Town, South Africa, 

in October 2006 and was provisionally set for December 31, 2008. The final termination date will establish when 

NTEP can no longer issue ‘basic’ OIML certificates. 

OIML TC 3/SC 5 will start revising both publication B 10-1 (MAA) and publication B 3 “OIML Certificate System 

for Measuring Instruments” in 2007 based on issues that have arisen and been discussed in the CPR and CIML 

meetings. A number of these issues were discussed at the Cape Town CIML meeting, and several MAA-related 

resolutions were approved at that time (see the OIML Report in the NCWM Board of Directors’ Committee Report, 

Appendix A) since it was agreed that decisions were needed before the revision process could be completed. 

TC 3/SC 5 is also circulating to its members for comment and vote a Draft Guide for the application of 

ISO/IEC 17025 to legal metrology and a 2 CD of the OIML Guide for the application of ISO/IEC Guide 65 to legal 

metrology. 

The BIML has also announced a new CPR and DoMC for OIML R 49 (water meters) with the ‘provisional’ CPR to 

be established by January 31, 2007. At this time, it is not anticipated the United States will take part in this CPR. 

During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, it was reported that the NTEP director attended the third meeting of the 

Committee on Performance Review (CPR) in Tsukuba, Japan on June 7 and 8, 2007. One of the agenda items 

focused on the change in the current policy of the MAA to permit data submitted by a manufacturer to be included 

in the Evaluation Report. The NTEP Committee views such data as a conflict of interest and unacceptable. The 

NTEP director strongly expressed this position to the attendees of that meeting. There was no consensus from the 

CPR to recommend a change in the current policy of not accepting manufacturer's data. 

NTEP anticipates having an Evaluation Report submitted soon for a load cell evaluation conducted under the MAA 

R 60 DoMC. 

For further information on the MAA and its implementation, please contact Mr. Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, at 

(828) 859-6178 or spatoray@mgmtsol.com or Dr. Charles Ehrlich at charles.ehrlich@nist.gov, at (301) 975-4834, or 

by fax at (301) 975-8091. 

Bilateral Agreements: No additional discussions have been held on this topic, pending the outcome of the MAA 

discussions. 

NTEP-Canada Mutual Recognition Program: During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, it was reported that both 

Measurement Canada and the NTEP Labs are engaged in dialog to improve the data exchange under the Mutual 

Recognition Arrangement (MRA). During the recent NTEP lab meeting, an entire day was spent exchanging 

information regarding the current MRA for weighing devices. Several areas of improvement were identified, 

including initial review of new applications to establish an agreed upon test plan for the evaluation. In addition, a 

training session was conducted to improve the consistency of data collected by the labs. This will help improve the 

ability of the various labs to more consistently exchange data. 

2. NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluation Reports 

At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, Stephen Patoray, NTEP Director, updated the Committee on NTEP laboratory 

and administrative activities since October 1, 2006. 

The NTEP weighing laboratories met in September 2006 before the meeting of the Weighing Sector in Annapolis. 

The NTEP measuring laboratories also met in October 2006 prior to the Measuring Sector meeting in Annapolis. 

Julie Quinn (MN) reported that Minnesota is interested in becoming an NTEP-authorized laboratory for weighing 

devices evaluated in the field (e.g., weighing/load-receiving elements, such as vehicle, livestock, hopper). The state 

has begun to prepare for the required training. It was reported that some final details are now being worked out. 

Steve Patoray reported that all the laboratories are now operating with full staff and have completed all equipment 

upgrades and physical moves and that there have been no other changes in the number of authorized laboratories. 

NTEP - 4 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the NTEP Committee Chair announced that Minnesota has been 

authorized by NCWM as a field laboratory to conduct evaluation on Weighing/Load Receiving Elements. 

The NTEP director reported the NTETC Software Sector held its third meeting in May 2007 followed by a joint 

meeting of the NTEP weighing and measuring laboratories in Sacramento, California. The NTEP director also 

reported that the backlog in the NTEP labs is now below historical levels and is approximately 25 % below the peak 

backlog seen during the past year. NTEP continues to assign devices to the appropriate laboratory to distribute the 

evaluations more evenly and continue to reduce the backlog. 

These developments are consistent with the continuing efforts of NTEP to improve the level of service and 

responsiveness to the industries it serves. 

Upcoming meetings: 

Grain Analyzer Sector August 2007 Kansas City, Missouri 

Weighing Sector September 2007 Sacramento, California 

Measuring Sector October 2007 Little Rock, Arkansas 

NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Report

NTEP Application Statistics 10/01/06 - 06/15/2007 

Previous 

Quarter 

Current 

Quarter Total To Date 

10/01/2005 - 

06/15/2006 

10/01/2006 - 

06/15/2007 

10/01/2000 - 

06/15/2007 

Applications Processed 176 179 1649 

Applications Completed 194 160 1422 

New Certificates Issued 194 160 1523 

Certificates Distributed to State Directors 218 154 1523 

Certificates Posted to Website 196 164 4067 

Current Active NTEP Certificates (12/31/2006) - - 1638 

Average Median 

Time for NCWM to Assign an Evaluation 12 8 

Time for NCWM to Review a Draft Certificate 9 7 

Time for Complete Evaluation (Completed NCWM 

Assignments) 185 133 

3. NTETC Sector Reports

Background: 

Grain Analyzer Sector: The NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector held a meeting in Kansas City, Missouri, 

August 23 - 24, 2006. A draft of the final summary was provided to the Committee for review and approval prior to 

the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

NTEP - 5 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

The next meeting of the Grain Analyzer Sector is scheduled for August 2007 in Kansas City, Missouri. For 

questions on the current status of sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the sector 

technical advisors: 

Diane Lee Jack Barber 

NIST WMD J.B. Associates 

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600 10349 Old Indian Trail 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 Glenarm, IL 62536 

Phone: (301) 975-4405 Phone: (217) 483-4232 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

e-mail: diane.lee@nist.gov e-mail: jbarber@motion.net

Measuring Sector: The NTETC Measuring Sector met October 20 - 21, 2006, in Annapolis, Maryland. A draft of 

the final summary was provided to the NTEP Committee for review and approval during the 2007 NCWM Interim 

Meeting. 

The next meeting of the Measuring Sector is scheduled for October 2007 in Little Rock, Arkansas, in conjunction 

with the Southern Weights and Measures Association’s Annual Meeting. For questions on the current status of 

sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the sector technical advisor: 

Richard Suiter Phone: (301) 975-4406 

NIST WMD Fax: (301) 975-8091 

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600 e-mail: rsuiter@nist.gov

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Weighing Sector: The NTETC Weighing Sector met September 26 - 28, 2006, in Annapolis, Maryland. A final 

draft of the meeting summary was provided to the NTEP Committee for review and approval during the 2007 

NCWM Interim Meeting. 

The next Weighing Sector meeting is scheduled for September 2007 in Sacramento, California. For questions 

regarding the current status of sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the sector 

technical advisor: 

Steven Cook Phone: (301) 975-4003 

NIST WMD Fax: (301) 975-8091 

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2600 e-mail: stevenc@nist.gov

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Steve Patoray reported that the previous year's sector reports could be found on the NCWM website. He also 

reported that, if contacted, he could supply anyone interested with all previous sector reports. 

During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the NTEP Committee heard the 2007 NCWM Interim Report of each 

NTETC Sector. This was presented by Steven Cook, technical advisor, and Stephen Patoray, NTEP director. The 

NTEP Committee also heard and considered several other items recommended by the Multiple Dimension 

Measuring Device (MDMD) Work Group (WG) and the Automatic Weighing Systems (AWS) WG. In addition, 

one item related to the laboratory method of test for automatic zero-setting mechanism (AZSM) was also heard and 

considered. Several items regarding the taximeter checklist also were heard and considered. 

All items submitted by the Weighing, Measuring, and Grain Analyzer Sectors were accepted with one exception. 

The NTEP Committee considered additional comments on the recommendation of the Weighing Sector to change 

the term "designation" to "identifier." Based on those comments and additional discussion on this item, the NTEP 

Committee determined the term "designation" currently in NCWM Publication 14 is more precise and the use of this 

word did not deviate from the intent of NIST Handbook 44. 

Recommendations for changes to the NCWM Publication 14 taximeter checklist were also accepted. The review of 

the taximeter checklist indicated there may need to be a clarification in NIST Handbook 44 and NCWM 

NTEP - 6 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Publication 14 regarding taximeters with multiple rate capabilities. The NIST technical advisor will begin to gather 

information on this item and will keep all appropriate parties informed of any needed changes or clarifications. 

The NTEP labs reported that the testing criteria listed in NCWM Publication 14 Digital Electronic Scales regarding 

Auto Zero-Setting Mechanism is not consistent with the method currently used by all of the authorized NTEP 

laboratories, Measurement Canada, or OIML R 76. It was the decision of the NTEP Committee that an ad hoc

procedure be documented for the NTEP labs to reflect the current methods now being used. This item will be 

submitted to the Weighing Sector for consideration at the next regular meeting in September 2007. 

4. NTEP Participation in U.S. National Work Group on Harmonization of NIST 

Handbook 44, NCWM Publication 14, and OIML R 76 and R 60 

Background: The Secretariat for OIML TC 9/SC 1 recently submitted the 2 CD of OIML R 76-1 “Non-automatic 

Weighing Instruments” to the participating members of TC 9/SC 1 for review, comment, and vote. The 2 CD was 

developed based on an analysis of the 1992 edition OIML R 76, answers from OIML TC 9/SC 1 members to a 

questionnaire distributed in May 2002, and comments on the December 2003 WD for R 76. The 2 CD includes the 

changes to the December 2003 WD and the December 2004 1 CD based upon comments and recommendations of 

the U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) and other countries on R 76. 

The United States submitted 27 recommendations and requests for clarifications to the secretariat of TC 9/SC 1 on 

the 1 CD and opposed the 1 CD being elevated to a Draft Recommendation. Eighteen of the U.S. recommendations 

and requests for clarification were accepted by the secretariat, four recommendations resulted in alternate language 

proposed by the secretariat, and five recommendations were not accepted by the secretariat. The Secretariat 

provided the United States with a reason why the remaining comments were not accepted. 

The Secretariat has already registered the 2 CD of R 76-1 as a DR in order not to prolong the revision process at the 

technical committee level provided the 2 CD receives approval. 

During the 2005 Annual Meeting, NIST WMD asked the USNWG for R 76 and other interested individuals, 

organizations, and associations to review the 2 CD and submit any comments, along with recommended language 

and technical justifications to NIST WMD. During the 2006 NCWM Interim Meeting, Steven Cook, NIST WMD, 

provided the committee with an update to the revision of R 76 and indicated that the United States would vote in 

favor of the 2 CD. 

At its October 2006 meeting in Cape Town, South Africa, the 41st CIML approved DR 7: R 76-1 Non-automatic 

weighing instruments, Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements – Tests. The DoMC for R 76 will need to be 

updated to reflect the changes included in the new revision of R 76. Although the review of R 76 has been 

completed, OIML has indicated a willingness to revisit the Recommendation to consider including a large-capacity 

class similar to the current Handbook 44 Class III L and the Canadian Class III HD, plus other additional 

requirements that were identified in the DoMC deliberations. WMD will be working with its Canadian counterparts 

to develop a North American Heavy-Duty Device Class and Tolerance if R 76 is reopened. 

5. Software Sector 

Background: The first meeting of the Software Sector was April 5 - 7, 2006, in Annapolis, Maryland. 

At this time, the recommended scope of the Software Sector is to: 

• Develop a clear understanding of the use of software in today’s weighing and measuring instruments. 

• Develop NIST Handbook 44 specifications and requirements, as needed, for software incorporated into 

weighing and measuring devices. This may include tools for field verification, security requirements, 

identification, etc. 

NTEP - 7 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

• Develop NCWM Publication 14 checklist criteria, as needed, for the evaluation of software incorporated 

into weighing and measuring devices, including marking, security, metrologically significant functions, etc. 

• Assist in the development of training guidelines for weights and measures officials in verifying software as 

compliant to applicable requirements and traceable to an NTEP Certificate. Educational material for 

manufacturers, designers, service technicians, and end users may also be considered. 

SOFTWARE SECTOR 

Meeting Summary

Annapolis, Maryland 

April 5 - 7, 2006 

Note: Underlined "D-SW" sections refer to International Document (OIML D-SW) "General 

Requirements for Software Controlled Measuring Instruments." 

Action items: 

1. Software identification (model/version, help screen, etc.) 

a. Built-for-purpose 

b. Not-built-for-purpose 

c. Version number or greater 

2. Software protection/security D-SW 5.1.3

a. Identification of unapproved/unauthorized software 

3. Storage of data, D-SW5.2.3 and subsections, automatic storing and transmission 

4. Software maintenance and reconfiguration D-SW5.2.6

5. D-SW Section 7. verification in the field—needs work 

6. Manufacturer documentation to be submitted, change to the NTEP application D-SW 6.1.1

7. Definitions of software-based device, etc. 

The group agreed Jim Truex should continue on as Software Sector chairman. Mr. Truex asked 

Steve Patoray to continue on as technical advisor to the Software Sector. It was requested that 

NIST consider the role of technical advisor in the future as they currently do with other sectors. 

The Software Sector met for a second time on October 18 - 19, 2006, in Annapolis, Maryland. 

Much discussion was held on the above action items. It was clear that additional work is needed 

to find consensus on these various items. Additional meetings are needed to complete the work 

of this Sector. There will be a request to the NCWM Board for additional funding for future 

meetings. 

During the 2007 Interim Meeting, the NCWM BOD reviewed a request from the Software Sector Committee chair, 

Jim Truex, for funding an additional meeting of the Software Sector during the 2006 - 2007 fiscal year. After 

considering this item and the potential cost savings with holding the Software Sector meeting in conjunction with 

the NTEP Lab meeting in May 2007, the NCWM BOD agreed to fund this meeting and direct the Software Sector to 

begin meeting on a yearly cycle in conjunction with the NTEP lab meeting. 

This item will be removed from future NTEP Committee reports. Further updates on the progress of the Software 

Sector will be found in the annual NTEP Sector Reports in the NCWM Interim Agenda and the Interim and Annual 

Reports of the sector to the NTEP Committee. 

During the 2007 Interim Meeting, the Software Sector chair submitted a request for funding an additional meeting of 

the Software Sector in the fall of 2007. This request was considered and approved by the NCWM Board. The 

location and date of this meeting is yet to be determined. 

The Software Sector report is included in this Annual Report as Appendix E. 

NTEP - 8 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

6. Conformity Assessment Program 

Background: The Conformity Assessment Program was established to ensure that devices produced after the 

device has been type evaluated and certified by NTEP continue to meet the same requirements. This program has 

three major elements: (1) Certificate Review (administrative), (2) Initial Verification (inspection and performance 

testing); and (3) Verified Conformity Assessment (influence factors). This item is included on the Committee’s 

agenda to provide an update on these elements. 

Certificate Review: The question is how this would be accomplished given the limited resources of the NCWM. 

Work on this item may need to be delayed until resources can be clearly identified in order to proceed in an 

efficient, thorough, and accurate manner. 

Steve Patoray reported that this item continues on the "back burner" until funding can be identified for this project. 

Initial Verification: During the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the WG chairman, Lou Straub, received data from 

several states on small-capacity price computing scales and reported that the pilot of Initial Verification for smallcapacity scales has been completed. There were several state and local jurisdictions that submitted information. All 

data has been forwarded to NCWM staff for safekeeping. It was also reported that Steve Malone, Nebraska, is 

working on a database format for logging in the data. In addition, Lou Straub reported that the WG continues to 

develop a checklist for vehicle scales and retail motor-fuel dispensers. 

During the 2007 Annual Meeting, the WG chairman, Lou Straub, reported the WG is currently looking for direction 

from the NTEP Committee on how to proceed to the next step since they have completed work on the checklists for 

both vehicle scales and retail motor-fuel dispensers (RMFD). The WG has received some data for the vehicle scales 

checklist. The WG is seeking volunteers for RMFD at this time. Mr. Straub clarified that not all states or 

jurisdictions need to participate in submitting information to NCWM on initial verification. A subset of states 

would be sufficient. NTEP Committee chair, Don Onwiler, instructed the WG to proceed with development of 

additional checklists. The NTEP committee will also consider how to process the data that will be generated from 

initial verification. 

Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP): The WG chairman provided the NCWM Board with a final 

version of the WG report at the 2006 NCWM Annual Meeting. This report will form the basis of the technical 

policy. Additional work will be needed. Steve Patoray reported that the NCWM Board at its October 2006 meeting 

directed him to form a small WG to develop the necessary details to define the program based on the final report of 

the VCAP WG. Steve reported that the WG had met one time and had identified seven action items. The 

information will be developed over the next several months and will be sent to others for comment and review. It 

was reported that the WG plans to make a formal presentation on its progress at the NCWM Annual Meeting in 

2007. 

During the 2007 Annual Meeting, NTEP Director, Steve Patoray, reported that further meetings of the WG did not 

occur. He further explained that, based on additional information the WG received, the initial direction of 

developing a detailed checklist for VCAP was not the correct direction. With this new insight, actual progress on 

VCAP should begin over the next several months with development of final material based on the current 

information available and some additional information regarding the selection of a certified auditor. Mr. Patoray 

anticipates that beta testing of VCAP will take place over the next several months and a report will be given on the 

status at the Interim Meeting in January 2008. 

7. NTEP Certification of Residential-type Water and Vapor Meters 

Background: A request was received from one state for NTEP to conduct evaluations and certify residential-type 

water meters and vapor meters. The main usage of such devices is in sub-metering. A discussion was held on this 

item at the Measuring Sector meeting in October 2006. There was insufficient representation from the 

manufacturers of these types of devices to come to a consensus on this item; however, two WGs were formed 

consisting of interested parties regarding these device types. The Sector chairman, Mike Keilty, wrote a letter to be 

NTEP - 9 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

sent to device manufacturers of these device types with a request for comments, recommendations, and additional 

information on sub-metering standards and policies from other agencies and municipalities. 

At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, Steve Patoray reported that these items were discussed at the most recent 

Measuring Sector meeting in October 2006. Mike Keilty, Measuring Sector Chair, reported that he had begun to 

contact interested parties and other associations interested in this type of certification. Comments during the open 

hearing during the meeting suggested that NTEP might also need to be concerned with other federal or state 

agencies that may also regulate these types of devices. The Measuring Sector will continue to work on this item. 

The NTEP Committee reported that this item will be removed from its agenda, but information may be found in 

future Measuring Sector reports. 

During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the NTEP Committee agreed on the following position regarding the 

evaluation of water meters: 

Due to the need for certification of these types of devices in sub-metering applications, NTEP should proceed 

with development of a checklist for these types of devices. It has been noted that California currently has 

checklists for both of these device types and has many years of experience certifying these devices at the state 

level. NTEP will utilize these current checklists as much as possible in developing checklists for 

Publication 14. 

The NTETC Measuring Sector chair, Michael Keilty, reported to the NTEP Committee that he has been in contact 

with the American Waterworks Association (AWWA) and has attended a recent meeting of this organization. He 

has passed along information regarding NCWM and NTEP, along with contact information, to this organization. 

8. Use of NTEP Logo 

Background: The NTEP logo is a registered trademark of the NCWM. NCWM Publication 14 Administrative 

Policy provides some parameters on the appropriate use of the logo. Over the past several months, NTEP has been 

attempting to resolve an issue of misuse of the NTEP logo. During this time, the NTEP Committee and the NCWM 

Board have discussed developing a systematic method of addressing misuse of the NTEP logo in the future. A WG 

was formed during the 2006 Annual Meeting with the charge to develop draft form letters that could be used by 

NTEP to inform anyone believed to be misusing the NTEP logo. Additionally, NCWM staff was directed by the 

Board to obtain advice from legal counsel as to the appropriate methods of deterring misuse of the logo. Legal 

counsel recommended that a license agreement be implemented between the NCWM and anyone wishing to use the 

NTEP logo. This agreement would provide allowances and limitations on the use of the logo. The license 

agreement, along with form letters drawn up by legal counsel, was submitted to the NCWM Board for discussion. 

The Board has recognized that this change in policy relating to the use of the NTEP logo is significant. Therefore, 

the NTEP Committee presented the proposed license agreement for review and requested comments from NCWM 

membership during the 2007 Interim Meeting. A draft copy of the license agreement can be found in Appendix A. 

During the NCWM Interim Meeting, the NCWM Board and NTEP Committee reported they received and reviewed 

several comments, suggestions, and questions submitted prior to the NCWM Interim Meeting. These questions and 

comments were forwarded to legal counsel for review and comment. The comments from legal counsel were all 

forwarded to the BOD members for review. Several comments were heard by the NTEP Committee during the open 

hearings. All of these comments were considered and discussed fully. 

One suggestion was that the act of agreeing to NTEP policy for use of the NTEP logo could be incorporated into the 

application for an NTEP evaluation rather than signing a separate license agreement. The NTEP Committee agreed 

this approach would be much simpler, but that it only addressed holders of NTEP CCs and would apply only to a 

single CC. After additional discussion and suggestions from members, the NTEP Committee decided to use the 

invoice for annual maintenance fees as the vehicle to reaffirm agreement by holders of CCs to adhere to NTEP 

policy for use of the logo. No additional fees will be applied. For those who do not hold an active CC, but still wish 

to use the NTEP logo, they will be required to sign a license agreement. A one-time fee will be assessed to nonholders of certificates to obtain the privilege to use the NTEP logo in the marketing of goods or services. The 

amount of the fee is yet to be determined. 

NTEP - 10 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Additional work will be required for the NCWM BOD to review and approve the final language of the NTEP Logo 

License Agreement. This additional work will take place at the BOD meeting in May 2007. Appendix A provides 

information on current proposed changes to the NTEP Administrative Policy, a list of questions about the license 

agreement from the BOD with response from counsel, an amended license agreement, and a list of questions from 

an NCWM member with responses from counsel. 

Note: There may be additional changes to NCWM Publication 14 Administrative Policy based on the input from the 

members at the NCWM Interim Meeting and advice of counsel to implement these suggestions. 

During the open hearings of the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the NTEP Committee presented the "NTEP Logo 

Usage Guideline" to the membership for comment. The final document, approved by the NTEP Committee, is 

below: 

NTEP Logo Usage Guideline 

The NTEP Logo is much more than a certification mark - it is the public face of our organization. It is a mark that 

clients covet and consumers seek out. It is a powerful symbol, which represents both a company's concern and 

regard for its consumers, and recognition that the device type has demonstrated the capability of meeting the 

requirements of NIST Handbook 44. 

A. Use the NTEP Logo 

Manufacturers use the NTEP Logo to demonstrate to clients their commitment to meeting the requirements of NIST 

Handbook 44. 

1. The NTEP Logo increases the acceptance of your product or service. Your clients, potential clients, regulators, 

retailers, and dealers are all more inclined to accept products, advertising and promotion that bear the NTEP 

Logo. 

2. The NTEP Logo builds confidence and trust in your product. When your clients see the NTEP Logo on your 

product or in an advertisement, they know that the product has been evaluated by a third-party, non-biased 

organization and has successfully demonstrated its capability to meet the requirements of NIST Handbook 44. 

3. The NTEP allows for easier entry into new markets. Whether it is a new industry segment or a new international 

market, the NTEP Logo on product packaging, advertising and literature makes it easier to reach potential 

clients. 

4. The NTEP Logo provides a faster communications tool. The challenge for any company is to communicate 

product performance quickly and effectively. The NTEP Logo is one tool that does this. It is a small mark with 

a giant message. 

5. The NTEP Logo reassures clients. Per NIST Handbook 44, NTEP Certified devices must be identified with the 

NTEP CC Number, Make, Model and Serial/Version Number. 

B. Language Guidelines 

An Explanation of the NTEP Logo will help clarify the meaning of "NTEP Certified." Effective use of the NTEP 

Logo in advertising and promotional materials is a matter of repetitive and consistent visual design. Following these 

guidelines allows you to reinforce the importance of NTEP Certification and gain valuable benefits for your 

organization in the marketplace. 

Please consult the NTEP Director or NCWM Headquarters for guidance on specific products. 

NTEP - 11 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Acceptable/Unacceptable Preferred Language for Use with the NTEP Logo in Advertising or Promotional 

Materials 

Note: The "C" in "Certified" and in "Certification" should be capitalized when used immediately before or after 

NTEP and when referring to NTEP Certification. 

Acceptable Preferred Language: (in addition to that found in NCWM Publication 14 Administrative Policy

NTEP Certified 

NTEP Certification 

NTEP CC 

Certified by NTEP 

Evaluated and Certified by NTEP 

ABC's (company) product is cCertified by NTEP to applicable requirements of NIST Handbook 44. 

Unacceptable Language

NTEP Approved

Approved by

Verified by

Seal or Seal of Approval

Meets NTEP requirements

Legal-for-Trade or LFT

Best in Class

Implying NCWM, Inc. or NTEP are government agencies/organizations

C. Guidelines for Literature and Advertising 

NOTE: Whenever the NTEP Logo or language related to NTEP is used, NCWM suggests that the applicable NTEP 

Certificate of Conformance Number (NTEP CC) be provided. 

For use on letterhead, business cards, placards, print ads, Internet, and other promotional materials. 

Size 

For visibility and legibility, it is recommended that the NTEP Logo be reproduced no smaller than 3/8 inches (.9525 

cm) in diameter in print materials. 

Position 

The NTEP logo should not be angled or rotated 

Visibility 

The NTEP Logo shall not be cropped. The mark must be 100 % visible and the NTEP letters 

must be legible. 

NOT ACCEPTABLE 

The mark shall not appear in a manner that may directly or indirectly represent non-certified 

products/systems as Certified by NTEP. 

NTEP - 12 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Color Options 

The NTEP Logo comes in two versions: 

Black and White 

The NTEP Logo may appear White and Black 

Screen 

The black and white NTEP Logo can be screened back in color if desired. (this may need an 

example)

Or 

Color 

The Pantone colors are Pantone Black, Pantone Red 032, Pantone Yellow 018 

No variations in the color scheme are allowed. 

No other color schemes or styles are acceptable. 

Photo ready artwork is available from NCWM Headquarters. 

Additional Guidelines: 

1. These NTEP Logo guidelines apply when using the NTEP Logo directly on a product. 

2. Please contact the NTEP Director if you have questions regarding the use of the NTEP Logo on a specific 

product line. 

3. The NTEP logo is a registered trademark of NCWM, INC. No company or person shall apply or use the NTEP 

Logo or language related to NTEP in connection with a product or represent in any way that the product is 

certified until an NTEP Certificate of Conformance is issued for that device. NCWM may pursue legal recourse 

if the mark is misused. 

4. Rectangular Box under the NTEP Logo: When it is necessary to explain details regarding a specific 

certification, or include the NTEP CC Number, a rectangular box shall may be placed under the NTEP Logo. 

The examples below demonstrates use of a rectangular box. 

Size Text in proportion to the NTEP Logo. 

Specifications for text in the box: 

Font: Text in the box should be Arial bold and legible 

Gotham may be substituted for Arial 

Color: Black 

Box Dimensions: Typically, the text in the box should not exceed the diameter 

of the circle MARK

NTEP CC yy-yyyA1

------------------- 

NTEP - 13 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Changes to information in the current Content of NCWM Publication 16 

Changes to recommended revisions to NTEP Policies 

Page NTEP – A3 

C. Section U.2 Permissible Use of Statements and NTEP Logo – revise paragraph “b” to state, 

b. The NTEP statement or logo shall only be used by person(s) or organization(s) that have been granted a 

license by NCWM to use the statements and logo. All holders of Certificates of Conformance and 

companies that distribute goods that include certified devices may apply for a license. The license is 

provided without fee or royalty. All licensees must use the statements and logo only in conjunction with 

products that have been certified in accordance with this publication and NIST 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. 

Page NTEP – A4 

NCWM, in its sole discretion, determines whether its certified mark and statements are properly used in 

conformance with the license agreement and these policies. Direct questions to the NTEP Director or refer to the 

NTEP Logo Use Guideline at www.ncwm.net. 

After the final section, add the following sentence: 

There will be the need to add a reference to Appendix B. of the NCWM Publication 14 Administrative Policy 

regarding the license fee that will be charged to non-holders of NTEP CC's. 

Changes to the Agreement 

Page NTEP – A9 

3. License requirements and limitations. The license granted in section 1 is granted subject to the following 

requirements and limitations: 

a. Compliance with the NCWM National Type Evaluation Program Administrative Policy, 

Publication 14 (“Publication 14”). Licensee shall comply with all requirements in Publication 14, as 

currently existing or later revised. Licensee is solely responsible for keeping itself informed of the current 

requirements in Publication 14 by reviewing from time to time the information posted on the NCWM 

website. 

Page NTEP – A10 

4. License fees and royalties. This license is granted NCWM reserves the right to charge fees or royalties in the 

future. 

Wording has not been finalized for this section. The section will contain information stating that current NTEP CC 

holders will have no fee or royalty. It will further state that non-holders of NTEP CC's will be charged a one-time 

license fee for use of the NTEP logo. 

Note: A separate document containing answers to frequently asked questions is currently under development and 

will be posted to the NCWM website when complete. 

NTEP - 14 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

New Item: 

9. NTEP Certification of Medical Scales 

The NTEP Committee reported that they had received a request from a manufacturer for NTEP to certify weighing 

instruments used in the medical field. After discussing this item, the NTEP Committee determined this may be an 

area for NTEP to consider. Several issues related to these types of devices were discussed briefly, and it was 

quickly determined that it would be best to instruct the Weighing Sector to begin to review this device type and 

contact interested parties and other agencies interested in these types of devices. The manufacturer informed the 

NTEP Committee chair that it will contact other interested parties and will report to the Weighing Sector at the next 

meeting in September 2007. 

This item will not appear in future NTEP Committee agendas but will be reported in the Weighing Sector 

Summaries. 

During the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting, the NTEP Committee discussed the request and was interested in the 

concept of providing type evaluation certification for medical weighing devices. The NTEP Committee needs to 

know if the medical industry wants a standard to reference for these types of devices. The NTEP Committee does 

not foresee inspection of medical devices by weights and measures officials. One concept would be to provide a 

unique class marking for medical scales, separating them from commercial devices. This would clarify for the 

inspector that these devices are not NTEP certified for "commercial" use and are limited to use in the healthcare 

industry. 

This item is presented simply as a concept item. Any further development will be upon the initiative of the 

manufacturers. 

Don Onwiler, Nebraska, NTEP Committee Chair 

Mike Cleary, California, NCWM Chair 

Judy Cardin, Wisconsin, NCWM Chair-Elect 

Charles Carroll, Massachusetts 

Randy Jennings, Tennessee 

NTEP Technical Advisor: S. Cook, WMD 

NTEP Technical Advisor: S. Patoray, NTEP Director 

National Type Evaluation Program Committee 

NTEP - 15 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

NTEP - 16 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Certification Mark License 

Appendix A 

NTEP Certification Mark License 

NTEP - A1 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Certification Mark License 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

NTEP - A2 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Certification Mark License 

PFAU ENGLUND 

NONPROFIT LAW , P . C . 

3213 Driftwood Drive, #622 ♦ Alexandria, VA 22314 

Phone: 703/304-1204 ♦ Fax: 252/336-4821 

Internet: SPFAU@NONPROFITLAW.COM

ADMITTED IN VA AND DC 

EMAIL MEMORANDUM 

TO: Stephen Patoray, NCWM 

FROM: Sandra Pfau Englund

RE: Recommended revisions to NTEP policies 

DATE: August 24, 2006 

You asked that I review and provide recommendations on how to strengthen compliance with 

NCWM’s administrative policies regarding use of the NTEP certification mark. Following are 

my recommendations for revisions to the NCWM administrative policies. I previously provided 

and recommended NCWM use a certification license to regulate use of the mark. Attached are 

draft letters that may be used to transmit and request execution of the recommended certification 

mark license. 

Let me know if you have questions or if I can assist further with this matter. 

Recommended modifications to NCWM Administrative Policies

A. Section N.5 Withdrawn Status -- add to the Reasons for Withdraw

(4) Use of the NTEP certification mark without a license from NCWM; 

(5) Misuse of the NTEP certification mark. 

B. Section N.7 Reactivitation of Certificates of Conformance – revise paragraph “a” to state, 

a. An application for reactivation.... This will require an application, processing fee and 

evidence that the applicant is in full compliance with all NCWM administrative policies. 

C. Section U.2 Permissible Use of Statements and NTEP Logo – revise paragraph “b” to state, 

b. The NTEP statement or logo shall only be used by person(s) or organization(s) that 

have been granted a license by NCWM to use the statements and logo. All holders of 

Certificates of Conformance and companies that distribute goods that include certified 

devices may apply for a license. The license is provided without fee or royalty. All 

licensees must use the statements and logo only in conjunction with products that have 

been certified in accordance with this publication and NIST 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. 

NTEP - A3 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Certification Mark License 

When reference is made to the NTEP logo or an NTEP CC; it is essential to clearly 

identify which products are NTEP certified if a copy also includes products that are not 

certified. References to NTEP must always be located in close proximity to any 

references to a certified product when non-certified products are shown on the same page. 

NCWM, in its sole discretion, determines whether its certified mark and statements are 

properly used in conformance with the license agreement and these policies. Direct 

questions to the NTEP Director or refer to the NTEP Logo Use Guideline at 

www.ncwm.net.

D. Section T. Appeal and Review Process – revise the first bullet under T.1 by deleting the 

initial phrase, “At any stage in the evaluation process.” Add a fourth bullet that states, 

“A licensee may appeal withdrawal of the NTEP Certification Mark License Agreement” 

Revise the last sentence of section T.2 (e) to state, 

“A copy of the Director’s decision shall be delivered or mailed to the appellant, the 

Committee Chair, and (if appropriate) the laboratory.” 

NTEP - A4 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Certification Mark License 

Questions from members of the BOD to Counsel with responses from Counsel:

Issues of Language in License:

• Item 3a on page two - This mentions that the only notification of changes to the contents of Pub 14 is 

changes placed on the website. I feel this should state that a notification of changes would be placed on the 

website. As currently worded, it could be read that the actual change or the contents of Pub 14 will be 

placed on the website. I do not think it is our intention to publish Pub 14 on the web. 

Revised to provide that only a notice that Publication 14 has been revised will be included on the website. 

Licensees are responsible for obtaining a current copy of, and abiding by the rules included in, 

Publication 14 at all times.

• Item 3a on page two – first sentence: Strike “as currently exists or later revised.” They simply must 

comply with Pub 14. 

I do not recommend that this change be made. Without this language, it is not as clear that licensees must 

comply with the publication, even if later revised. 

• Item 3a on page two – last sentence: There should not be a conflict between Pub 14 and the license 

agreement, but if there is, Pub 14 is our standard and it should prevail. 

I disagree. The license agreement is much easier to revise than Publication 14. The license may include 

minor procedural or other matters not specifically addressed in Publication 14. This language allows 

more flexibility for the organization. 

• Item 3b on page two – first sentence: Change “device” to “type.” This term would be more appropriate for 

software, as an example. 

I made this change. I am concerned, however, about the definition of “device” versus the definition of a 

“type.” Does “types” include all “devices”? 

• Item 3b on page two – third sentence: “...in close proximity to the certified product” is ambiguous. Would 

“in conjunction with the certified product” be better? 

I disagree with this change. The word “proximate” refers to the nearness or location of the logo to the 

product. The word “conjunction” can be interpreted as merely including the logo with the advertisement. 

The NCWM has had concerns with advertisement not including the logo near enough to the device/type to 

which the logo refers. 

• Item 3d on page two – I am concerned about the statement of no changes to the mark. What about size, 

color, etc? See comment on Exhibit A below. 

I do not believe the language of this provision needs to be changed. If NTEP has particular size/color 

requirements, these items can be included with Exhibit A. If there are no size or color requirements, this 

also can be stated with Exhibit A. However, the language of this provision makes clear that the logo 

itself...its design...cannot be changed by the licensee. 

• Item 3d on page two and Item 5 on page four – Strike the word “confusingly.” 

The phrase “confusingly similar” is a legal term of art with respect to trademarks. Therefore, I did not 

make this change. 

NTEP - A5 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Certification Mark License 

• Item 3f on page two - Providing a sample of all logo usage could be a major effort. I would like to see the 

request limited to any documentation being reported as misusing the logo. I know this may sound lame but 

this open a statement makes me nervous. It simply states that copies of all usages could be requested 

without any additional justification. I know this is not the intent but a small clarification would help. 

I recommend that this provision remain to enable the NCWM to request materials if needed to determine 

compliance with the license. The license is written for the NCWM’s best interests and needs to “police” its 

trademark. I do not believe that the NCWM is going to abuse the need to get copies. 

• Item 3f on page three – Do we need to define “third party”? Also, would our policy require a third party to 

have an agreement prior to use of the logo? 

The phrase “third party” is a legal term of art to refer to any party not a party to this agreement. I believe 

any party using the logo needs to sign a license agreement. 

• Item 4 on page three – Should all reference to royalties be omitted? What if we decide at a later date to 

charge royalties? Should we be considering fees now? 

This provision was revised to reserve the right to the NCWM to charge fees or royalties in the future if 

desired. 

• Item 6e on page four - The requirement to update all usage of the logo in 30 days would be very difficult 

and expensive. While I understand and agree with the intent of this requirement, for some of us it may be 

very difficult to change all documentation in the 30 days. In some cases we may have thousands of copies 

of documents that would need to be destroyed. I would suggest the wording be softened a little to provide 

flexibility. 

This provision was revised to require any materials created or distributed after the rules have changed to 

be in compliance with the rules. 

• Item 6e on page four – The implication here is compliance with all subsequent changes to any portion of 

Publication 14. Is that the intent or should it be specific to Pub 14 Administrative Policy? 

My understanding is that the NCWM wants NTEP logo users to comply with all provisions of 

Publication 14. 

• Item 10.c. Termination. – Should the license agreement be terminated if a CC holder fails to pay 

maintenance fees? 

Yes. Is the requirement to pay maintenance fees a part of the requirements found in Publication 14? Or is 

this a new provision that should be added to the license agreement? 

• Item 12.a. – Since the NCWM is incorporated in Virginia, should we reference Virginia law instead of 

Maryland law? 

The choice of law is based on where the drafter, the NCWM, would like lawsuits handled. Montgomery 

County, Maryland was chosen because this is where the NCWM’s management offices are located. 

• Exhibit A – This needs to provide additional information such as size requirements like minimum size, 

limited colors, and font size. Also, I would suggest that the NTEP offer a "photo ready" logo to limit 

documentation use. 

All sounds fine. 

• Should there be an expiration of the license agreement? 

NTEP - A6 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Certification Mark License 

Currently the license is written as “evergreen”...allowing it to continue until terminated. Including an 

expiration date would entail more administration...requiring staff to contact each license holder at the 

license expiration date to get them to sign a new license. 

Issues of Implementation/Enforcement of License:

• If Handbook 44 changes and a device no longer meets Handbook 44, what happens to devices in the field 

bearing the logo? I can see changing advertising materials, etc, but what about manuals that came with the 

device, etc.? 

Changes to Section 6e may handle this concern...requiring only that new manuals be revised. 

• In general law-making you can't make a statute ex post facto (after the fact) so I agree that whatever we do 

now with regard to a license agreement will only have an impact on those who are willing to sign it today. 

Those who refuse to sign will not be subject to the provisions of the agreement. 

I disagree. What this license does is clarify that the requirements of Publication 14 apply to all users of the 

NTEP logo. My recommendation is that any organization that wants to continue using the NTEP logo 

MUST sign the license agreement. The license is being created to enable the NCWM better enforcement of 

its current policies. It is not changing the requirements of Publication 14. 

• My concern is the same enforceability. Who will find the violator and who will enforce the agreement after 

the violator is found? Are all companies that distribute NTEP devices required to sign the agreement? If 

not, what if they are the people putting on the logo. 

NCWM staff, I assume, will be the “enforcers.” When a new user of the logo is found, or a violator is 

found, a contact will be made. To maintain its trademark rights in its logo, the NCWM must show that it is 

using its best efforts to “police” its mark. 

• What do we do with the people that are using the logo that are not part of the program? 

This is part of the reason for the license agreement. I understand that there are many users of the logo that 

are not Certificate holders. By requiring any user of the logo to sign the license, the NCWM has a way to 

bring all logo users into compliance with its rules. 

• To simplify matters when a COC is issued to the applicant we should also include an application for use of 

the NTEP logo stating the conditions of use, which must be signed and returned if the applicant intends to 

use the logo. 

Yes, agreed. 

• Item 6.e. requires compliance with Pub 14 changes within one month of those changes being made. How 

will the NCWM notify agreement holders of changes to Pub 14 that may affect the license agreement? 

See change to 3a. The suggestion is that only a notice on the NCWM’s website stating that a change to 

Pub 14 has been made be required. 

Sandra Pfau Englund

Pfau Englund Nonprofit Law, P.C.

NTEP - A7 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Certification Mark License 

Revised Draft document based on information above from January 6, 2007

National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) 

NTEP Certification Mark License Agreement 

This License Agreement (“License”) is entered into by and between the National Conference on 

Weights and Measures, Inc., a Virginia nonprofit, tax-exempt corporation with its principal 

office located at 1524 Shady Grove Road, #130, Rockville, Maryland 20850 (known in this 

License as “NCWM”), and 

Company name: ___________________________________________________________ 

Company address: _________________________________________________________ 

Contact name: ______________________________Contact phone: __________________ 

Contact email: _____________________________________________________________ 

known in this License as the “Licensee”. 

Background 

The NTEP (National Type Evaluation Program) name and logo (the “Certification Mark”) is a 

Certification Mark registered with the United States Patent and Trademark Office and owned by 

the National Conference on Weights and Measures (“NCWM”). As the owner of the 

Certification Mark, NCWM has the exclusive right to authorize the parties that may use the 

Certification Mark and how the Certification Mark may be used. NCWM also is required to 

prevent the misuse of the Certification Mark. 

Generally NCWM authorizes holders of Certificates of Conformance, and third party purchasers 

of certified devices, to use the Certification Mark provided such parties enter into a Certification 

Mark licensing agreement with NCWM and agree to use the Certification Mark in conformance 

with NCWM’s policies. 

WHEREAS, NCWM is the owner of the trademark shown in Exhibit A and referred to as the 

“Certification Mark” in this agreement, which Certification Mark is registered with the United 

States Patent and Trademark Office (Registration No. 2397670) and is used to certify that an 

apparatus has been found through the National Type Evaluation Program to conform to the 

design requirements and be capable of meeting the performance requirements for goods of the 

particular type as set forth in Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical 

Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology; and, 

WHEREAS, Licensee desires to obtain a license to use the Certification Mark with respect to 

the distribution or sale of a certified device; 

NOW THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 

NTEP - A8 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Certification Mark License 

AGREEMENT 

1. License grant. Provided Licensee complies with all the terms, conditions and policies 

relating to the use of the Certification Mark, NCWM grants Licensee a limited, nonexclusive, world-wide, revocable, non-transferable royalty-free license to use the 

Certification Mark on or in connection with a certified device. 

2. Reservation of rights. Except for the limited license rights granted in this agreement, 

NCWM reserves to itself all right, title and interest in and to the Certification Mark. 

3. License requirements and limitations. The license granted in Section 1 is granted subject 

to the following requirements and limitations: 

a. Compliance with the NCWM National Type Evaluation Program Administrative 

Policy, Publication 14 (“Publication 14”). Licensee shall comply with all requirements 

in Publication 14, as currently existing or later revised. Licensee is solely responsible for 

keeping itself informed of the current requirements in Publication 14 by reviewing from 

time to time the version the information posted on the NCWM website. NCWM is 

under no obligation to inform Licensee of changes to Publication 14 other than by posting 

a notice on its website that the publication has been revised. If Licensee does not agree 

with any changes to Publication 14, Licensee’s sole remedy is to terminate this 

Agreement as provided herein. If the provisions of Publication 14 and this License 

conflict, the terms of this License shall control. 

b. Certification Mark used with certified devices only. Licensee shall only use the 

Certification Mark in conjunction with devices types that have been certified in 

accordance with Publication 14 and NIST Handbook 44, and that hold an active NTEP 

Certificate of Conformance. It is essential that when a device is included as part of a 

product that it be clear that only the device, and not the entire product, is certified. When 

a certified product is shown on the same page with a non-certified product, the 

Certification Mark must be located in close proximity to the certified product. Licensee 

understands and agrees that NCWM shall determine, in its sole discretion, if use of the 

Certification Mark is inappropriate or unclear, and Licensee agrees to revise the use or 

placement of the Certification Mark, or remove the Certification Mark, as directed by 

NCWM. 

c. Advertising Statements. Licensee understands and agrees that all statements used in 

conjunction with the Certified Mark must comply with Appendix C of Publication 14. 

Licensee understands and agrees that NCWM shall determine, in its sole discretion, if the 

statements used comply with NCWM’s policies, and Licensee agrees to revise or remove 

statements that NCWM determines do not comply with its policy. 

d. Certification Mark may not be modified. Licensee shall not modify, enhance or 

change the Certification Mark or combine it with another mark, or use, adopt or register 

any marks confusingly similar to the Certification Mark. 

e. Certification Mark may not be used: (i) in any manner that is likely to reduce, 

diminish or damage the goodwill, value or reputation associated with the Certification 

Mark; (ii) in any manner as would violate the rights of any third parties; (iii) in any 

manner as would result in any third party claim or any governmental investigation, claim 

or proceeding alleging unlawful or improper use of the Certification Mark; (iv) on or in 

connection with any products or services other than the certified devices and promotional 

materials pertaining to the certified devices; or (v) in any manner other than as a 

certification mark. 

NTEP - A9 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Certification Mark License 

f. Inspection. Licensee will, upon NCWM’s request and at no cost to NCWM, provide 

NCWM with samples of all uses of the Certification Mark by Licensee. 

g. Withdrawn Certification. If at any time the Certificate of Conformance is withdrawn 

from a device, Licensee will immediately cease all use of the Certification Mark. 

Licensee also will notify all distributors and customers who may have or promote 

formerly certified devices that the Certificate of Conformance has been withdrawn and 

the use of the Certification Mark must cease immediately. 

h. Noncompliance. Licensee shall immediately and at its sole cost and expense correct any 

usage of the Certification Mark that NCWM regards as failing to comply with the 

requirements of this Agreement or Publication 14. 

i. Third-Party Infringement. Licensee will promptly notify NCWM if it becomes aware 

of any infringement of the Certification Mark by a third party. Licensee shall have 

neither the right nor the obligation to prosecute any infringement claims against thirdparty infringers. 

j. Use of NCWM. Nothing in this Agreement gives Licensee the right or license to use the 

marks “National Conference of Weights and Measures” or “NCWM” apart from the 

Certification Mark as shown in Exhibit A. 

k. Unauthorized Use. Licensee acknowledges that if it engages in any unauthorized use or 

reference to the Certification Mark, its right to continue using the Certification Mark may 

be terminated and that irreparable injury will occur if such unauthorized use continues. 

4. License fees and royalties. While this license is granted fully paid and without royalty,

NCWM reserves the right to charge fees or royalties in the future. 

5. NCWM ownership of Certification Mark. Licensee acknowledges the National 

Conference of Weights and Measures exclusive right, title and interest in and to the 

Certification Mark and acknowledges that nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to 

provide to Licensee any rights in the Certification Mark except as expressly provided in the 

Agreement. Licensee acknowledges that its use of the Certification Mark will not create in it 

any right, title or interest in the Certification Mark other than the limited license rights 

granted to Licensee in this Agreement and that all such use of the Certification Mark and the 

goodwill generated thereby will inure to the benefit of the NCWM. Licensee warrants and 

represents that: (a) it will not at any time challenge the NCWM’s right, title or interest in the 

Certification Mark or the validity of the Certification Mark or any registration of the 

Certification Mark; (b) it will not do or cause to be done or omit to do anything, the doing, 

causing, or omitting of which would contest or in any way impair or tend to impair the rights 

of the NCWM in the Certification Mark; (c) it will not represent that it has any ownership in 

or rights with respect to the Certification Mark; and (d) it will not, either during or 

subsequent to the term of this Agreement, adopt, use or register any certification mark, 

trademark, service mark, trade name, insignia or logo that is confusingly similar to or a 

colorable imitation of the Certification Mark or any of the NCWM’s other marks. 

6. Representations of Licensee. Licensee represents and warrant that: 

a. It is duly organized and in good standing under the laws of its jurisdiction of 

organization; 

b. Licensee has taken all actions that are necessary or advisable in order for it to enter into 

this Agreement; 

c. The person executing this Agreement on behalf of Licensee is authorized to do so; 

NTEP - A10 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Certification Mark License 

d. The Agreement, upon its execution by Licensee (and assuming due execution by 

NCWM) shall be the binding obligation of Licensee, enforceable in accordance with its 

terms; 

e. Licensee will immediately take all necessary action to comply with all changes to 

Publication 14. All materials and publications will comply with the requirements of 

Publication 14 at the time that the publications are developed, printed and distributed. 

Any advertisements that include the NTEP logo must at all times comply with the 

requirements of Publication 14 in effect at the time the advertisement is published. 

within one (1) month from the date such changes are made; 

f. Licensee will not challenge NCWM’s rights under its National Type Evaluation Program, 

Publication 14, or this Agreement and will not challenge the validity of any NCWM 

mark. 

7. No warranty by the NCWM. The NCWM provides the license granted in this 

Agreement without warranty of any kind. TO THE MAXIMUM EXENT 

PERMITTED BY LAW, THE NCWM DISCLAIMS ALL EXPRESS , IMPLIED AND 

STATUTORY WARRANTIES.

8. Limitation of Liability. IN NO EVENT SHALL NCWM BE LIABLE FOR LOST 

PROFITS OR SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING 

OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THIS AGREEMENT REGARDLESS OF THE 

LEGAL THEORY UPON WHICH SUCH CLAIM IS BASED AND EVEN IF THE NCWM 

HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY THEREOF. 

9. Indemnity. Licensee agrees to defend, indemnify and hold NCWM and its respective 

representatives, employees, officers, directors and agents harmless against all claims, suits, 

cost, damages, judgments, attorney’s fees, settlements or expenses incurred, caused by, 

arising from or relating to any breach of this Agreement by Licensee or claimed, obtained or 

sustained by any third party, whether for personal injury, misrepresentation, or otherwise 

arising out of or relating to the manufacture, advertising, promotion, use, marketing or sale of 

the certified devices, provided such claims are not caused by NCWM’s negligence or breach 

of this Agreement. 

10. Effective date, term and termination. 

a. Effective date. This Agreement shall commence and the license granted under the 

Agreement shall become effective (the “Effective Date”) upon the execution of this 

agreement by both parties. 

b. Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date and shall 

continue until terminated by a party as provided in this Agreement. 

c. Termination. 

i. Termination by Licensee. Licensee may terminate this Agreement at any time by 

providing written notice to NCWM and by discontinuing all use of the Certification 

Mark. Termination in this manner shall be effective upon receipt of the written notice 

by NCWM or at such time (not to exceed 30 days after the date notice is received) 

specified in the notice from Licensee. 

ii. Termination by NCWM. NCWM may terminate this Agreement upon thirty 

(30) days notice if Licensee breaches any provision of this Agreement and fails to 

cure such breach within such thirty (30) day period. NCWM also may terminate this 

Agreement upon thirty (30) days notice if it discontinues use of the Certification 

Mark or modifies the design of the Certification Mark. 

NTEP - A11 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Certification Mark License 

iii. Consequences of termination. Upon termination of this Agreement, the license 

granted shall immediately terminate. Licensee will immediately discontinue all use 

of the Certification Mark and shall destroy all materials in their possession containing 

the Certification Mark and shall certify to the destruction of such materials if the 

NCWM requests that they do so. 

11. Compliance with laws. Licensee will at all times comply with all laws, regulations, 

ordinances, rules and orders that are applicable to it in connection with its manufacture and 

sale of NTEP certified devices and the operation of its business generally. 

12. Miscellaneous. 

a. Governing Law. This Agreement will be governed by and construed in accordance with 

the laws of the State of Maryland as applied to agreements entered into and fully 

performed therein by residents thereof. Both parties submit to jurisdiction in Maryland 

and further agree that any cause of action arising under this Agreement shall be brought 

in a court in the County of Montgomery, Maryland. 

b. Severability; Headings. If any provision within this Agreement is held to be invalid or 

unenforceable for any reason, the remaining provisions will continue in full force without 

being impaired or invalidated in any way. Headings are for reference purposes only and 

in no way define, limit, construe or describe the scope or extent of such section. 

c. Independent contractors. The parties are independent contractors, and no agency, 

partnership, joint venture, employee-employer or franchisor-franchisee relationship is 

intended or created by this Agreement. Neither party shall make any warranties or 

representations on behalf of the other party. 

d. Notice. NCWM may give notice to Licensee by personal delivery, mail, courier, 

facsimile or e-mail to Licensee’s address as identified in this Agreement. Licensee may 

give notice to NCWM by personal delivery, mail, courier, or facsimile to NCWM’s 

physical address as identified at www.ncwm.net or electronically by e-mail to 

ncwm@mgmtsol.com. Notice shall be deemed given: upon personal delivery; if sent by 

fax, with confirmation of correct transmission, on the next business day after it was sent; 

upon the courier’s confirmed delivery if sent by courier; and if sent by mail with proper 

postage prepaid, five (5) days after the date of mailing. Notices by e-mail shall be 

deemed given by the end of the business day on which they are sent. 

e. Entire agreement; Waiver. This Agreement sets forth the entire understanding and 

agreement of the parties and supersedes any and all oral or written agreements or 

understandings between the parties as to the subject matter of this Agreement. This 

Agreement may be changed only by a writing executed by both parties that expressly 

states that it is changing the provisions of this Agreement. The waiver of a breach of any 

provision of this Agreement will not operate or be interpreted as a waiver of any other or 

subsequent breach. 

f. Assignment. Licensee may not transfer its rights or obligations under this Agreement in 

whole or in part to any third party without the prior written consent of NCWM and any 

attempt to do so is void. 

g. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each of 

which shall be deemed an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same 

instrument, 

NTEP - A12 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Certification Mark License 

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed by their duly 

authorized representatives. 

For LICENSEE: For NCWM: 

Signature: _______________________ Signature: ________________________ 

Name: _______________________ Name: ________________________ 

Title: _______________________ Title: ________________________ 

Date: _______________________ Date: ________________________ 

Question from NCWM member with responses from Counsel January 15, 2007

• Paragraph 3 – notice of changes to Publication 14 – a proposed revision to this section provides that notice of 

any changes to Publication 14 will be placed on the NTEP website. NTEP may also want to consider placing 

the wording of any changes on the website. 

• However, it should be noted that the use of the NTEP logo by certificate holders and others is a privilege, not a 

right. Therefore, I would not consider requiring licensees to periodically purchase the manual to keep abreast of 

the requirements for certificate holders to be overly burdensome. This is made truer by the fact that there is 

currently no fee associated with the license. NTEP must have methods in place to cover its costs of 

administering the program. 

• Paragraph 3(i) – requiring licensees to notify a licensor of any known misuse of a mark is common to license 

agreements. The value of the NTEP mark is only as good as the enforcement of its proper use. Certificate 

holders may be more aware of the misuse of the mark by third parties than NTEP. Requiring licensees to call, 

e-mail or write NTEP if they become aware of a misuse is not overly burdensome and protects the value of the 

NTEP mark for all users of the mark. 

• Paragraph 6(e) – a proposed revision has been made regarding the timeframe for revising publications. 

• Paragraph 6(f) – this provision requires licensees, who are gaining the privilege to use the NTEP registered 

trademark, not to challenge NCWM’s rights under its National Type Evaluation Program, Publication 14, or the 

license agreement and also not to challenge the validity of any NCWM mark. Most license agreements require 

the licensee not to challenge the licensor’s rights to its trademarks. This requirement, at a minimum, should 

remain in the agreement. NCWM may consider whether to remove the broader requirements not to challenge 

NCWM’s rights under the program itself or Publication 14. It should be noted, however, that using the NTEP 

trademark is a privilege not a right. 

• Paragraph 10(c)(iii) – Once the license is revoked, NCWM must require that the Certification Mark no longer 

be used. Language regarding deleting the mark from any new materials, particularly advertising materials, 

similar to paragraph 6(e) may be considered. 

Sandra Pfau Englund 

Pfau Englund Nonprofit Law, P.C. 

Admitted in VA and DC. Practice otherwise limited to matters before federal agencies such as the IRS.

NTEP - A13 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Certification Mark License 

Exhibit A

Certification Mark

NTEP - A14 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

Appendix B 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Grain Analyzer Sector 

August 23 - 24, 2006, Kansas City, Missouri 

Meeting Summary 

Agenda Items 

1. Report on the 2006 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings.............................................................................2

2. Report on NTEP Type Evaluations and OCP (Phase II) Testing ....................................................................2

3. Review of On-going Calibration Program (Phase II) Performance Data ........................................................3

4. Proposed Change to Publication 14 – Bias Tolerances for Test Weight per Bushel.......................................3

5. Proposed Amendment to Handbook 44 Section 5.56.(a) to Address Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations 

for Multi-Class Grain Moisture Calibrations...................................................................................................7

6. Proposed Changes to Handbook 44 and Publication 14 to Address Multi-Class Calibrations (other than 

moisture) for Near Infrared Grain Analyzers..................................................................................................8

(a) Proposed Changes to Section 5.57 of NIST Handbook 44: ......................................................................8

(b) Proposed Changes to the NIR Grain Analyzer Chapter in the 2006 Edition of Publication 14:...............9

7. Proposed Change to the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 to Avoid Reducing a Previously Evaluated 

Approved/Pending Moisture Range Due to Lack of Data.............................................................................13

8. Proposed Changes to Handbook 44 Section 5.56.(a), Paragraph S.4. and to the GMM Checklist of 

Publication 14 to Modify Operating Instruction Requirements.....................................................................16

9. Report on “Basis of Determination” in Official Grading Standards..............................................................16

10. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 1 IR 59 “Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds” .............................18

11. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 8 Protein Draft Recommendation.....................................................................18

12. Report on OIML TC 5/SC 2 Document D-SW, “General Requirements for Software Controlled 

Measuring Devices” and NTEP Software Sector Activities..........................................................................18

13. Time and Place for Next Meeting .................................................................................................................19

14. Encouraging Participation by State Weights and Measures Personnel .........................................................19

15. Questions Regarding NIR Calibration for Enhanced Nutrient Corn .............................................................19

NTEP - B1 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

1. Report on the 2006 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings 

The 91st Interim Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held 

January 22 - 25, 2006, in Jacksonville, Florida. Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, reported that the NTEP Committee 

accepted the Sector's recommended amendments and changes to the 2005 edition of the Grain Moisture Meter 

(GMM) chapter of Publication 14. These changes appear in the 2006 edition. For additional background, refer to 

Committee Reports for the 91st Annual Meeting, NCWM Publication 16, April 2006. 

Amendments and Changes to the 2005 Edition 

of the Grain Moisture Meter Chapter of Publication 14

Section Number Amendment/Change Page Source 

Section IV. Tolerances for 

Calibration Performance 

Correct language GMM-7 08/05 GMM Sector Item 8 

Section V. Criteria for NTEP 

Moisture Calibration Review 

Add language for Multi-Class 

Calibration in Case VIII 

GMM-9 08/05 GMM Sector Item 8 

Appendix D. Sample Temperature 

Sensitivity 

Correct table GMM-44 08/05 GMM Sector Item 9 

The 91st Annual Meeting of the NCWM was held July 9 - 13, 2006, in Chicago, Illinois. No Grain Moisture Meter 

(GMM) or Near Infrared (NIR) Grain Analyzer items were presented for consideration by the NCWM at the 2006 

Annual Meeting. 

Steve Patoray reported that the Board of Directors, on behalf of NCWM, Inc., had signed a Declaration of Mutual 

Confidence (DoMC) with the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) as a “utilizing participant” for 

OIML R 60 (Load Cells). He explained that a DoMC is an agreement, signed by various bodies in charge of legal 

metrology activities in different countries, by which a signing country declares it will voluntarily accept test results 

of type evaluations conducted according to the OIML Recommendations for a specific category of instruments. A 

“utilizing participant” accepts OIML Evaluation Reports validated by OIML Certificates but does not issue any 

OIML Test Reports or OIML Certificates under the DoMC. While this specific action does not directly affect grain 

analyzers, Mr. Patoray pointed out it does show why the harmonization of International Standards (OIML) and U.S. 

Standards (NIST Handbook 44 and NCWM Publication 14) is increasingly important. Instrument manufacturers 

may eventually be able to facilitate the type approval of their instruments in various countries, using the “one-stop 

testing” concept. 

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

Cathy Brenner of the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), the NTEP participating 

laboratory for grain analyzers, reported on NTEP type evaluation activity. In addition to regular grain moisture 

meter calibration updates, evaluations are currently underway for two additional devices: one for test weight per 

bushel (an add-on to a currently approved grain moisture meter); and one for a new grain moisture meter. She also 

reported that the following device types would be enrolled in the OCP (Phase II) for the 2006 harvest: 

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

 DICKEY-john Corporation GAC2000, GAC2100, GAC2100a, GAC2100b 

 DICKEY-john Corporation OmegAnalyzer G 

 Foss North America Infratec 1241 

 Foss North America Infratec 1227, Infratec 1229 

 Seedburo Equipment Company 1200A 

 The Steinlite Corporation SL95 

NTEP - B2 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

Ms. Brenner noted that there are now six devices, and the cost to manufacturers for Phase II has increased from 

$ 5,300 to $ 7,730 per meter type. 

NTEP On-Going Calibration Program Fee Schedule 

For Fiscal Years 2005-2009

(1) Funding Contribution from Participants 

Total Meters 

(including 

official meter) 

(2) 

Meters in 

NTEP 

Pool 

(3) 

Cost per 

NTEP Pool 

Meter 

(4) 

Total 

Program 

Cost 

(5) 

NIST 

(6) 

GIPSA 

(7) 

Manufacturers 

(total funding from mfg's) 

(8) 

Cost per 

Meter Type 

2 1 $ 19,875 $ 19,875 $ 6,625 $ 6,625 $ 6,625 $ 3,315

3 2 19,875 39,750 13,250 13,250 13,250 4,415

4 3 19,875 59,625 19,875 19,875 19,875 4,970

5 4 19,875 79,500 26,500 26,500 26,500 5,300

6 5 19,875 99,375 26,500 26,500 46,375 7,730

7 6 19,875 119,250 26,500 26,500 66,250 9,465

8 7 19,875 139,125 26,500 26,500 86,125 10,765

9 8 19,875 159,000 26,500 26,500 106,000 11,775

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

At their August 2005 meeting, the Sector agreed that comparative OCP performance data identifying the Official 

Meter and listing the average bias for each NTEP meter type should be available for annual review by the Sector. 

Accordingly, Cathy Brenner, representing GIPSA, the NTEP participating laboratory for grain analyzers, presented 

data showing the performance of NTEP meters compared to the air oven. These data were based on the last 3 crop 

years (2003 - 2005) using calibrations updated for use during the 2006 harvest season. Noting that the X-axis for 

Durum Wheat covered a range of 8 % to 18 % moisture although no samples had been received in the 16 % to 18 % 

interval, Ms. Brenner explained that the moisture intervals (ranges) shown for each grain are the same as those listed 

on GIPSA Program Directive 9180.61 for the Official Meter. Using a fixed X-axis for individual grain types makes 

it easier to make meaningful visual comparisons in the results for successive 3-year periods. 

In response to a question of why the “sustained bias” rule hadn't been applied to the Official Meter's calibration for 

corn, Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA, explained that as long as the meters are within the allowed tolerance for “sustained 

bias” there is no requirement to change the calibration. 

The Sector acknowledged the effort that had gone into the compilation and presentation of the comparative 

performance data and thanked Cathy Brenner for a job well done. 

4. Proposed Change to Publication 14 – Bias Tolerances for Test Weight per Bushel 

Background: This is a carry-over item from the Sector's August 2005 meeting; see the summary of that meeting 

for additional information. 

The Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) Chapter of Publication 14 calls for testing the automatic test weight per bushel 

(TW) measuring feature of GMMs for accuracy, repeatability (precision), and reproducibility using 12 selected 

samples of each grain type (for which the meter has a pending or higher moisture calibration). The two tests for 

accuracy between the meter and the standard reference method are bias (meter versus the standard reference 

method) and the standard deviation of the differences (SDD). Publication 14 states that, “The manufacturer may 

adjust the calibration bias to compensate for differences from the type evaluation laboratory in reference methods or 

sample sets.” 

Recent NTEP tests revealed that the results of the bias test, which uses only 12 selected samples, are sample set 

dependent. Because of this, the NTEP Lab did not list specific bias terms for each grain type on the Certificate of 

NTEP - B3 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

Conformance (CC) for instruments recently evaluated for test weight (TW). Instead, the CC simply indicated that 

the meter is approved for test weight per bushel measurements for each grain type verified for test weight. 

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

S.2.4.3. Calibration Transfer - The instrument hardware/software design and calibration 

procedures shall permit calibration development and the transfer of calibrations between 

instruments of like models without requiring user slope or bias adjustments. 

This requirement applies to both moisture and TW calibrations. In devices where grain-dependent TW calibration 

coefficients are imbedded in the CC listing of grain moisture calibration coefficients, there is no problem. Any 

change in coefficients affecting TW will require a change in the moisture calibration and an amendment to the CC. 

The concern is with devices that do not treat grain-dependent TW coefficients as part of the moisture calibration. In 

that case, unless TW coefficients are listed on the CC, there is no way for field inspectors to know if the most recent 

adjustment coefficients are being used for test weight. The Sector agreed that if TW calibration coefficients are not 

part of the moisture calibration coefficients then they must be listed on the CC. 

The Sector was in general agreement that TW data from the On-going Calibration Program (OCP), (Phase II, was 

the best measure of how closely a meter is biased to the standard quart kettle method. In response to a question of 

whether or not Phase II TW data for corn for the entire moisture range or for a restricted (and lower) moisture range 

should be used, Dr. Pierce replied that TW data above 20 % moisture would not be used. 

At its August 2005 meeting, the Sector agreed that the Grain Moisture Meter chapter of Publication 14 should be 

amended using the following guidelines: 

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

2. Data from the Phase II On-going Calibration Review Program may be used at the manufacturer's discretion 

to support a grain-specific TW bias-adjustment change in a TW calibration. TW data for corn will be 

limited to samples with oven moistures not exceeding 20 %. 

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

calibration supported by Phase II data. 

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

inspectors. 

5. The bias results for TW accuracy for each of the two instruments of like-type submitted for evaluation must 

agree with each other by the same tolerance that they must agree with the reference method. 

The Sector's co-technical advisor, Mr. Jack Barber, was directed to draft proposed wording for the amendment for 

consideration by the Sector at its August 2006 meeting. 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the proposed amendments to Section VII of Publication 14 to address criteria for 

TW calibration, which was provided in the 2006 meeting agenda. Cathy Brenner, representing GIPSA, the NTEP 

Participating Laboratory for Grain Analyzers, reported that based on historical data, meters passing the existing 

Phase I Test Weight per Bushel (TW) test for bias also passed the proposed test for ∆ bias (see guideline 5, above). 

Furthermore, the majority of the times a meter failed the existing test for TW Bias they passed the test for ∆ bias. 

The few times when a meter also failed the proposed ∆ bias test, there was a problem with one of the instruments. 

The Sector concluded that the proposed test for ∆ bias was both redundant and ineffective. Portions of the proposed 

amendment related to ∆ bias were deleted. 

One sector member questioned if it was really possible to identify how a meter was configured to measure TW or if 

there was an identifiable TW calibration on a meter. Mr. Barber explained that the steps involved in arriving at a 

TW value include: 1) measuring the weight of the grain in the meter's test cell (or separate test “cup”); and 

2) converting the measured weight into an equivalent pounds per bushel figure assuming that the test cell volume is 

constant. Unfortunately, the conversion step is grain specific. The packing density of grain is influenced by the size 

and shape of the kernels of grain; by the size and shape of the test cell; by the surface condition of the grain; by the 

distance the grain drops as it loads into the cell; and by the size of the sample being dropped. Additionally, the 

effective volume of grain being weighed will vary by grain type due to the way the device “strikes off” or removes 

NTEP - B4 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

excess grain from the top of the test cell. As a result, meters use empirically determined grain-specific constants to 

convert the measured weight into pounds per bushel. The constant is typically a “slope” term in the TW calibration. 

An additional grain-specific constant, a “bias” or “intercept” term, is sometimes used to provide a “best fit” over the 

range of available samples. 

Answering manufacturer's questions concerning how to handle device-specific adjustments/parameters that were 

also grain specific, the co-technical advisor, Diane Lee, cited the following paragraphs from Section 5.56.(a) of 

NIST Handbook 44, noting that the code differentiates between “grain calibrations” (typically the grain specific 

constants that are identical for all devices of like type) and “standardization adjustments” (the device specific 

adjustments or software parameters that make all devices of like type respond identically to the grain being 

measured when using the same calibrations.) 

S.2.4. Calibration Integrity

S.2.4.1. Calibration Version. - A meter must be capable of displaying either calibration constants, a 

unique calibration name, or a unique calibration version number for use in verifying that the latest version 

of the calibration is being used to make moisture content and test weight per bushel determinations. 

(Added 1993) (Amended 1995 and 2003) 

S.2.4.2. Calibration Corruption. - If calibration constants are digitally stored in an electronically 

alterable form, the meter shall be designed to make automatic checks to detect corruption of calibration 

constants. An error message must be displayed if calibration constants have been electronically altered. 

(Added 1993) (Amended 1995) 

S.2.4.3. Calibration Transfer. - The instrument hardware/software design and calibration procedures 

shall permit calibration development and the transfer of calibrations between instruments of like models 

without requiring user slope or bias adjustments. 

[Note: Only the manufacturer or the manufacturer's designated service agency may make standardization 

adjustments on moisture meters. This does not preclude the possibility of the operator installing 

manufacturer-specified calibration constants under the instructions of the manufacturer or its designated 

service agency.] Standardization adjustments (not to be confused with grain calibrations) are those 

physical adjustments or software parameters which make meters of like type respond identically to the 

grain(s) being measured. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1999]

(Added 1994) (Amended 1998) 

The Sector engaged in a lengthy discussion. One faction was of the opinion that the Type Evaluation for TW 

(Phase I) was a one-time evaluation and should not be extended into Phase II with a required annual report. They 

suggested that manufacturers be permitted to make TW calibration changes at their own discretion supported by 

existing Phase II or manufacturer-supplied data. Field-testing of TW could be used to determine if individual 

devices were in compliance. The opposing faction was equally firm in believing if it was important enough for a 

manufacturer to change a TW calibration, it was important enough to set tolerance limits for performance based on 

the largest set of data available and to ensure that it could be verified in the field that the calibration changes have 

been made to all devices of like type in use. 

An attempt was made to find a common ground between these two positions. The compromise proposal eliminated 

performance tolerances but retained the following paragraphs: 

Test-weight-per-bushel data from Phase II may be used at the manufacturer's discretion to support a grainspecific bias adjustment change in a test weight per bushel calibration. A repeat of the basic instrument 

tests and the accuracy, precision, and reproducibility tests cited previously is not required for a grainspecific bias-adjustment change in a test weight per bushel calibration supported by Phase II data. 

Any change in a grain-specific test-weight-per-bushel calibration (including changes in grain-specific bias 

adjustments) must be reflected on the CC in a manner obvious to field inspection personnel. 

NTEP - B5 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, pointed out that as far as NTEP Publication 14 was concerned, Phase II TW data 

doesn't exist. [Editor's note: The TW data currently being supplied to manufacturers along with Phase II moisture 

results are being collected by GIPSA as an internal matter and are being provided to manufacturers as a courtesy.] 

Consequently, the compromise proposal cannot refer to “Test-weight-per-bushel data from Phase II.” With that 

revelation the Sector agreed by consensus to the original proposal modified only by reducing the tolerances of 

paragraph III.C.b. to 0.40 for corn and oats; 0.25 for wheat; and 0.35 for all other grains. 

It was suggested that CCs include a note telling field inspectors how to determine if the most recent TW calibration 

had been installed. For example, should the inspector be looking for a specific calibration identifier, or were TW 

calibration coefficients embedded in the listed moisture calibration coefficients? 

Recommendation: Amend Section VII. Additional Type Evaluation Test Procedures and Tolerances for Grain 

Moisture Meters Incorporating an Automatic Test Weight per Bushel Measuring Feature of the 2006 edition of the 

GMM chapter of NCWM Publication 14 as follows, to define calibration performance requirements on the basis of 

data collected as part of the on-going national moisture calibration program. 

VII. Additional Type Evaluation Test Procedures and Tolerances for Grain Moisture Meters 

Incorporating an Automatic Test Weight per Bushel Measuring Feature 

A. Basic Instrument Tests: 

B. Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility 

C. Tolerances for Test Weight per Bushel Calibration Performance: 

In addition to the Basic Instrument Tests and the Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility Tests cited 

previously, test weight per bushel calibration performance will be monitored using test weight per bushel 

data collected as part of the on-going national moisture calibration program (Phase II). Evaluation of test 

weight per bushel performance for corn will be limited to data collected on samples with moisture content 

not exceeding 20 % as determined by the USDA air-oven reference method. 

For up to 3 years of available test weight per bushel data: 

a. The difference between the average bias to quart kettle for all samples in a given year and the 

average bias to quart kettle for any other year shall not exceed 0.80 for corn and oats; 0.50 for 

wheat; and 0.70 for all other grains. 

b. The average calibration bias with respect to quart kettle shall not exceed 0.40 for corn and oats; 

0.25 for wheat; and 0.35 for all other grains calculated using the most recent calibration and all 

available raw data collected within the last 3 years for the entire moisture range (data for corn 

samples above 20 % moisture will be excluded.) 

Failure to meet the requirements in either item a. or b. above will cause removal of test weight per bushel 

approval status for the affected grain type(s) on the NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) for that 

instrument. 

Test weight per bushel data from Phase II may be used at the manufacturer's discretion to support a grainspecific bias adjustment change in a test weight per bushel calibration. A repeat of the basic instrument 

NTEP - B6 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

tests and the accuracy, precision, and reproducibility tests cited previously is not required for a grainspecific bias-adjustment change in a test weight per bushel calibration supported by Phase II data. 

Any change in a grain-specific test weight per bushel calibration (including changes in grain-specific bias 

adjustments) must be reflected on the CC in a manner obvious to field inspection personnel. 

5. Proposed Amendment to Handbook 44 Section 5.56.(a) to Address Minimum 

Acceptable Abbreviations for Multi-Class Grain Moisture Calibrations 

Discussion: NIST Handbook 44, Section 5.56.(a) paragraph S.1.2. Grain or Seed Kind and Class Selection 

and Recording requires that, “The means to select the kind and class of grain or seed shall be readily visible and the 

kind and class of grain or seed selected shall be clearly and definitely identified.” The GMM chapter of NCWM 

Publication 14 was recently amended to allow multi-class moisture calibrations. A multi-class grain calibration that 

includes all the NTEP classes of that grain type (e.g., two-rowed barley and six-rowed barley) can clearly and 

definitely be identified by a single type name (e.g., barley). Similarly, both long grain and medium grain rough rice 

could be identified unambiguously as “rough rice”. However, a multi-class grain calibration that does not include 

all of the NTEP classes of a grain type may not be clearly and definitely identified using a single grain type name 

(e.g., wheat). For example, a calibration for “all wheat except durum” cannot be labeled “wheat” because the grain 

type “wheat” does not include “durum wheat.” The acceptable abbreviations (and grain names) in Table S.1.2. of 

Handbook 44 do not address the groupings and the names that might be used for selecting and recording multi-class 

calibrations. 

Conclusions and Recommendation: The Sector decided that the originally suggested multi-class groups (soft 

wheat, hard wheat, red wheat, and white wheat) were thought to be confusing and subject to potential misuse. Only 

the following multi-class groups should be considered for type evaluation: 

All-class Wheat 

Wheat excluding Durum 

All-class Barley 

All-class Rough Rice 

A poll of manufacturers present at the meeting revealed that increasing the four-character display requirement of 

paragraph S.1.2. to eight characters would not be a problem with instruments in current production; therefore, up to 

eight characters could be used for multi-class group abbreviations. The Sector decided that the sentence specifying 

the display capacity was not needed because the necessary display capacity was obvious from the number of 

characters in the longest minimum acceptable abbreviation listed in Table S.1.2. 

The Sector agreed that the above multi-class groups should be added to Table S.1.2. and that paragraph S.1.2. should 

be modified as necessary to accommodate multi-class grain moisture calibrations. 

The Sector agreed to recommend the following modifications to paragraph S.1.2. Grain or Seed Kind and Class 

Selection and Recording and Table S.1.2. of Section 5.56.(a) of NIST Handbook 44 to include minimum acceptable 

abbreviations for multi-class grain moisture calibrations. 

S.1.2. Grain or Seed Kind and Class Selection and Recording. – Provision shall be made for selecting 

and recording the kind and class or multi-class group (as appropriate) of grain or seed to be measured. The 

means to select the kind and class or multi-class group of grain or seed shall be readily visible and the kind 

and class or multi-class group of grain or seed selected shall be clearly and definitely identified. 

Abbreviations for grain types and multi-class groups indicated on the meter must meet the minimum 

acceptable abbreviations listed in Table S.1.2.Meters shall have the capability (i.e., display capacity) of 

indicating the grain type using a minimum of four characters in order to accommodate the four-character 

abbreviations listed in Table S.1.2.

(Amended 1993, and1995, and 2008) 

NTEP - B7 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

Table S.1.2. Grain Types and Multi-Class Groups Considered for Type Evaluation and Calibration 

and Their Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations

Grain Type

Minimum 

Acceptable 

Abbreviation

Grain Type Minimum Acceptable 

Abbreviation

Corn CORN Soybeans SOYB 

Two-rowed Barley 

Six-rowed Barley 

All-class Barley* 

TRB 

SRB 

BARLEY 

Durum Wheat 

Soft White Wheat 

Hard Red Spring Wheat 

Hard Red Winter Wheat 

Soft Red Winter Wheat 

Hard White Wheat 

All-Class Wheat* 

Wheat excluding Durum* 

DURW 

SWW 

HRSW 

HRWW 

SRWW 

HDWW 

WHEAT 

WHTEXDUR 

Oats OATS 

Sunflower seed (Oil) SUNF Long Grain Rough Rice 

Medium Grain Rough Rice 

All-class Rough Rice* 

LGRR 

MGRR 

RGHRICE 

Grain Sorghum SORG or

MILO 

Small oil seeds (under 

consideration) 

[Note: Grain Types marked with an asterisk (*) are “Multi-class Calibrations”] 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1998]

(Table Added 1993) (Amended 1995, and1998, 2008) 

[Editors Note: In preparing this item for the NCWM S&T review it was determined that the term “Multi-class” is 

not a widely used term. The Sector may want to consider developing a definition for multi-class calibrations.] 

6. Proposed Changes to Handbook 44 and Publication 14 to Address Multi-Class 

Calibrations (other than moisture) for Near Infrared Grain Analyzers 

Background: The GMM chapter of NCWM Publication 14 was recently amended to allow multi-class moisture 

calibrations. In conjunction with agenda Item 5, the Sector recommends modifications to the GMM Code of 

Handbook 44 to specify allowed multi-class groupings when user selection of a multi-class group is performed using 

the group name or an abbreviation of the name. The NIR Grain Analyzer program allows for either individual-class 

calibrations or “all-class” calibrations for constituents other than moisture, but does not have any provisions for 

multi-class calibrations for those constituents. 

Conclusions/Recommendation: The Sector agreed that modifications should be made to the NIR Grain Analyzer 

Code of Handbook 44 and the corresponding sections of Publication 14 to correspond with changes recommended in 

agenda Item 5 in order to cover multi-class moisture calibrations. 

The Sector recommends the following modifications to item (a) below in paragraph S.1.2. Selecting and Recording 

Grain Class and Constituent and Table S.1.2. of Section 5.57 of NIST Handbook 44, and to item (b) to amend 

Section III. Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility Requirements in the 2005 edition of the GMM chapter of 

NCWM Publication 14 to add criteria applicable to “multi-class” calibrations. Proposed additions and changes are 

shown below: 

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

S.1.2. Selecting and Recording Grain Class and Constituent. - Provision shall be made for selecting and 

recording the type or class of grain and the constituent(s) to be measured. The means to select the grain type 

or class and the constituent(s) shall be readily visible and the type or class of grain and the constituent(s) 

selected shall be clearly and definitely identified in letters (such as HRWW, HRSW, WHEAT etc. or PROT, 

etc.). A symbol to identify the display of the type or class of grain and constituent(s) selected is permitted 

provided it is clearly defined adjacent to the display. Minimum acceptable abbreviations are listed in 

NTEP - B8 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

Table S.1.2.Meters shall have the capability (i.e., display capacity) of indicating the grain type using a 

minimum of four characters in order to accommodate the abbreviations listed in Table S.1.2.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003] 

If more than one calibration is included for a given grain type, the calibrations must be clearly 

distinguished from one another. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004] 

Table S.1.2. Grain Types Considered for Type Evaluation and Calibration 

and Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations

Grain Type Minimum Acceptable Abbreviation 

Durum Wheat 

Hard Red Spring Wheat 

Hard Red Winter Wheat 

Hard White Wheat 

Soft Red Winter Wheat 

Soft White Wheat 

All-Class Wheat* 

Wheat excluding Durum* 

Soybeans 

Two-rowed Barley 

Six-rowed Barley 

All-Class Barley* 

Corn

DURW 

HRSW 

HRWW 

HDWW 

SRWW 

SWW 

WHEAT 

WHTEXDUR 

SOYB 

TRB 

SRB 

BARLEY 

CORN

[Note: Grain Types marked with an asterisk (*) are “Multi-class Calibrations”]

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003]

(Table Amended 2001 and 2008) 

(Amended 2003 and 2008) 

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

III. Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility Requirements 

Grain analyzers will be tested for accuracy, repeatability (precision), and reproducibility over the applicable 

constituent concentration ranges shown in Table 1. Instrument and calibration performance will be 

individually tested for each grain type and constituent. 

NTEP - B9 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

Table 1. Constituent Ranges for Type Evaluation 

Grain Type Constituent 

Constituent Range (%) 

at Moisture Basis (M.B.) 

Shown 

Low 

Moisture 

Range 

High 

Moisture 

Range 

Durum Wheat Protein 10 to 18 at 12 % M.B. 

Hard Red Spring Wheat Protein 10 to 19 at 12 % M.B. 

Hard Red Winter Wheat Protein 8 to 18 at 12 % M.B. 

Hard White Wheat Protein 9 to 16 at 12 % M.B. 

Soft Red Winter Wheat Protein 9 to 12 at 12 % M.B. 

Soft White Wheat Protein 8 to 15 at 12 % M.B. 

“All Class” Wheat Calibration* Protein 8 to 19 at 12 % M.B. 

Wheat Excluding Durum* Protein 8 to 19 at 12 % M.B. 

10 % - 12 % 13 % - 15 % 

Two-rowed Barley Protein 8 to 17 at 0 % M.B. 

Six-rowed Barley Protein 8 to 17 at 0 % M.B. 

“All Class” Barley Calibration* Protein 8 to 17 at 0 % M.B. 

10 % - 12 % 13 % - 15 % 

Protein 8 to 12 at 0 % M.B. 

Corn Oil 3 to 9 at 0 % M.B. 

Starch 67 to 73 at 0 % M.B 

11 % - 13 % 14 % - 16 % 

Protein 30 to 40 at 13 % M.B. Soybeans 

Oil 16 to 21 at 13 % M.B. 

10 % - 12 % 13 % - 15 % 

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

NTEP - B10 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

Table 2. Tolerances 

Grain Type Constituent 

Sample 

Temperature 

Sensitivity Test 

Tolerance 

Accuracy 

Tolerance 

Repeatability 

Tolerance 

Reproducibility 

Tolerance 

Durum Wheat Protein 

Hard Red Spring Wheat Protein 

Hard Red Winter Wheat Protein 

Hard White Wheat Protein 

Soft Red Winter Wheat Protein 

Soft White Wheat Protein 

“All Class” Wheat 

Calibration* Protein 

Wheat Excluding Durum* Protein 

± 0.35 0.30 0.15 0.20 

Two-rowed Barley Protein 

Six-rowed Barley Protein 

“All Class” Barley 

Calibration* Protein 

± 0.45 0.40 0.20 0.25 

Protein ± 0.45 0.50 0.25 0.30 

Corn Oil ± 0.45 0.50 0.20 0.25 

Starch ± 0.45 1.0 0.30 0.35 

Protein ± 0.45 0.55 0.25 0.30 Soybeans 

Oil ± 0.45 0.45 0.20 0.25 

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

Two instruments will be tested using test sets consisting of no less than 50 samples for each grain type to be used on 

the instrument submitted for type approval. (Note: In cases where grain types have multiple constituent 

calibrations, more than 50 samples may be required to satisfy the range requirements for each constituent associated 

with that grain type.) The sample set will be screened using the GIPSA official instrument model and reference 

method. Samples where the official instrument model disagrees from the reference method by more than the 

Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance will be deleted and another sample will be selected to replace it. No sample set 

will be used where the standard deviation of the differences between the GIPSA official instrument model and the 

reference method exceeds one-half the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance applied to individual samples. Finally, 

any sample result not within three standard deviations of the mean for the test instrument will be dropped before 

analysis of the data. 

Three replicates will be run on each instrument for each sample, resulting in a minimum of 300 observations per 

constituent calibration (2 instruments x 50 samples [minimum] x 3 replicates). 

Accuracy. The first replicate for each sample will be used to calculate the Standard Error of Performance (SEP) for 

each instrument with respect to the reference method. Each instrument will be tested individually. The equation to 

calculate SEP is: 

NTEP - B11 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

 where 

1

)(

1

2

−

−

=

∑=

n

yy

SEP

n

i

i

= predicted constituent concentration for the first replicate of sample i i x

 = reference constituent concentration for sample i ir

iii −= rxy

y = average of i y

n = number of samples in the test set for the constituent calibration being evaluated 

 ( n = 50, see Note 1 below regarding “all class” calibrations.) 

The tolerance for SEP is shown in Table 2. 

If requested by the applicant, data from a 20-sample slope set will be provided for adjusting calibration 

slope and bias prior to the start of type evaluation testing. No further standardization adjustments will be 

made during type evaluation testing. 

Note 1: “All-class”“Multi-class” calibrations will be tested using full test sets for all included classes 

(50 x number of classes). In addition to meeting accuracy requirements (SEP) for the test sets of 

each individual class, for publication “all class”“Multi-class” calibrations must meet the accuracy 

requirements (SEP) when the data from all included classes are pooled. 

Note 2: A single slope and bias will be used for “all-class” “multi-class” calibrations. 

Repeatability. The Standard Deviation (SD) of the three replicates will be calculated and pooled across 

samples for each class. Each instrument will be tested individually. The equation used to calculate SD is: 

 where 

n

PP

SD

n

i j

iij

2

)(

1

3

1

2

∑∑= =

−

=

Pij = predicted constituent concentration for sample i and replicate j 

Pi = average of the three predicted constituent concentration values for sample i 

n = number of samples in the test set for constituent calibration being evaluated ( n = 50, see Note 

below regarding “all class” calibrations.) 

The tolerance for repeatability is shown in Table 2. 

Note: “All-class”“Multi-class” calibrations will be tested using full test sets for all included classes. “All 

class”“Multi-class” calibrations must meet the repeatability requirements (SD) for the test sets of 

each individual class. 

NTEP - B12 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

Reproducibility. The results for each of the three replicates obtained for samples in the test set will be 

averaged for each instrument and the Standard Deviation of the Differences (SDD) between instruments 

will be calculated using the following equation: 

 where 

1

)(

1

2

−

−

=

∑=

n

dd

SDD

n

i

i

 = di − PP 21 ii

P1i = average of three replicates for sample i on instrument 1 

P2i

= average of three replicates for sample i on instrument 2 

d = average of di

n = number of samples in the test set for constituent calibration being evaluated ( n = 50, see Note below 

regarding “all class” calibrations.) 

The tolerance for reproducibility is shown in Table 2. 

Note: “All-class” “Multi-class” calibrations will be tested using full test sets for all included classes. “All 

class”“Multi-class” calibrations must meet the reproducibility requirements (SDD) for the test sets of 

each individual class. 

7. Proposed Change to the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 to Avoid Reducing a 

Previously Evaluated Approved/Pending Moisture Range Due to Lack of Data 

Background: At the Sector's August 2005 meeting, Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA (the NTEP laboratory), mentioned 

that the NTEP laboratory is having problems increasing and decreasing “approved” or “pending” ranges of grain 

moisture meters depending on the data available in the most recent 3 year period. Most Sector members agreed that 

it didn't seem logical to reduce a range solely because data previously used to justify the range classification had to 

be dropped from the most recent 3 year period. Further discussion of the issue at that time was dropped because of 

time constraints. 

The present system for determining the range of 2 % moisture intervals eligible for “approved” status uses only the 

most recent 3 years of NTEP data. An “approved” range cannot be extended by including manufacturer data. When 

the “approved” and “pending” moisture ranges were originally proposed, it was believed that after a meter had been 

in the Phase II on-going calibration program for 3 years the “pending” classification would go away because there 

would always be sufficient data in the 2 % intervals at the end of the calibration data range. Experience has shown 

that this is not the case. In fact, to maintain even a “pending” classification at the ends of the calibration data range, 

manufacturers often have to supply archived Phase II data to supplement the most recent 3 years used for the initial 

NTEP calibration report. With that data, moisture intervals listed as “not approved” on the initial calibration report 

can be upgraded to “pending” if the bias to air oven is within the approval tolerance for that moisture interval. 

Confidence intervals are not applied to approval tolerances for use in determining “pending” ranges when 

manufacturer data are used. 

For calibration performance comparison purposes, it seems logical to continue using data from the most recent 

3 year period. As new models are added to the On-going Calibration Program (Phase II), comparisons between 

meters become meaningful sooner than they would have if a longer period had been chosen. 

NTEP - B13 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

At first glance, it also appears logical to recommend, provided a calibration has not changed, that moisture ranges 

previously evaluated as “pending” or “approved” not be reduced due to lack of data in subsequent 3-year periods. 

However, hard to find samples are only one issue. The NTEP laboratory has reported instances where there were 

quite a few samples in a moisture interval with the samples coming from only one or two growing locations. This 

resulted in meter to oven biases that varied from year to year depending on the source of the samples. In one meter 

and one moisture interval, the meter was out of NTEP tolerance using the last 3 years of data but biased within 0.08 

of air oven result when using the last 5 years of data. 

When it comes to determining how to set operating limits for an individual meter, one would think that using 5 years 

of available Phase II data would increase the number of samples across the entire moisture range and reduce the 

number of inadequately represented moisture intervals. However, for some grains no samples have been received in 

some moisture ranges within the last 3 years or even the last 5 years. There are cases where only one sample is 

available in a 2 % interval. 

Eliminating or even reducing the problems encountered in determining “approved” or “pending” calibration ranges 

may require not only using more than the most recent 3 years or even 5 years of Phase II data but also limiting the 

moisture range over which an “approved” or “pending” rating can be granted. In practice, the present distinction 

between “approved” and “pending” classifications is lost to the user. The upper and lower moisture limits for a 

device are set using the “pending” range, so any “out-of-limits” warning printed or displayed appears only when the 

“pending” range is exceeded. Limiting the use of “pending” to a new device that has not been evaluated in Phase II 

could simplify the administration of Phase II and the annual re-issuing of CCs. 

Discussion: The Sector discussed recommending major revisions to the GMM Chapter of Publication 14 that would 

be based on the following points: 

1. Redefine “Pending” to read: A new calibration that has not been validated by on-going calibration data 

collected as part of the national calibration program. 

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

used in device evaluation. 

3. Retain the present GMM comparison report based on the most recent 3 years of Phase II data. This report 

will be used for comparison purposes and for review by the Sector. 

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

in Phase II. 

5. Prepare a second calibration report using all available Phase II data on file at GIPSA. This report is to be 

used to determine “approved” ranges. “Approved” ranges are to be used to set the upper and lower 

moisture limits for a GMM. 

6. The maximum upper moisture interval and the minimum lower moisture interval that can be given 

“approved” status will be defined for each grain. These upper and lower limits are to be fixed values that 

do not change from year to year. 

Consideration of the above points prompted a lively discussion. Although most Sector members were generally in 

favor of either redefining or eliminating the “Pending” classification, this approach implied that another method had 

to be found to determine operating ranges, because “Pending” moisture ranges have traditionally been used to set the 

upper and lower moisture limits (operating range) for each calibration. Manufacturers objected to using a single 

fixed range for all types of devices, noting that some technologies were more accurate than others at high moistures. 

They preferred an option that would allow them to extend competitively the operating range and objected to being 

restricted by limitations in the Phase II sample collection system. The suggestion that CCs carry the notation, 

“Evaluated over the moisture range of __ % to __ %, and certified for use over the range of __ % to __ %,” was 

rejected on the grounds that an NTEP certificate was not intended to be a marketing tool. The Sector was also of the 

opinion that a 6 % operating range was too restrictive for a new device. 

NTEP - B14 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

The question of how operating limits should be determined was temporarily set aside to consider fixed ranges for 

certification/verification of moisture calibrations. There was general agreement that the ranges had to be wide 

enough to encompass the moisture ranges used in the market, but there was concern that choosing ranges that were 

too wide would lead to the present problem of insufficient samples. Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA, distributed a page 

from the USDA/GIPSA Moisture Handbook that listed the moisture ranges supported by GIPSA for each grain type, 

suggesting that these moisture ranges might be considered for use as the fixed ranges for NTEP Phase II verification. 

Many Sector members believed that these ranges were too wide to be supported by 3 years (or even 5 years) of 

NTEP Phase II data. Durum Wheat, with a “GIPSA supported” range of 7 % to 20 %, had only four samples in the 

6 % to 8 % moisture interval and only one sample in the 18 % to 20 % interval for the most recent 3 years of 

Phase II data. Similar sample shortages were noted for most of the other NTEP grains. A decision on the specific 

fixed ranges to be used for certification/verification of moisture calibrations was left for further study. 

Several “what if” questions were asked regarding how fixed certification/verification ranges might work under 

certain circumstances. These questions and the Sector’s response are outlined below. 

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

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

tests. 

 

 Question: What happens if not enough samples are available to certify the new device for the full range 

after one year in Phase II? 

 Answer: The certified/verified range remains at 6 % until enough samples have been collected in a 

3-year period to certify the device for the full range. 

 Question: Will confidence intervals still be used? 

 Answer: Yes, a 95 % confidence interval will be added to the maximum tolerance for each 2 % 

moisture interval outside of the basic 6 % moisture range. 

 Question: What happens if a meter is outside of tolerance (even with the confidence interval) on any of 

the upper 2 % moisture intervals of the full range? Does the whole calibration get rejected? 

 Answer: Yes, the manufacturer must submit a new calibration with re-predicted moistures showing that 

tolerances are met for all 2 % intervals in the full range. 

 Question: What happens to an existing calibration if not enough samples are available in any of the 

upper 2 % intervals? 

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

With these questions answered, it was suggested that the manufacturer should specify the operating moisture range 

for each grain. This range would NOT be listed on the CC, but would be used to determine when warnings would 

be displayed and printed to indicate that the displayed/printed moisture content of a sample being measured was 

beyond the operating range of the device. [See NIST Handbook 44, Section 5.56.(a)., paragraphs S.1.1.(f) 

and S.1.3.(c).] Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, noted that there was a precedent for evaluation ranges that differed 

from operating ranges. There are devices that are tested by the NTEP lab over one range of conditions but used over 

a wider range of conditions. The Sector agreed that allowing individual manufacturers to specify the operating 

moisture ranges for their devices would make adoption of fixed evaluation/verification ranges for all CCs more 

acceptable. 

Conclusion: The Sector decided that additional study was needed before a final recommendation could be made on 

this issue. This item will be carried over to the Sector's August 2007 meeting. The following points summarize the 

Sector's thinking at the close of the August 2006 meeting: 

1. The “pending approval” classification will be eliminated. Operating ranges (upper and lower moisture 

limits) will be specified by the manufacturer. Operating ranges will NOT be listed on CCs. 

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

NTEP - B15 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

3. Certificates will list a single “standard” moisture range for each grain calibration. These ranges will not 

vary from year to year. They will be the same for all instruments. (See exception for new instruments.) 

The “standard” ranges have to be wide enough to encompass the moisture ranges most commonly used in 

the market (to be determined) but narrow enough to assure sufficient Phase II data will be available (over a 

3-year period) to: 

a. permit a new meter's calibrations to be “verified” over those ranges by the end of its third year in 

Phase II; and 

b. permit existing NTEP certified meters' calibrations to be “verified” over those ranges using the 

most recent 3 years of Phase II data when the new rules are first adopted. 

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

5. New instruments will be “evaluated” over the basic 6 % moisture ranges for corn, soybeans, and hard red 

winter wheat. Certificates for new instruments will continue to list the 6 % moisture ranges as the 

“evaluated” or “verified” ranges until sufficient Phase II data has been collected to allow the new 

instrument to achieve “verified” status for the full moisture range. 

6. Outside the basic 6 % moisture range, tolerances used to require a change in calibrations will continue to 

include the application of a 95 % confidence interval to the maximum tolerance for each 2 % moisture 

interval. 

8. Proposed Changes to Handbook 44 Section 5.56.(a), Paragraph S.4. and to the GMM 

Checklist of Publication 14 to Modify Operating Instruction Requirements 

Background: Item (d) of paragraph S.4. in Handbook 44, Section 5.56.(a) Grain Moisture Meters requires that 

operating instructions for the device specify “the kinds or classes of grain or seed for which the device is designed to 

measure moisture content and test weight per bushel.” Item (e), which requires declaring a device's “limitations of 

use” in the operating instructions, includes “kind or class of grain or seed” in the list of limitations to be declared 

and also requires that the “moisture measurement range” be shown, presumably, for each grain or seed. These 

requirements are redundant, considering paragraph S.1.3. Operating Range specifies that “A meter shall 

automatically and clearly indicate when the operating range of the meter has been exceeded,” and with Item (c) of 

that paragraph further stating, “Moisture and test weight per bushel values may be displayed when the moisture 

range is exceeded if accompanied by a clear indication that the moisture range has been exceeded.” The 

requirements of paragraph S.4. are also unnecessarily burdensome to manufacturers selling their GMMs in markets 

outside the United States. In those markets, the kinds and classes of grain or seed for which the GMM is to be used 

may not be the same as in the United States and may include non-NTEP grain or seed. In the United States, 

information pertaining to the kinds and classes of grain or seed for which the device is designed to measure moisture 

and TW are included in the NTEP CC along with the moisture measurement range of each NTEP grain or seed. 

Furthermore, the kinds and classes of grain are listed on the device's “menu” of included calibrations. 

Discussion: The Sector considered the amendments and changes proposed in the agenda. Ms. Cassie Eigenmann, 

Dickey-john, was concerned that the above requirements applied to the “Instruction Manual.” A review of the Grain 

Moisture Meter code in Handbook 44 indicated that the handbook mentions only “operating instructions” and makes 

no reference to an “Instruction Manual.”

Conclusion: The Sector concluded that the “operating instructions” referred to in Handbook 44 could take many 

forms, including those displayed on the device's menu of installed calibrations. No change to Handbook 44 was 

deemed necessary.

9. Report on “Basis of Determination” in Official Grading Standards 

Discussion: The principles governing application of official grain grading standards include definitions of the 

“basis of determination” to be used for each of the individual official tests. The “basis of determination” identifies 

NTEP - B16 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

whether a measurement will be made on the whole grain sample, also referred to as the entire or original grain 

sample, or on a grain sample after dockage has been removed and/or after the sample has been cleaned. 

The various “basis of determination” requirements are part of the U.S. grain grading standards and most have not 

been changed since USDA began implementing official standards in 1916. Current standards require that: 

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

• test weight measurements be made on the whole grain sample for some grain types while for other grain 

types test weight measurements be made on grain samples with dockage removed; and 

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

Largely because conflicting “basis of determination” requirements are a barrier to adoption of multi-use instruments 

in official inspections, GIPSA is investigating the potential for establishing a common “basis of determination” for 

determining moisture, test weight, protein, and oil. Also, there is concern that moisture and test weight 

measurements on uncleaned grain samples may yield results that are not accurate for either the grain portion of the 

sample or the dockage in the sample. 

Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA, presented a brief historical overview of inspection practices; a review of the levels of 

foreign material (FM), dockage, etc. measured in samples officially inspected in recent years; and preliminary data 

indicating how moisture and test weight measurements are affected as different levels of dockage are added to a 

clean sample. 

Early test results on corn found no major effect on either moisture or TW as up to 12 % BCFM (broken corn and 

foreign material) was re-introduced in increments of approximately two percentage points to a clean sample from 

which the BCFM had been removed. 

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

Effect on Moisture and TW 

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

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

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

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

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

Although moisture results seemed to be more variable with added FM, a recognizable pattern for moisture due 

to added FM was not found. Test weight decreased almost linearly with added FM to a loss of 5.5 lb/bu at 10 % 

added FM. 

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

Effect on Moisture and TW 

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

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

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

• Moisture results seemed to become more variable. 

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

Dr. Pierce stressed that this study was in the early stages. Test procedures will be refined and additional data will be 

obtained on the effects of testing unclean grain samples. Although the early results seem to indicate that moisture 

results may not be greatly affected by moderate levels of dockage, the Sector agreed unanimously that clean samples 

must always be used for NTEP evaluations, calibration development, and state field-testing. 

NTEP - B17 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

As additional data become available on the effects of testing unclean grain samples, and as GIPSA considers 

possible changes in “basis of determination” requirements, the Sector may want to discuss the possible implications 

for state-regulated commercial transactions. 

10. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 1 IR 59 “Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds” 

Background: This item was included on the Sector’s agenda to provide a summary of the activities of 

OIML TC 17/SC 1. Since June 22, 2001, an international work group (IWG) of TC 17/SC 1 has been meeting to 

review revision to OIML R 59. The most recent meeting of the TC 17/SC 1 work group (WG) was held on 

September 20 - 21, 2004, at the Laboratory National D’Essais (LNE) in Paris, France.

Discussion: Ms. Diane Lee, NIST/WMD, reported that the 4 CD, dated July 2006, along with U.S. comments on 

the 3 CD had been distributed to the United States National Work Group (USNWG). The USNWG is for the most 

part a subset of the NTEP Grain Analyzer Sector. Ms. Lee asked Sector members to review the changes included in 

the latest draft and forward comments to her by November 1, 2006. To assist in identifying and locating changes 

that have been made to the 3 CD for inclusion in the 4 CD, a copy of the collated comments to the 3 CD from all 

participating countries has been requested and will be forwarded to the USNWG upon receipt. [Editor's note: A 

copy of comments to the 3 CD from all participating countries was e-mailed to the USNWG on September 5, 2006.] 

The USNWG comments on the 4 CD of OIML R 59 will be collated and forwarded to the TC 17/SC 1 secretariat for 

inclusion in the next draft of the document.

11. Report on OIML TC 17/SC 8 Protein Draft Recommendation 

Background: This item was included on the Sector’s agenda to provide a summary of the activities of 

OIML TC 17/SC 8, the subcommittee responsible for developing a Recommendation for Grain Protein Measuring 

instruments. Since May 2004, an IWG of TC 17/SC 8 has been meeting to develop a new OIML Recommendation 

for instruments that measure grain protein. The most recent meeting of the TC 17/SC 8 WG was held in June 2005 

in Berlin, Germany to discuss the latest round of comments on the 3 WD of the Recommendation. 

Discussion: Diane Lee, NIST/WMD, reported that a 1 CD of “Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain and 

Oil Seeds” dated May 1, 2006, addressing comments received on the 3 WD had been distributed to the USNWG and 

related parties for comment. A meeting of the IWG was held in Ottawa, Canada, September 25 - 26, 2006, to 

discuss the comments to the 3 WD and the resulting 1 CD. The TC 17/SC 8 secretariat will make changes to the 

1 CD according to discussion during the September 2006 meeting and develop a 2 CD that will be forwarded to the 

USNWG for comment when it is available.

12. Report on OIML TC 5/SC 2 Document D-SW, “General Requirements for Software 

Controlled Measuring Devices” and NTEP Software Sector Activities 

Background: This item was included on the Sector's agenda to provide a summary of the activities of 

OIML TC 5/SC 2. In 2004, all OIML TCs and SCs that were revising an OIML Recommendation were contacted to 

ensure that software aspects are considered in revised Recommendations. All OIML Documents and 

Recommendations published since 1990 were reviewed for terms and requirements related to software. A pre-draft 

of the document “Software in Legal Metrology” was circulated in October 2004 by the Secretariats (Germany and 

France). When complete, this document will serve as guidance for OIML technical committees addressing software 

requirements in Recommendations for software-controlled instruments. NIST submitted U.S. comments on an early 

draft in February 2005. The 1 WD of this document, titled “General Requirements for Software Controlled 

Measuring Instruments,” was received in February 2006, after which comments from U.S. interested parties were 

solicited. U.S. comments on this draft were sent to the secretariat May 30, 2006. The 1 WD and the U.S. comments 

can be viewed on the NIST/WMD website at http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/230/235/TC5-SC2.htm. 

Discussion: After the report on OIML TC 5/SC 2, Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, called the Sector's attention to the 

recently formed NTETC Software Sector. This new Sector held its first scheduled meeting April 5, 6, and 7, 2006, 

in Annapolis, Maryland, where several subcommittee WGs were formed to focus on various aspects relating to the 

NTEP - B18 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

use of software in today’s weighing and measuring instruments. Mr. Patoray mentioned that the Software Sector's 

work initially would not affect the Grain Analyzer Sector because grain analyzers, at present, are “built-for-purpose” 

devices. Looking to the future, however, a system in which a local instrument obtains optical data on the sample to 

be measured, transmits it to an off-site computer that calculates the result and transmits the result back to the local 

instrument for display and printout would most likely have to comply with standards developed by the Software 

Sector. Interested parties wishing to participate in this Sector should direct their requests to Steve Patoray who will 

see that they are forwarded to the appropriate individual for processing. 

13. Time and Place for Next Meeting 

The next meeting is tentatively planned for the week of August 20, 2007, in the Kansas City, Missouri, area. 

Meetings will be held in one of the meeting rooms at the National Weather Service Training Center if available. 

The meeting room will be reserved for Wednesday and Thursday, August 22 and 23. Sector members are asked to 

hold both these days open pending determination of agenda items, exact meeting times, and meeting duration. Final 

meeting details will be announced by late April 2007. 

If you would like to submit an agenda item for the 2007 meeting, please contact Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, at 

spatoray@mgmtsol.com; G. Diane Lee, NIST Technical Advisor, at diane.lee@nist.gov; or Jack Barber, Technical 

Advisor, at jbarber@motion.net by April 2, 2007. 

[Note: The following items were not on the original agenda, but were added at the meeting on an “as time permits” 

basis.] 

14. Encouraging Participation by State Weights and Measures Personnel 

Discussion: Noting that only one state W&M representative was able to attend the current Sector meeting, several 

Sector members wondered what could be done to encourage additional states to send representatives to Sector 

meetings. At present, five states are represented on the Grain Analyzer Sector: Arkansas, Nebraska, New York, 

North Carolina, and Missouri. Of those five states, only three participate on a regular basis. For the current 

meeting, family illness and travel budget restrictions cut the participation to one. Budget cuts and a significant 

increase in travel costs (gasoline, airfares, and lodging) seem to be the major underlying causes for the drop in 

participation. With limited personnel and limited budgets, state W&M administrators have had to make hard 

choices on how best to utilize the people and dollars available. 

It is current NCWM policy to provide funding for travel to a Sector meeting to one participant from each state 

NTEP laboratory active in evaluating the device type(s) which will be discussed at the particular Sector meeting. 

Unfortunately, GIPSA is the sole participating NTEP laboratory for grain analyzers. GIPSA is a federal agency not 

a state agency; therefore, no state W&M representative receives funding from NCWM, Inc., for travel to Grain 

Analyzer Sector meetings. 

According to the 2002 Census of Agriculture, the states of Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Minnesota, and Nebraska grew 

67 % of the corn and 60 % of the soybeans grown in the entire United States. Only one of these states is listed as 

having a representative on the Grain Analyzer Sector, and it has been four years since that representative has 

attended a Sector meeting. 

The Sector took no action on this issue. 

15. Questions Regarding NIR Calibration for Enhanced Nutrient Corn 

Discussion: Dr. Stuart Kaplan, BASF Plant Science, explained that BASF contracts with select area grain elevators 

to receive and store BASF enhanced nutrient corn grown by farmers who are also under contract with BASF. To 

verify that incoming BASF corn meets contract specifications, elevators test the corn using Foss Infratec 1241 NIR 

analyzers that BASF has placed in the elevators for this purpose. Because the present NTEP corn calibration for the 

Foss 1241 does not accurately measure the constituents of the BASF germplasm, BASF developed a calibration 

NTEP - B19 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix B – NTETC Grain Analyzer Sector 

specifically for their enhanced nutrient corn. Dr. Kaplan was concerned that their NIR instruments might be 

“tagged” by state W&M field inspectors. He asked the Sector what might be done to avoid problems of this sort. 

Sector members offered a number of suggestions. Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, suggested that Dr. Kaplan contact 

the director of each related state weights and measures division to see how this would be handled in that jurisdiction. 

A state W&M member explained that his state had an “implied use” regulation. If an inspector encountered a 

measuring instrument in a location where buying and selling took place, it was implied that the instrument was in 

“commercial use” and would be subject to test. Another member suggested that notice be placed on the instrument 

to indicate that it was the property of BASF and was to be used exclusively for testing corn grown under contract 

with BASF. (Note: Although an instrument may be used for contract sales, it is still commercial and subject to 

weights and measures regulation.) 

Noting that paragraph S.1.2. of Section 5.57. of Handbook 44 states, “If more than one calibration is included for a 

given grain type, the calibrations must be clearly distinguished from one another,” Mr. Jack Barber, the co-technical 

advisor, suggested that the BASF calibration be installed on the NIR instrument with a name that clearly 

differentiated their proprietary variety from common yellow dent corn. If the NTEP corn calibration is also installed 

on the instrument, normal regulatory field inspection of the instrument could be performed using the NTEP 

calibration. Nothing in Handbook 44 prohibits using proprietary calibrations for specialty crops grown under 

contract. Field inspection of the instrument with standard corn samples could offer BASF assurance that the 

instrument was functioning properly. 

Change Summary 

Recommended Amendments to the 2006 Edition of NIST Handbook 44 

Section Number Amendment/Change Page Source 

5.56.(a) Grain Moisture 

Meters 

Modify paragraph S.1.2. and Table S.1.2. to 

include minimum acceptable abbreviations for 

multi-class grain moisture calibrations. 

5-28 08/06

Grain Analyzer 

Sector – Item 5

5.57. Near Infrared Grain 

Analyzers 

Modify paragraph S.1.2. and Table S.1.2. to add 

criteria applicable to “multi-class” calibrations. 

5-42 08/06

Grain Analyzer 

Sector – Item 6(a)

Recommended Amendments/Changes to the Grain Moisture Meters Chapter 

to the 

2006 Edition of NCWM Publication 14

Section Number Amendment/Change Page Source 

VII. Additional Type 

Evaluation Test 

Procedures and Tolerances 

for Grain Moisture Meters 

Incorporating an 

Automatic Test Weight per 

Bushel Measuring Feature 

Add paragraph C. Tolerances For Test Weight 

per Bushel Calibration Performance 

[Note: Paragraph C should immediately follow 

the table of tolerances for reproducibility on 

page GMM-16.] 

GMM-16 08/06

Grain Analyzer 

Sector – Item 4

Recommended Amendments/Changes to the Near Infrared Grain Analyzers Chapter 

to the 

2006 Edition of NCWM Publication 14

Section Number Amendment/Change Page Source 

III. Accuracy, Precision, 

and Reproducibility 

Requirements 

Amend to add criteria applicable to “multiclass” calibrations. NIR-3 thru 

NIR-6 

08/06

Grain Analyzer 

Sector – Item 6(b)

NTEP - B20 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Appendix C 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Measuring Sector 

October 20 - 21, 2005, Annapolis, Maryland 

Meeting Summary 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee ......................................................................................................1

1. Recommendations to Update to NCWM Publication 14 to Reflect Changes to NIST Handbook 44.................2

A. Checklist and Test Procedures (LMD – 11).................................................................................................2

B. Philosophy for Sealing (LMD – 17- 20)......................................................................................................3

C. Checklist and Test Procedures for Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers...............................................................5

D. Checklist and Test Procedures for Specific Criteria for Vehicle Tank Meters............................................6

E. Checklist for LPG Liquid Measuring Devices.............................................................................................7

F. Checklist for Mass Flow Meters..................................................................................................................8

Carry-over Items:........................................................................................................................................................9

2. Reorganize Publication 14 to Clarify Tests of ECRs for RMFDs ......................................................................9

3. Add Magnetic Flowmeters to Product Family Table..........................................................................................9

4. Value of the Smallest Unit for LMD Code.......................................................................................................18

New Items: ................................................................................................................................................................19

5. Product Families for Meters .............................................................................................................................19

6. Table of Key Characteristics of Products in Product Families Table for Meters..............................................20

7. NTEP Checklist for Water Meters in Sub-metering Application .....................................................................21

8. NTEP Checklist for LPG Vapor Meters in Sub-metering Applications...........................................................21

9. Testing Electronic Indicators Using Simulated Inputs......................................................................................22

10. Next Meeting ....................................................................................................................................................23

Additional Items for Discussion if Time Permits....................................................................................................23

11. Display of Quantity and Unit Price for Self-serve Aviation Dispensers...........................................................23

12. S.1.2.3. Value of the Smallest Unit for Aviation Turbine Fuel.........................................................................24

13. Testing Meters Made of Different Metals.........................................................................................................25

Additional Items Added at the Meeting...................................................................................................................27

14. Number of Tests Required for Permanence Test..............................................................................................27

15. Permanence Tests for RMFD ...........................................................................................................................29

List of Appendices:....................................................................................................................................................31

Appendix A – Reorganized Publication 14 – LMD Checklist.................................................................................31

Appendix B – Reorganized Publication 14 – ECR Interfaced with RMFD Checklist.............................................31

Appendix C – Domestic Cold Water Meters...........................................................................................................31

Appendix D – Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor Meters ......................................................................................................31

*For copies of the Appendices contact Richard Suiter at NIST, (301) 975-4406 or by e-mail: richard.suiter@nist.gov. 

NTEP - C1 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

1. Recommendations to Update to NCWM Publication 14 to Reflect Changes to NIST 

Handbook 44

Source: NIST/WMD 

Background: The 90th National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) adopted the following items that 

will be reflected in the 2006 edition of NIST Handbook 44 and NCWM Publication 14. These items are part of the 

agenda to inform the Measuring Sector of the NCWM actions and recommend changes to NCWM Publication 14. 

Recommendation: The Sector will review and, if acceptable, recommend to the NTEP Committee adoption of the 

following changes to Publication 14 based on changes to NIST Handbook 44:

A. Checklist and Test Procedures (LMD – 11)

Code Reference G-S.1. (e g). Effective January 1, 2003 (LMD – 13) 

1.1.5. The NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number or a 

corresponding CC addendum number for devices that have a CC. 

The number shall be prefaced by the terms "NTEP CC", "CC", or 

"Approval". These terms may be followed by the word "Number" 

or an abbreviation for the Word "Number". The abbreviation shall 

as a minimum begin with the letter "N" (e.g., No or No.). 

The device must have an area, either on the identification plate or 

on the device itself, suitable for the application of the CC Number. 

If the area for the CC Number is not part of an identification plate, 

note its intended location and how it will be applied. 

Location of CC Number if not located with the identification: 

Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference: G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-forPurpose Devices, Software-Based (LMD – 13) 

1.2. For not built-for-purpose, software-based devices the following shall apply: 

1.2.1. The required information in G-S.1 Identification. (a), (b), (d), 

and (e) shall be permanently marked or continuously displayed 

on the device; or

the manufacturer or distributor and the model designation shall be 

continuously displayed or marked on the device (see note below), 

or

Yes  No  N/A 

NTEP - C2 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

1.2.2. The Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number shall be:

1. permanently marked on the device;

2. continuously displayed; or

3. accessible through an easily recognized menu and, if 

necessary, a submenu. Examples of menu and submenu 

identification include, but are not limited to “Help,” 

“System Identification,” “G-S.1. Identification,” or 

“Weights and Measures Identification.”

the Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number shall be 

continuously displayed or marked on the device (see note below), 

or

Yes  No  N/A 

1.2.3. all required information in G-S.1. Identification. (a), (b), (c), (e), 

and (h) shall be continuously displayed. Alternatively, a clearly 

identified view only System Identification, G-S.1. Identification, or 

Weights and Measures Identification shall be accessible through 

the “Help” menu. Required information includes that information 

necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same 

type that was evaluated.

Yes  No  N/A 

Note: For (b), clear instructions for accessing the information required in G-S.1. (a), (b), and (d) shall be 

listed on the CC, including information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same type 

that was evaluated. Clear instructions for accessing the remaining required G-S.1. information shall be listed on 

the CC. Required information includes that information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the 

same type that was evaluated.

1.3. The identification badge must be visible after installation. Yes  No  N/A 

1.4. The identification badge must be permanent. Yes  No  N/A 

B. Philosophy for Sealing (LMD – 17- 20)

 Category 1 Devices (Devices with No Remote Configuration Capability): 

• The device is sealed with a physical seal or it has an audit trail with two 

event counters (one for calibration, the second for configuration). 

Yes  No  N/A 

• A physical seal must be applied without exposing electronics. Yes  No  N/A 

• Event counters are non-resettable and have a capacity of at least 000 to 999. Yes  No  N/A 

• Event counters increment appropriately. Yes  No  N/A 

• The audit trail information must be capable of being retained in memory for 

at least 30 days while the device is without power, or must be retained in 

nonvolatile memory. 

Yes  No  N/A 

• Accessing the audit trail information for review shall be separate from the 

calibration mode. 

Yes  No  N/A 

• Accessing the audit trail information must not affect the normal operation 

of the device. 

Yes  No  N/A 

• Accessing the audit trail information shall not require removal of any 

additional parts other than normal requirements to inspect the integrity of a 

physical security seal. (e.g., a key to open a locked panel may be required). 

Yes  No  N/A 

NTEP - C3 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Category 2 Devices (Devices with Remote Configuration Capability but Controlled by Hardware): 

• Category 2 applies only to devices manufactured prior to January 1, 

2005. Devices with remote configuration capability manufactured after 

that date must meet the sealing requirements outlined in Category 3. 

Devices without remote configuration capability manufactured after 

that date will be required to meet the minimum criteria outlined in 

Category 1.

Yes  No  N/A 

• The physical hardware enabling access for remote communication 

must be on-site.

Yes  No  N/A 

• The physical hardware must be sealable with a security seal or Yes  No  N/A 

• The device must be equipped with at least two event counters: one for 

calibration, the second for configuration parameters

- calibration parameters event counter

- configuration parameters event counter

Yes  No  N/A 

• Adequate provision must be made to apply a physical seal without 

exposing electronics.

Yes  No  N/A 

• Event counters are non-resettable and have a capacity of at least 

000 to 999.

Yes  No  N/A 

• Event counters increment appropriately. Yes  No  N/A 

• Event counters may be located either:

- at the individual measuring device or

- at the system controller

Yes  No  N/A 

• If the counters are located at the system controller rather than at the 

individual device, means must be provided to generate a hard copy of 

the information through an on-site device.

Yes  No  N/A 

• An adequate number (see table below) of event counters must be 

available to monitor the calibration and configuration parameters of 

each individual device.

Yes  No  N/A 

• The device must either:

- clearly indicate when it is in the remote configuration mode or

- the device shall not operate while in the remote configuration 

mode.

Yes  No  N/A 

• If capable of printing in the calibration mode, it must print a message 

that it is in the calibration mode.

Yes  No  N/A 

• The audit trail information must be capable of being retained in 

memory for at least 30 days while the device is without power.

Yes  No  N/A 

• The audit trail information must be readily accessible and easily read. Yes  No  N/A 

NTEP - C4 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Minimum Number of Counters Required 

Minimum Counters Required for 

Devices Equipped with Event 

Counters 

Minimum Event Counter(s) at 

System Controller

Only one type of parameter 

accessible (calibration or 

configuration) 

One (1) event counter One (1) event counter for each 

separately controlled device, or one (1) 

event counter, if changes are made 

simultaneously. 

Both calibration and 

configuration parameters 

accessible 

Two (2) event counters Two (2) event counters for each 

separately controlled device, or two (2) 

or more event counters if changes are 

made to all controlled devices 

simultaneously. 

Category 3 Devices (Devices with Unlimited Remote Configuration Capability): 

Category 3 devices have virtually unlimited access to sealable parameters or access is controlled though a password. 

• For devices manufactured after January 1, 2001, the device must either: 

- clearly indicate when it is in the remote configuration mode, or 

- the device shall not operate while in the remote configuration mode 

Yes  No  N/A 

• The device is equipped with an event logger Yes  No  N/A 

• The event logger automatically retains the identification of the parameter 

changed, the date and time of the change, and the new value of the parameter. 

Yes  No  N/A 

• Event counters are nonresettable and have a capacity of at least 000 to 999. Yes  No  N/A 

• The system is designed to attach a printer, which can print the contents of the 

audit trail. 

Yes  No  N/A 

• The audit trail information must be capable of being retained in memory for at 

least 30 days while the device is without power or must be retained in 

nonvolatile memory. 

Yes  No  N/A 

• The event logger must have a capacity to retain records equal to ten times the 

number of sealable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 records are 

required. 

Yes  No  N/A 

• The event logger drops the oldest event when the memory capacity is full and a 

new entry is saved. 

Yes  No  N/A 

• Describe the method used to seal the device or access the audit trail information. ____________________ 

_____________________________________________________________________________________

• Note: All devices with remote communication that are manufactured after January 1, 2005 must 

meet the requirements outlined for Category 3.

C. Checklist and Test Procedures for Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

Code Reference S.1.2. Units (LMD – 26) 

S.1.2. Units. – A liquid-measuring device shall indicate, and record if the device is equipped to record, its 

deliveries in liters, gallons, quarts, pints, fluid ounces, or binary-submultiples or decimal subdivisions of the 

liter or gallon. 

NTEP - C5 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Code Reference: S.1.2. Units 

7.23. A liquid-measuring device shall indicate, and record if the device is 

equipped to record, its deliveries in liters, gallons, quarts, pints, fluid 

ounces, or binary-submultiples or decimal subdivisions of the liter or 

gallon. 

Yes  No  N/A 

D. Checklist and Test Procedures for Specific Criteria for Vehicle Tank Meters 

Code Reference: S.1.1.3. Value of Smallest Unit 

If the meter is equipped to record, the value of the smallest unit of indicated delivery and recorded delivery shall 

not exceed the equivalent of: 

24.4. 0.5 L (0.1 gal) or 0.5 kg (1 lb) on milk-metering systems and on meters 

with a rated maximum flow rate of 500 700 L/min (100 200 gal/min) or less 

used for retail deliveries of liquid fuel, or

Yes  No  N/A 

24.5. 5 L (1 gal) on meters with a rated maximum flow of 575 L/min 

(150 gal/min) or more used for jet fuel aviation refueling systems, or

(Added 2006)

Yes  No  N/A 

24.6 5 L (1 gal) on other meters Yes  No  N/A 

(Renumber succeeding paragraphs) 

Code Reference S.1.4.1. Display of Unit Price (LMD – 43) 

Code Reference: S.1.4.1. Display of Unit Price 

25.1. Means must be provided to display the unit price at which the device is set 

to compute in proximity to the total computed price display. (In a device of 

the computing type, means shall be provided for displaying, in a 

manner clear to the operator and an observer, the unit price at which 

the device is set to compute. The unit price is not required to be 

displayed continuously.)

Yes  No  N/A 

25.2. The unit price shall be expressed in dollars and decimals of dollars using a 

dollar sign. A common fraction shall not appear in the unit price (e.g., 

$1.299 not $1.29 9/10). 

Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference Measuring Element (LMD – 44) 

Code Reference: S.2.2. Provision for Sealing 

Measuring elements shall be designed with a provision for sealing such that an adjustment to the measuring element 

or the flow rate control (if the flow rate affects the accuracy of deliveries) cannot be made without breaking the 

security seal. These provisions can be an approved means of security (e.g., data change audit trail) or 

physically applying a security seal which must be broken before adjustments can be made. Milk meters are 

exempt from this requirement. When applicable, tThe adjusting mechanism shall be readily accessible for the 

purposes of affixing a security seal. 

26.1. A measuring element shall have provision for sealing its adjustable 

components. 

Yes  No  N/A 

NTEP - C6 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

26.2. Any adjustable element controlling the delivery rate shall provide for 

sealing if the flow rate affects the accuracy of deliveries. 

Yes  No  N/A 

26.3. The adjusting mechanism shall be readily accessible to affix a security seal. Yes  No  N/A 

E. Checklist for LPG Liquid Measuring Devices 

31. Measuring Element (LMD – 49) 

Code Reference: S.2.2. Provision for Sealing 

Measuring elements shall be designed with a provision for sealing such that an adjustment to the measuring element 

or the flow rate control (if the flow rate affects the accuracy of deliveries) cannot be made without breaking the 

security seal. These provisions can be an approved means of security (e.g., data change audit trail) or 

physically applying a security seal which must be broken before adjustments can be made. When applicable, 

tThe adjusting mechanism shall be readily accessible for the purposes of affixing a security seal. 

31.1. A measuring element shall provide for sealing its adjustable components. Yes  No  N/A 

31.2. Any adjustable element controlling the delivery rate shall provide for 

sealing if the flow rate affects the accuracy of deliveries. 

Yes  No  N/A 

31.3. The adjusting mechanism shall be readily accessible to affix a security seal. Yes  No  N/A 

33. Marking 

Code Reference: S.4. Marking Requirements 

Code Reference: S.4.3. Location of Marking Information; Retail Motor-Fuel 

Dispenser 

33.4. The marking information required in the General Code, 

paragraph G-S.1. Identification shall appear as follows:

(a) within 60 cm (24 in) to 150 cm (60 in) from the base of the 

dispenser;

(b) either internally and/or externally provided the information is 

permanent and easily read; and

(c) on a portion of the device that cannot be readily removed or 

interchanged (i.e.,not on a service access panel).

Note: The use of a dispenser key or tool to access internal marking 

information is permitted for retail liquid-measuring devices.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003]

(Added 2006)

Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference: S.4.3. Temperature Compensation 

33.45. If a device is equipped with an automatic temperature compensator, the 

primary indicating elements, recording elements, and recorded 

representations shall be clearly and conspicuously marked to show that the 

volume delivered has been adjusted to the volume at 15 °C (60 °F). 

Yes  No  N/A 

NTEP - C7 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

F. Checklist for Mass Flow Meters 

38. Marking (LMD – 57)

Code Reference: S.5. Marking Requirements 

38.1. The dispenser shall have the following information on the identification 

plate: 

a. pattern approval mark (i.e., type approval number); Yes  No  N/A 

b. name and address of the manufacturer or his trademark and, required by 

the weights and measures authority, the manufacturer's identification 

mark in addition to the trademark; 

Yes  No  N/A 

c. model designation or product name selected by the manufacturer; Yes  No  N/A 

d. non-repetitive serial number; Yes  No  N/A 

e. accuracy class of the meter as specified by the manufacturer consistent 

with Table T.2; 

Yes  No  N/A 

f. maximum and minimum flow rates in pounds per unit of time; Yes  No  N/A 

g. maximum working pressure; Yes  No  N/A 

h. applicable temperature range if other than –10 °C to +50 °C; Yes  No  N/A 

i. minimum measured quantity (MMQ); Yes  No  N/A 

j. product limitations if applicable. Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference: S.5.1. Location of Marking Information; Retail Motor-Fuel 

Dispensers. 

38.2. The marking information required in General Code, paragraph G-S.1. 

Identification shall appear as follows:

(a) within 60 cm (24 in) to 150 cm (60 in) from the base of the 

dispenser;

(b) either internally and/or externally provided the 

information is permanent and easily read; and

(c) on a portion of the device that cannot be readily removed 

or interchanged (i.e., not on a service access panel).

Note: The use of a dispenser key or tool to access internal marking 

information is permitted for retail liquid-measuring devices.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003]

(Added 2006)

Yes  No  N/A 

Code Reference: S.5.12. Marking of Gasoline Volume Equivalent Conversion 

Factor 

A device dispensing compressed natural gas shall have either the statement "1 Gasoline Liter Equivalent (GLE) is 

Equal to 0.678 kg of Natural Gas" or "1 Gasoline Gallon Equivalent (GGE) is Equal to 5.660 lb of Natural Gas" 

permanently and conspicuously marked on the face of the dispenser according to the method of sale used.

Conclusion: The Sector reviewed and agreed to recommend to the NTEP Committee adoption of the changes to 

Publication 14 shown above based on changes to the 2007 edition of NIST Handbook 44. 

NTEP - C8 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Carry-over Items: 

2. Reorganize Publication 14 to Clarify Tests of ECRs for RMFDs 

Source: NTEP Laboratories 

Background: At the 2005 NTEP laboratory meeting, one of the measuring labs stated that the LMD section of 

Publication 14 was not well organized. During an NTEP evaluation, the evaluator must continuously flip from one 

section of the publication to another to find all the requirements applicable to the device under test. The lab also 

stated that the evaluation of an ECR interfaced with a RMFD required the use of both the ECR Checklist and the 

LMD Checklist in order to find all the applicable requirements. The California laboratory volunteered to provide a 

draft reorganization of the LMD Checklist and a draft of a revised ECR Checklist with the applicable requirements 

added from the LMD Checklist. The drafts of the reorganized LMD Checklist and the revised ECR Checklist are in 

Appendices A and B, respectively. At the 2005 Sector Meeting, the Sector supported the concept, provided all 

NTEP laboratories and other interested parties conducted a thorough review of the proposed changes before they are 

incorporated into NCWM Publication 14. 

Recommendation: The Sector reviewed the drafts submitted and received input from the NTEP laboratories for 

possible forwarding to the NTEP Committee for approval as revisions to the 2007 version of Publication 14. 

Conclusion: The Sector discussed the reorganized checklists which were reorganized with the intent to make them 

more user friendly. Although the draft reorganized checklists have not been used extensively, the NTEP 

laboratories had no problems to report. The Sector agreed to forward the drafts to the NTEP Committee for 

inclusion in the next edition of Publication 14. 

3. Add Magnetic Flowmeters to Product Family Table. 

Source: Magnetic Meters Work Group (WG) 

Background: At the 2002 Sector Meeting, a Work Group (WG) was formed to address the issue of product family 

criteria. Prior to the 2003 Sector Meeting the technical advisor was informed that this WG was not ready to present 

a recommendation; however the WG requested that the item remain on the agenda for further development. 

At the 2003 Sector Meeting, the Sector agreed that a new WG should be formed to develop family product tables for 

Mag Meters for consideration by the Sector at its next meeting. The members of the new WG are: Charlene 

Numrych (Liquid Controls), Chair, Richard Miller (FMC); Joe Buxton (Daniel Measurement & Control); Randy 

Byrtus (Measurement Canada). Charlene volunteered to contact other manufacturers to invite them to participate in 

the WG. 

The WG formed at the 2003 Sector Meeting identified four Turbine Meter manufacturers that could provide data on 

a variety of products measured using this type of meter. For the 2004 Measuring Sector Meeting, only one Mag 

Meter manufacturer of three manufacturers was identified as having a certificate for products other than milk. No 

information had been gathered regarding manufacturers of Ultrasonic Meters. The WG did not have a proposal to 

present at that time, but planned to continue its work. A new chairman was needed for the WG because Charlene 

Numrych (Liquid Controls) was no longer available to perform that function. The WG had nothing to provide for 

the 2005 Measuring Sector Meeting. 

The WG is submitting a proposal to add Magnetic Meters to the Family Products table with additional background 

information, for discussion at the 2006 Sector Meeting. 

The proposed Product Family table adding magnetic flowmeters has been reviewed by manufacturer representatives 

holding magnetic flowmeter NTEP Certificates of Conformance (CC). Those comments were included in the 

organization of this proposal. 

NTEP - C9 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Operation: Magnetic flowmeters determine the velocity of an electrically conductive liquid in a known diameter 

tube section of the piping. The gross volumetric flow rate of the liquid is calculated in the electronic transmitter. 

The delivered volumetric quantity is displayed on the transmitter and/or scaled pulses are transmitted to a 

compatible register. 

Influence factors: The magnetic flowmeter determines the gross volume. The magnetic flowmeter is not 

influenced by the density of the liquid. 

The magnetic flowmeter has no moving mechanical components that would rely on close tolerances and capillary 

fluid action. The magnetic flowmeter is not influenced by the viscosity of the liquid. 

Magnetic flowmeters determine the velocity of electrically conductive liquids. The conductivity of the liquid must 

be above a minimum threshold value determined in the engineered design of the flowmeter and specified by the 

manufacturer. The value of the conductivity is not significant to the determination of the volumetric flow rate.

The Product Family Table: The table has been edited to add a column for magnetic flowmeters. 

The Water Mixes of Alcohol and Glycols and Water categories have been combined for magnetic flowmeters. 

Juices and Beverages have been added to this category. 

The Agricultural Chemical Liquids and Chemicals categories have been combined for magnetic flowmeters. 

Test D is required for Agricultural Chemical Liquids, Chemicals, Water, Beverages and Juices. The conductivity of 

the liquids in these categories is not significant to the performance of the magnetic flowmeter.

A new Test F has been added that is specific to magnetic flowmeters. Test F is required for liquids in product 

categories where the liquids commonly have low conductivity. The manufacturer submits the flowmeter to be tested 

at a specified conductivity. The specified conductivity is listed on the certificate. All liquids in the same category 

with conductivity above the conductivity of the liquid tested will be included. 

The following copyrighted documents can be referenced for as supporting documentation: 

ASME Draft MFC-16M: Measurement of Fluid Flow in Closed Conduits, with Electromagnetic Flowmeters. 

AWWA Draft Committee Report: Magnetic Inductive Flowmeters 

Recommendation: The Sector will review the following proposal for possible forwarding to the NTEP Committee 

for approval and addition to the 2007 edition of Publication 14. 

Add magnetic flowmeters to the Product Family Table as follows: 

NTEP - C10 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Tests to be Conducted

Test A - Products must be individually tested and noted on the CC.

Test B - To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a low 

specific gravity; test with a second product having a high specific gravity. The CC will cover all products 

in the family within the specific gravity range tested.

Test C - To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a low 

viscosity; test with a second product having a high viscosity. The CC will cover all products in the family

within the viscosity range tested.

Test D - To obtain coverage for a product family: Test with one product in the product family.

Test E - To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a low 

kinematic viscosity; test with a second product having a high kinematic viscosity. The CC will note 

coverage for all products in the family within the kinematic viscosity range tested.

Test F - To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a 

specified conductivity. The CC will note coverage for all products in the family with conductivity equal 

to or above the conductivity of the tested liquid.

NTEP - C11 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Mass Meter 

Product Family

& Test 

Requirements

(Test B unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Magnetic Flow 

Meter Product

Family & Test 

Requirements

(Test D unless 

otherwise 

noted)

PD Product

Family & Test 

Requirements

(Test C unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Turbine 

Product

Family & Test 

Requirements 

(Test A unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Typical Products1

Viscosity5

(Centipoise)

(Centistokes)

Specific

Gravity2

Test F Fuels, 

Lubricants, 

Industrial and 

Food Grade 

Liquid Oils 

Fuels, 

Lubricants, 

Industrial and 

Food Grade 

Liquid Oils 

(Test E 

permitted)

Diesel Fuel3, 

Distillate, Gasoline4, 

Fuel Oil, Kerosene, 

Light Oil, Spindle 

Oil, Lubricating Oils, 

SAE Grades, Bunker 

Oil, 6 Oil, Crude Oil, 

Asphalt, Vegetable 

Oil, Biodiesel above 

B20, Avgas, Jet A, 

Jet A-1, Jet B, JP4, 

JP5, JP7, JP8, 

Cooking Oils, 

Sunflower Oil, Soy 

Oil, Peanut Oil, 

Olive Oil, etc.

0.3 to 2500

0.44 to 2270

0.68 to 1.1

Test F Solvents

General

Solvents

General

(Test E 

permitted)

Acetates, Acetone, 

Esters, Ethylacetate, 

Hexane, MEK, 

Naphtha, Toluene, 

Xylene, etc.

0.3 to 7

0.5 to 4.38

0.6 to 1.6

Test F Solvents

Chlorinated

Solvents

Chlorinated

Carbon TetraChloride, MethyleneChloride, PerchloroEthylene, TrichloroEthylene, etc.

0.3 to 7

0.5 to 4.38

0.6 to 1.6

Alcohols, 

Glycols, & 

Water Mixes 

Thereof

Alcohols, 

Glycols, & 

Water Mixes 

Thereof

(Test E 

permitted)

Ethanol, Methanol, 

Butanol, Isopropyl, 

Isobutyl, Ethylene 

glycol, Propylene 

glycol, etc.

0.3 to 7

0.5 to 4.38

0.6 to 1.6

Normal 

Liquids

Pure Alcohols 

& Glycols,

Water 

(Demineralized 

& 

Deionized)

Test F 

Water (Tap, 

Potable & 

Nonpotable), 

Water (Mixes 

of Alcohols & 

Glycols),

Juices, 

Beverages, 

(Test D)

Water

(Test D 

permitted)

Water

(Test D 

permitted)

Tap Water, 

Deionized, 

Demineralized, 

Potable, Nonpotable

1.0 1.0

NTEP - C12 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Mass Meter 

Product 

Family & Test 

Requirements

(Test B unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Magnetic Flow 

Meter Product

Family & Test 

Requirements

(Test D unless 

otherwise noted)

PD Product

Family & Test 

Requirements

(Test C unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Turbine 

Product

Family & Test 

Requirements 

(Test A unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Typical Products1

Viscosity5

(Centipoise)

(Centistokes)

Specific

Gravity2

Clear Liquid

Fertilizers

Clear Liquid

Fertilizers

Nitrogen Solution; 

28 %, 30 % or 32 %; 

20 % AquaAmmonia; Urea; 

Ammonia Nitrate; NP-K solutions; 10-34-

0; 4-10-10; 9-18-9; 

etc.

10 to 400

10 to 275

1.0 to 1.45

Crop 

Chemicals

Crop 

Chemicals

Herbicides: Roundup, Touchdown, 

Banvel, Treflan, 

Paraquat, Prowl, etc

4 to 400

5.7 to 333

0.7 to 1.2

Crop 

Chemicals

Crop 

Chemicals

Fungicides, 

Insecticides, 

Adjuvants, 

Fumigants

0.7 to 100

1 to 83

0.7 to 1.2

Flowables Flowables

Dual, Bicep, 

Marksman, 

Broadstrike, 

Doubleplay, 

Topnotch, 

Guardsman, Harness, 

etc.

Crop 

Chemicals

Crop 

Chemicals Fungicides

Crop 

Chemicals

Crop 

Chemicals Micronutrients

20 to 900

20 to 750

1 to 1.2

Suspensions

Fertilizers

Suspensions

Fertilizers 3-10-30; 4-4-27, etc.

20 to 900

20 to 560 1.0 to 1.6

Liquid Feeds Liquid Feeds

Liquid Molasses; 

Molasses plus Phos 

Acid and/or Urea; 

etc.

10 to 50 000

8 to 33 000

1.2 to 1.5

Clear Liquid 

Fertilizers, 

Crop 

Chemicals, 

Suspensions 

Fertilizers, 

Liquid Feeds,

Chemicals

Test D

Chemicals Chemicals

Sulfuric Acid, 

Hydrochloric Acid, 

Phosphoric Acid, etc

1.0 to 296

0.9 to 160

1.1 to 1.85

Heated 

Products 

(above 50 °C)

Test F

Heated 

Products 

(above 50 °C)

Heated 

Products 

(above 50 °C)

Bunker C, Asphalt, 

etc. 0.8 to 1.2

NTEP - C13 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Mass Meter Turbine Magnetic Flow PD Product

Product 

Family & Test 

Requirements

(Test B unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Meter Product

Family & Test 

Requirements

(Test D unless 

otherwise noted)

Famil Product

y & Test 

Requirements

(Test C unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Family & Test 5 Viscosity

Requirements 

(Test A unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Typical Products1 (Centipoise) Specific

(Centistokes) Gravity2

Fuels and 

Refrigerants

Fuels and 

Refrigerants 

(Test E)

LPG, Propane, 

Butane, Ethane, 

Freon 11, Freon 12, 

Freon 22, etc.

0.1 to 0.5

0.3 to 0.77

0.3 to 0.65

Compressed 

Liquids - 

(Test D)

Not Applicable

(conductivity 

too low)

NH3 NH3

Anhydrous Ammonia

Note: If a meter is 

certified for 

anhydrous ammonia, 

the same meter type 

may also be certified 

for LPG without 

further testing.

0.1

0.2

0.56 to 0.68

Compressed 

Gases - 

(Test D)

Note: CNG is only included in 

Section 3.37 Mass Flow Meters 

of Handbook 44

CNG 0.6 to 0.8

Cryogenic 

Liquids and

Liquefied 

Natural Gas -

(Test D)

Not Applicable

(conductivity 

too low)

Cryogenic 

Liquids and

Liquefied 

Natural Gas 

–

(Test A)

Cryogenic 

Liquids and

Liquefied 

Natural Gas –

(Test D)

Liquefied Oxygen, 

Nitrogen, etc. 0.07 to 1.4

1

 NOTE: The Typical Products listed in this table are not limiting or all-inclusive; there may be other products and 

product trade names, which fall into a product family. Water and a product such as stoddard solvent or mineral spirits 

may be used as test products in the fuels, lubricants, industrial, and food- grade liquid oils product family.

2

 The specific gravity of a liquid is the ratio of its density to that of water at standard conditions, usually 4 °C (or 

40 °F) and 1 atm. The density of water at standard conditions is approximately 1000 kg/m3 (or 998 kg/m3).

3

 Diesel fuel blends (biodiesel) with up to 20 % vegetable or animal fat/oil.

4

 Gasoline includes oxygenated fuel blends with up to 15 % oxygenate.

5

 Kinematic viscosity is measured in centistokes. Centipoise Centistokes

Specific Gravity

=

Source for some of the viscosity value information is in the Industry Canada - Measurement Canada "Liquid 

Products Group, Bulletin V-16-E (rev. 1), August 3, 1999."

Conclusion: There was considerable discussion of the proposal to add magnetic flowmeters to the Product Families 

table. Most of the discussion centered on a determination of what product characteristics were most important when 

evaluating a magnetic flow meter. The members of the WG present at the meeting agreed that the most important 

product characteristic is conductivity. During the discussion, a member stated that the column for magnetic 

flowmeters could be simplified similar to the column for mass meters. The Sector agreed and modified the Product 

Families table to add Magnetic Flow Meters as follows: 

NTEP - C14 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Tests to be Conducted

Test A - Products must be individually tested and noted on the CC.

Test B - To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a low 

specific gravity; test with a second product having a high specific gravity. The CC will cover all products 

in the family within the specific gravity range tested.

Test C - To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a low 

viscosity; test with a second product having a high viscosity. The CC will cover all products in the family 

within the viscosity range tested.

Test D - To obtain coverage for a product family: Test with one product in the product family. The CC will 

cover all products in the family.

Test E - To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a low 

kinematic viscosity; test with a second product having a high kinematic viscosity. The CC will note 

coverage for all products in the family within the kinematic viscosity range tested.

Test F - To obtain coverage for a range of products within a family: Test with one product having a specified 

conductivity. The CC will note coverage for all products in both of the families with conductivity equal to 

or above the conductivity of the tested liquid.

Mass Meter 

Product 

Family & Test 

Requirements

(Test B unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Magnetic Flow 

Meter Product

Family & Test 

Requirements

(Test D unless 

otherwise 

noted)

PD Product

Family & Test 

Requirements

(Test C unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Turbine 

Product

Family & Test 

Requirements 

(Test A unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Typical 

Products1

Viscosity5

(Centipoise)

(Centistokes)

Specific

Gravity2

Fuels, 

Lubricants, 

Industrial and 

Food Grade 

Liquid Oils

Fuels, 

Lubricants, 

Industrial and 

Food Grade 

Liquid Oils 

(Test E 

permitted)

Diesel Fuel3

, Distillate, 

Gasoline4, Fuel Oil, 

Kerosene, Light Oil, 

Spindle Oil, Lubricating 

Oils, SAE Grades, 

Bunker Oil, 6 Oil, Crude 

Oil, Asphalt, Vegetable 

Oil, Biodiesel above B20, 

Avgas, Jet A, Jet A-1, Jet 

B, JP4, JP5, JP7, JP8, 

Cooking Oils, Sunflower 

Oil, Soy Oil, Peanut Oil, 

Olive Oil, etc.

0.3 to 2500

0.44 to 2270

0.68 to 1.1

Solvents

General

Solvents

General

(Test E 

permitted)

Acetates, Acetone, 

Esters, Ethylacetate, 

Hexane, MEK, Naphtha, 

Toluene, Xylene, etc.

0.3 to 7

0.5 to 4.38

0.6 to 1.6

Normal 

Liquids

(Test F 

permitted)

Fuels, 

Lubricants, 

Industrial and 

Food Grade 

Liquid Oils,

Solvents

General,

Solvents

Chlorinated,

Pure Alcohols 

& Glycols,

Water (Demineralized & 

deionized),

Heated 

Products 

(above 50 °C)

Solvents

Chlorinated

Solvents

Chlorinated

Carbon Tetra-Chloride, 

Methylene-Chloride, 

Perchloro-Ethylene, 

Trichloro-Ethylene, etc.

0.3 to 7

0.5 to 4.38

0.6 to 1.6

NTEP - C15 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Mass Meter 

Product 

Family & Test 

Requirements

(Test B unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Magnetic Flow 

Meter Product

Family & Test 

Requirements

(Test D unless 

otherwise 

noted)

PD Product

Family & Test 

Requirements

(Test C unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Turbine 

Product

Family & Test 5 Viscosity

Requirements 

(Test A unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Typical 

Products1 (Centipoise)

(Centistokes)

Specific

Gravity2

Alcohols, 

Glycols, & 

Water Mixes 

Thereof

Alcohols, 

Glycols, & 

Water Mixes 

Thereof

(Test E 

permitted)

Ethanol, Methanol, 

Butanol, Isopropyl, 

Isobutyl, Ethylene glycol, 

Propylene glycol, etc.

0.3 to 7

0.5 to 4.38

0.6 to 1.6

Water

(Test D 

permitted)

Water

(Test D 

permitted)

Tap Water, Deionized, 

Demineralized, Potable, 

Nonpotable

1.0 1.0

Clear Liquid

Fertilizers

Clear Liquid

Fertilizers

Nitrogen Solution; 28 %, 

30 % or 32 %; 20 % 

Aqua-Ammonia; Urea; 

Ammonia Nitrate; N-PK solutions; 10-34-0; 

4-10-10; 9-18-9; etc.

10 to 400

10 to 275

1.0 to 1.45

Crop 

Chemicals

Crop 

Chemicals

Herbicides: Round-up, 

Touchdown, Banvel, 

Treflan, Paraquat, 

Prowl, etc

4 to 400

5.7 to 333

0.7 to 1.2

Crop 

Chemicals

Crop 

Chemicals

Fungicides, Insecticides, 

Adjuvants, Fumigants

0.7 to 100

1 to 83

0.7 to 1.2

Flowables Flowables

Dual, Bicep, Marksman, 

Broadstrike, Doubleplay, 

Topnotch, Guardsman, 

Harness, etc.

Crop 

Chemicals

Crop 

Chemicals Fungicides

Crop 

Chemicals

Crop 

Chemicals Micronutrients

20 to 900

20 to 750

1 to 1.2

Suspensions

Fertilizers

Suspensions

Fertilizers 3-10-30; 4-4-27, etc.

20 to 900

20 to 560 1.0 to 1.6

Liquid Feeds Liquid Feeds

Liquid Molasses; 

Molasses plus Phos Acid 

and/or Urea; etc.

10 to 50 000

8 to 33 000

1.2 to 1.5

Test D

Water (Tap, 

Potable & 

Nonpotable), 

Water (Mixes 

of Alcohols & 

Glycols),

Juices, 

Beverages, 

Clear Liquid

Fertilizers, 

Crop 

Chemicals, 

Suspensions 

Fertilizers, 

Liquid Feeds,

Chemicals

Chemicals Chemicals

Sulfuric Acid, 

Hydrochloric Acid, 

Phosphoric Acid, etc

1.0 to 296

0.9 to 160

1.1 to 1.85

Heated 

Products 

(above 50 °C)

Heated 

Products 

(above 50 °C)

Heated 

Products 

(above 50 °C)

Bunker C, Asphalt, etc. 0.8 to 1.2

NTEP - C16 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Mass Meter 

Product 

Family & Test 

Requirements

(Test B unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Magnetic Flow 

Meter Product

Family & Test 

Requirements

(Test D unless 

otherwise 

noted)

PD Product

Family & Test 

Requirements

(Test C unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Turbine 

Product

Family & Test 5 Viscosity

Requirements 

(Test A unless 

otherwise 

noted)

Typical 

Products1 (Centipoise)

(Centistokes)

Specific

Gravity2

Fuels and 

Refrigerants

Fuels and 

Refrigerants 

(Test E)

LPG, Propane, Butane, 

Ethane, Freon 11, Freon 

12, Freon 22, etc.

0.1 to 0.5

0.3 to 0.77

0.3 to 0.65

Compressed 

Liquids – 

(Test D)

Not Applicable

(conductivity 

too low)

NH3 NH3

Anhydrous Ammonia

Note: If a meter is 

certified for anhydrous 

ammonia the same meter 

type may also be 

certified for LPG 

without further testing.

0.1

0.2

0.56 to 0.68

Compressed 

Gases – 

(Test D)

Note: CNG is only included in 

Section 3.37 Mass Flow Meters 

of Handbook 44 

CNG 0.6 to 0.8

Cryogenic 

Liquids and

Liquefied 

Natural Gas –

(Test D)

Not Applicable

(conductivity 

too low)

Cryogenic 

Liquids and

Liquefied 

Natural Gas –

(Test A)

Cryogenic 

Liquids and

Liquefied 

Natural Gas –

(Test D)

Liquefied Oxygen, 

Nitrogen, etc. 0.07 to 1.4

1 NOTE: The Typical Products listed in this table are not limiting or all-inclusive; there may be other products and product 

trade names, which fall into a product family. Water and a product such as stoddard solvent or mineral spirits may be used 

as test products in the fuels, lubricants, industrial, and food- grade liquid oils product family.

2

 The specific gravity of a liquid is the ratio of its density to that of water at standard conditions, usually 4 °C (or 40 °F) 

and 1 atm. The density of water at standard conditions is approximately 1000 kg/m3 (or 998 kg/m3).

3

 Diesel fuel blends (biodiesel) with up to 20 % vegetable or animal fat/oil.

4

 Gasoline includes oxygenated fuel blends with up to 15 % oxygenate.

5

 Kinematic viscosity is measured in centistokes. Centipoise Centistokes

Specific Gravity

=

Source for some of the viscosity value information is in the Industry Canada - Measurement Canada "Liquid Products 

Group, Bulletin V-16-E (rev. 1), August 3, 1999."

NTEP - C17 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

4. Value of the Smallest Unit for LMD Code 

Source: NCWM S&T Committee

Background/Discussion: In 2004 the definition of a “retail device” in NIST Handbook 44 was modified to include 

all devices used to measure product for the purpose of sale to the end user. At that time the Committee believed all 

affected parties were aware of the proposal and there was no opposition to the change. The Committee had not 

considered applications where very large deliveries are made to the end user, typically at high flow rates. After the 

2005 edition of the Handbook was published and distributed, WMD received a comment from a weights and 

measures jurisdiction that routinely tests large meters used to deliver fuel to fishing fleets and other large oceangoing boats. The jurisdiction stated that the average delivery is approximately 300 000 gal and may be as much as 

1 000 000 gal. Prior to the revision of the definition of “retail,” the value of the smallest unit of the indicated 

delivery for these devices was permitted to be 1 gal. Most of these devices have mechanical registers which make it 

impractical to have a smallest unit of 0.1 gal at the high flow rates used for such large deliveries. Because the fuel is 

being delivered to the end user, the jurisdiction believes this is a retail delivery. However, with the revisions to the 

definition of retail device, NIST Handbook 44 now requires a smallest unit of delivery of not more than 0.5 L (1 pt 

or 0.125 gal) for these devices. 

At its October 2005 meeting, the NTETC Measuring Sector developed a proposal and agreed to forward it to the 

Committee for consideration. The Measuring Sector believed that, because the maximum flow rate for many 

applications has increased, 200 gal/min is an appropriate “break point” for determining what the smallest unit of 

measurement should be. At its October 2005 meeting, the SWMA agreed with the Measuring Sector’s proposal and 

recommended that the item move forward to the Committee. 

At the 2006 NCWM Interim Meeting, it was suggested that the Committee should revisit the discussion on 

suitability of liquid-measuring devices that was discussed by the NCWM in 1991 through 1993. In these earlier 

discussions, the NCWM was unable to reach a consensus on any changes to NIST Handbook 44, and the item was 

withdrawn from the Committee agenda. The Committee was informed that there was interest expressed at the 

2005 NTETC Measuring Sector meeting in developing new criteria addressing suitability as it relates to flow rate, 

minimum measured quantity (MMQ), and the smallest unit of measure for applications using liquid-measuring 

devices. The Committee encourages the NTETC Measuring Sector to pursue development of suitability 

requirements for submission to the Committee for consideration. In the meantime, the Committee heard no 

opposition to Item 330-2 and agreed to present the item for a vote at the 2006 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2006 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee received input from several manufacturers of aircraft refueling 

equipment that there is a safety concern with stationary refueling systems that are capable of delivering jet fuel 

through two different sized hoses at different flow rates using two different meters. In this scenario, the operators of 

the refueling facility want both meters to have the same unit of indication; that is, 5 L or 1 gal. The Committee 

understood the concern, but was reluctant to modify the recommendation based on the limited information available 

at the meeting. The Committee believed that the aircraft refueling industry should propose a change during the next 

Conference cycle through the NTETC Measuring Sector and the regional associations. However, the Committee 

recognized that a legitimate problem may exist with existing jet aircraft refueling equipment and encouraged 

weights and measures jurisdictions to consider safety implications before taking official action on existing jet 

aircraft refueling devices that may not meet the requirements of paragraph S.1.2.3. During the voting session, there 

appeared to be concern that if this item was adopted, weights and measures officials could be perceived as ignoring 

safety issues for aircraft refueling. There was an evident lack of support for the item without an exemption for jet 

aircraft refueling; therefore, the Committee changed the status of Item 330-2 to an information item to provide 

sufficient time for development of appropriate language to address the safety concerns with jet aircraft refueling 

equipment. The Committee requested that the Measuring Sector provide comments or changes to the proposal as 

appropriate. 

Recommendation: The Sector reviewed the following proposal and provided comments to the S&T Committee for 

consideration at the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

Proposal: Modify Handbook 44, Section 3.30., S.1.2.3. Value of the smallest unit as follows: 

NTEP - C18 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

S.1.2.3. 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) 0.5 L (1 pt0.1 gal) on retail devices with a maximum rated flow rate of 750 L/min 

(200 gal/min) or less.

(b) 5 L (1 gal) on wholesale devices with a maximum rated flow of more than 750 L/min 

(200 gal/min).

This requirement does not apply to manually operated devices equipped with stops or stroke-limiting 

means. 

(Amended 1983, and 1986, and 200X) 

See agenda Item 12. 

Conclusion: The Sector continued to support its recommended changes to S.1.2.3. as shown above but agreed to 

consider the addition of a paragraph (c) to allow a larger minimum unit for aircraft jet refueling, during the 

discussion of agenda Item 12. 

New Items: 

5. Product Families for Meters 

Source: NTEP Director 

Background/Discussion: During several NTEP evaluations conducted since the last Sector meeting, there have 

been concerns that the Product Families tables for meters needs to be revised and updated to reflect changes in 

metering designs being submitted for evaluation and products currently found in the market place. One meter 

manufacturer wanted to know what testing was required to include “biodiesel” on a CC: Must the evaluation be 

conducted using biodiesel fuel with the highest specific gravity available or can testing be conducted using a 

product, with very similar characteristics, that is available in the manufacturer’s lab? 

Recommendation: The Sector reviewed and discussed possible changes to clarify the Product Families table for 

Positive Displacement Meters in the LMD Technical Policy of Publication 14 to be forwarded to the NTEP 

Committee for approval and addition to the 2007 edition of Publication 14. 

The NTEP Director, Steve Patoray, offered the following list of concerns with the current Product Families table: 

1. The table as it currently exists is still very confusing. 

2. It is not clear which tests are actually required. 

3. Instead of the "Tests" being listed in the header of the table, they should be listed with each product group. 

4. Typical products should be listed in ascending order (if possible) based on one of the key characteristics or 

have a method to ID key characteristics. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that it would be appropriate to consider reorganizing the Product Families table by 

meter technology considering the most important product characteristics for each. The Sector formed a WG to 

develop a proposal for consideration at the next meeting. The WG will work primarily through e-mail and 

conference calls. The chairman appointed the following individuals as members of the WG: 

Alex Gutierrez MEGGITT Fueling Products, Whittaker Controls 

Maurice Forkert Tuthill Transfer Systems 

Mark Buttler Emerson Process Management – Micro Motion 

Rodney Cooper Actaris Neptune 

Charlene Numrych Liquid Controls LLC 

NTEP - C19 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Paul Glowacki Murray Equipment Inc. 

Wade Mattar Invensys/Foxboro 

Richard Suiter NIST/WMD 

Ross Andersen New York Bureau of Weights and Measures 

Richard Miller FMC Measurement Solutions 

Mike Keilty Endress & Hauser Flowtec AG 

Richard Wotthlie Maryland Weights and Measures 

Joe Buxton Daniel Measurement & Control 

6. Table of Key Characteristics of Products in Product Families Table for Meters 

Source: NTEP Director 

Background/Discussion: Prior to the Sector Meeting the NTEP Director, Steve Patoray submitted the following 

comments for Sector consideration. 

This is a developing item. Probably all of you reading this know more about this topic than I ever 

will. I have had discussions with several different people on this topic over the past several 

months. The Product table in NCWM Publication 14 has been improved over the past several 

years. Currently, Mass Flow Meters have a key characteristic of specific gravity. PD meters have 

a key characteristic of viscosity. We list in the table numbers; however, these numbers are without 

reference. These are normally tied to some temperature. None is listed; also, there is no cross 

reference for anyone to identify what products might fall within those ranges. I had a very 

difficult time finding specific information on even some very basic products that we normally use 

in evaluations. Several of the folks on the sector helped to locate various tables and charts to help 

identify these values. The information in these charts varies for the "same" product. 

As an example of the potential confusion, there are both dynamic (absolute) and kinematic 

viscosity. The values for these are not the same for the same product; the unit for these, 

respectively, is centipoises (cP) and centistokes (cSt). 

Quoting from the Engineering Tool Box: The viscosity of a fluid is highly temperature dependent 

and for either dynamic or kinematic viscosity to be meaningful, the reference temperature must be 

quoted. 

In the table on page LMD-3 there are numbers for both Viscosity and Specific Gravity (S.G.) but 

no temperatures. While S.G. may not be as temperature dependant, some reference should still be 

cited. 

To expand on this in the table in the publication on page LMD-3, we have Test C which just states 

viscosity, while Test E states specifically kinematic viscosity. This may be very important for the 

device that uses these tests, but I would suggest that it be clarified and consistent. The use of just 

the term "viscosity" could be misinterpreted. 

What I am proposing is that this group considers listing specific values for each of the typical 

products listed in this table. It may need to be a separate table. With this information, the NTEP 

evaluator would then be able to look to the chart and find the correct value for the critical 

characteristic. This could be listed on the CC and the range could clearly be identified. 

Additional products could be added as necessary when they are used for an evaluation. The main 

point is that the same values will be used. 

Also, there are four different product groups for crop chemicals. Without further information, this 

can lead to confusion. 

Trying to follow all of the special notes is very difficult. 

NTEP - C20 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

There still seems to be product families that are based on some other factor that is not specified, 

not just viscosity or specific gravity (first page of table); many of the different products’ values 

overlap. 

This should be enough to get the discussion started. I hope that I have been clear in the fact that I 

would like to see this table continue to be revised and if possible condensed. 

Recommendation: The Sector discussed the NTEP director’s concern and explored the concept of having a table of 

product characteristics. The Sector considered appointing a WG to develop this item for presentation and discussion 

at the next meeting. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that further development of key characteristics should be included in the tasks of 

the WG formed to develop a new product families table approach, as discussed in agenda Item 5. 

7. NTEP Checklist for Water Meters in Sub-metering Application 

Source: NTEP Director 

Background/Discussion: The NTEP Committee has asked the Measuring Sector to consider and develop a 

checklist for residential water meters. These devices will most likely be used for sub-metering. Several states have 

recently contacted NTEP regarding these devices. California already has evaluation and certification of these 

devices in their state. It is recommended that the Sector review the procedures used by California and rework them 

into a format acceptable to NCWM Publication 14. 

Comments from the California NTEP Laboratory: California has found an electronic version and copied the 

specific section. California uses this as an EPO for field enforcement, follows the same guidelines in approval, does 

three tests at three flow rates, and does check repeatability. It also has a basic form you can print and do water meter 

tests. This also follows Handbook 44 Sections 1.10 and 3.36. 

In type evaluation, we have a procedure (not a checklist) but it is for the evaluator and starts with application review 

and other directives not pertaining to actual testing. We also have an electronic form, which is specific for our 

provers, and as previously stated, follow the testing criteria of the EPO. It probably would not take a whole lot of 

work (I'm guessing) to format it to the Publication 14 format. 

The Sector members can review the California checklist for Domestic Cold Water Meters in the attached 

Appendix C. 

Recommendation: The Sector discussed the NTEP director’s concern and explored the concept of adding a 

checklist for evaluation of water meters in sub-metering applications to Publication 14. The Sector considered 

appointing a WG to develop this item for presentation and discussion at the next meeting. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that the best approach for developing a Publication 14 checklist for water meters 

would be the utilization of a WG made up of technical experts and other interested parties. The members present at 

the meeting who volunteered to serve on the WG were Dan Reiswig, California NTEP Laboratory; Jim Welch, 

Measurement Canada; and Rodney Cooper, Actaris Neptune. The Sector chairman, Mike Keilty, will also invite 

participation by water meter manufacturers AMR, Badger Meter, and Neptune Water Meter Division. 

8. NTEP Checklist for LPG Vapor Meters in Sub-metering Applications 

Source: NTEP Director 

Background/Discussion: The NTEP Committee has asked the Measuring Sector to consider and develop a 

checklist for LPG Vapor meters. These devices will most likely be used for sub-metering. Several states have 

NTEP - C21 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

recently contacted NTEP regarding these devices. California already has evaluation and certification of these 

devices in their state. It is recommended that the Sector review the procedures used by California and rework them 

into a format acceptable to NCWM Publication 14. 

The Sector members can review the California type evaluation checklist for LPG vapor meters in the attached 

Appendix D. 

Recommendation: The Sector discussed the NTEP director’s concern and explored the concept of adding a 

checklist for evaluation of LPG vapor meters in sub-metering applications to Publication 14. The Sector considered 

appointing a WG to develop this item for presentation and discussion at the next meeting. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that the best approach for developing a Publication 14 checklist for LPG vapor 

meters would be the utilization of a WG made up of technical experts and other interested parties. Dan Reiswig, 

California NTEP Laboratory, will provide a list of vapor meter manufacturers to be contacted for participation on 

the WG. 

9. Testing Electronic Indicators Using Simulated Inputs 

Source: FMC 

Background/Discussion: It was stated at the 2004 Measurement Sector meeting that the reason for allowing fixed 

indicators to use simulated inputs was the fact that durability testing was not required due to the limited vibration 

associated with their intended use, and vehicle-mounted indicators could not be tested with simulated inputs for the 

same reason. The intended use was a severe environment; therefore, testing in the field following the permanence 

requirements was needed to test the durability of the device. In other words to make sure the device would function 

in its intended environment without failures due to its usage. 

The rational of allowing simulated inputs for revisions to an existing CC regardless of installation type is the fact 

that the device has already undergone the durability phase of the testing. Software revisions will not affect the 

durability of a device; software changes do however affect the functionality of a device. Therefore, testing with 

simulated inputs offers a sufficient test to verify software functionality. 

Recommendation: The Sector reviewed the following proposal for possible forwarding to the NTEP Committee 

for consideration at the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

Proposal: Modify Publication 14 Technical Policy Section U. as follows: (LMD – 9) 

U. Testing Electronic Indicators for Stationary Installations Utilizing Simulated Inputs. 

a. When evaluating electronic indicators for stationary installations, submitted separate from a measuring 

element, indicators may be evaluated using simulated inputs (i.e., meter pulse, temperature, pressure, 

density, communications, etc.). 

b. When evaluating electronic indicators (regardless of installation type) for revisions to an existing CC for 

metrological significant software revisions, indicators may be evaluated using simulated inputs (i.e., meter 

pulse, temperature, pressure, density, communications, etc.),

Conclusion: The submitter explained the background for the original proposal as discussed above. A member 

asked if the current language in “a.” would prevent being able to do some testing with simulated inputs and 

additional field testing using “live meter” input. During the meeting the Sector developed new language for 

Publication 14 Technical Policy Section U. as follows and agreed to forward it to the NTEP Committee for addition 

to the 2007 edition of Publication 14. 

NTEP - C22 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

U. Evaluating electronic indicators submitted separate from a measuring element

When evaluating electronic indicators submitted separate from a measuring element, simulated inputs 

(i.e., meter pulse, temperature, pressure, density, communications, etc.) may be used as follows:

1) For the initial testing of the indicator.

2) For the evaluation of stationary indicators.

3) For software changes to a device with an existing CC.

10. Next Meeting 

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to discuss the time and location for its next meeting. 

Conclusion: The Sector discussed the time and location for its next meeting and agreed that the meeting would be 

scheduled immediately prior to the October 2007 SWMA Meeting, in Little Rock, Arkansas. The exact dates were 

yet to be determined. The Sector also agreed that any items to be included on the agenda for the 2007 Sector 

Meeting must be submitted not less than 30 days prior to the meeting in order for the agenda to be distributed to the 

membership at least 2 weeks prior to the meeting. 

Additional Items for Discussion if Time Permits 

11. Display of Quantity and Unit Price for Self-serve Aviation Dispensers 

Source: Veeder-Root 

Background/Discussion: The normal self-serve installation for aviation fuels does not use an analog or digital 

“gasoline dispenser” that simultaneously displays money and volume. In most cases the self-serve user interface is a 

credit card console/controller that handles the transaction. These devices are not set up for the simultaneous display. 

Aviation self-serve dispensing systems use a base meter-register that is a PD meter with a mechanical register and 

pulser or an electronic register with pulse output, or an industrial dispenser with volume only and a pulse output. 

The meter-register part sends pulses to the credit card console/controller. All three components including the 

consol/controller have NTEP certificates. 

In June, the State of Alabama Weights and Measures reviewed a couple of planned installations and informed the 

installing company that the equipment was “Retail Motor Fuel,” and “simultaneous display of Quantity and Sale was 

required.” This started a series of exchanges of information between several parties including two consol/controller 

manufacturers, several equipment suppliers, and the State of Alabama. 

The typical “retail gasoline dispenser” that has the display capability is not designed in terms of materials of 

construction for aviation gasoline or jet fuel, nor does it have the flow rate capacity. Higher capacity diesel 

dispensers have the materials of construction problem. Moreover, in jet fuel applications, the dispensers do not have 

the flow rate capacity required. 

There is one small company that assembles dispensers that could today put together a unit to meet the materials of 

construction and minimum flow requirements. Their NTEP certificate currently is for diesel and gasoline on their 

simultaneous display dispenser. They could use the appropriate aviation-approved materials of construction 

components for applications up to 50 gpm and simultaneously display price and currency. These units, however, are 

not now commonly used in the aviation industry, which means the experience is not there for wide acceptance, and 

would not be adequate for jet fuel flow rates. 

NTEP - C23 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Recommendation: The Sector reviewed the following proposal for possible forwarding to the NCWM S&T 

Committee for consideration. 

Proposal: Modify Handbook 44, Section 3.30., paragraph S.1.6.5.5. as follows:

S.1.6.5.5. Display of Quantity and Total Price.

(a) When a delivery is completed, the total price and quantity for that transaction shall be displayed on the face 

of the dispenser for at least 5 minutes or until the next transaction is initiated by using controls on the 

device or other customer-activated controls. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1994] 

(Added 1992)(Amended 1996) 

(b) For aviation fuel dispensing, the quantity and total price need not be displayed simultaneously as 

long as the total price and quantity delivered can be viewed by interacting with the display or 

controller, or the total price and quantity is available on a printed receipt as specified in S.1.6.7.

Conclusion: The Sector reviewed the proposal to allow devices used in aircraft refueling to either display or print 

the total price and quantity delivered at the end of the transaction. The Sector took no position on the proposal 

because most members did not feel qualified to make an informed recommendation concerning aircraft refueling. 

12. S.1.2.3. Value of the Smallest Unit for Aviation Turbine Fuel 

Source: Veeder-Root 

Background/Discussion: At the NCWM Annual Meeting in July, the VTM code Section 331-1, S.1.1.3. Value of 

Smallest Increment was changed to make the smallest increment 1 gal for aviation jet fuel metering. This item is a 

follow-on to that item for recognizing the normal installations and operations of the aviation industry for jet fuel. 

The aviation industry meters and registers jet fuel in whole gallons in fixed applications as it does on aviation 

refueling vehicles (VTM code). Jet fuel consumers normally expect whole gallon increments. 

In most applications, 2 in or larger (150 gal/min or greater) PD meters are used. Retail sale of jet fuel from a fixed 

fueling system is done in the industry, and there are self-serve jet aviation installations. The minimum flow rate of 

150 gal/min relates to a 2 in meter that is not mounted in a dispenser housing. If “self-contained” dispensers were 

available and used for jet fuel, it would use a smaller meter with less flow rate and the expected minimum increment 

would be 0.1 gal. 

The “exemption” requested for jet fuel is not for “dispensers,” but for 2 in and above meters. 

See agenda Item 4. 

Recommendation: The Sector reviewed the following proposal for possible forwarding to the NCWM S&T 

Committee for consideration. 

Proposal: Modify Handbook 44, Section 3.30., paragraph S.1.2.3. Value of the smallest unit as follows: 

S.1.2.3. 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) 0.5 L (1 pt) on retail devices; 

(b) 5 L (1 gal) on wholesale devices. 

(c) 5 L (1 gal) on meters with a rated maximum flow rate of 575 L (150 gal/min) or more used 

for aviation turbine fuels.

NTEP - C24 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

This requirement does not apply to manually operated devices equipped with stops or stroke-limiting 

means. 

(Amended 1983, 1986, and 200X) 

Conclusion: The Sector discussed the Veeder-Root proposal to add an exemption for jet aircraft refueling to 

S.1.2.3. to allow the smallest unit required to be 1 gal on meters with flow rates of 575 L (150 gal/min) or more. 

One member noted that the similar exemption to the requirements in the VTM Code lists the flow rate as 375 L 

(100 gal/min) and suggested that the flow rate be the same in both codes. The Sector agreed and modified the 

proposal as follows: 

S.1.2.3. 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) 0.5 L (1 pt 0.1 gal) on retail devices with a maximum rated flow rate of 750 L/min 

(200 gal/min) or less.

(b) 5 L (1 gal) on wholesale devices with a maximum rated flow of more than 750 L/min 

(200 gal/min).

(c) 5 L (1 gal) on meters with a rated maximum flow rate of 375 L (100 gal/min) or more used 

for jet fuel aviation refueling systems.

The Sector agreed to forward the modified proposal to the SWMA and NCWM S&T Committees for consideration. 

13. Testing Meters Made of Different Metals 

Source: California NTEP Laboratory 

Discussion/Background: The California NTEP Laboratory is conducting an NTEP evaluation of a family of meters 

using multiple products in different product families. The meter family includes meters made of aluminum and 

stainless steel. Because Publication 14 does not specifically address this scenario, the laboratory is asking for input 

from the Sector before testing starts. 

Recommendation: The Sector discussed the scenario described above. The following proposal was offered as a 

possible solution. The Sector reviewed the proposal for possible forwarding to the NTEP Committee for inclusion 

in Publication 14. 

Proposal: Add a new Section F. to the Publication 14 Technical Policy as follows and renumber subsequent 

sections: 

U. Meters Within the Same Family Made of Different Materials

When multiple meters within a meter family, made of different materials, are submitted for evaluation, all 

meters will be tested with at least one product from each product family to be included on the CC and at least 

one meter will be tested with the range of products required in the product family table for the meter type 

(e.g., positive displacement, turbine, mass meter, etc.) submitted for evaluation.

The MMA provided the following white paper for Sector consideration during the discussion: 

Meter Manufacturers Association 

Speaking as experienced manufacturers of PD Meters, Turbine Meters, and Mass Meters; it is our 

experience that the materials of construction do not affect the quality of measurement over the 

NTEP - C25 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

specified operating range of a particular metering technology, as these have been considered and 

accounted for during the design phase of the meter. 

It is the manufacturers responsibility to ensure that the meter meets type, additionally material 

selection is the manufacturer’s responsibility and is typically driven by the requirements of 

chemical compatibility with the liquid products that are being measured or by industry regulations. 

(i.e., non ferrous meters for aircraft refueling). 

Materials are not selected or modified for reasons of accuracy. The market does identify and 

eliminate the inferior products through the normal surveillance process as well as the 

manufacturers’ warranty process. 

It is normal industry practice to include material varieties such as Stainless Steel, Aluminum, cast 

Iron, Plastic, etc. into one meter, for example some of our PD meters have cast steel outer 

housings, stainless steel bearings, cast iron rotors, anodized aluminum blades or cast Iron blades or 

Plastic blades. Non-ferrous aircraft meters will utilize aluminum cast components and Stainless 

Steel bearings. We manufacturer turbine meters with stainless steel housings and aluminum 

rotors, the point being the measurement accuracy is a function of the manufacturing process, not 

the materials used. 

It is not the intent of Handbook 44 to differentiate between measurement technologies, only the 

intended application. 

Doesn’t material selection fall under measurement technology? 

Where do you draw the line on NTEP lab decisions on the materials of construction? 

The manufacturers believe that the answer to the question is in the LONG history of meters 

themselves. There are hundreds of thousands of meters in service in the United States used for 

direct sales (i.e., home heating oil delivery, loading rack wholesale deliveries, aircraft refueling, 

agriculture chemical deliveries, etc.). These meters are verified routinely by the local Weights and 

Measures agencies, if problems are detected (accuracy out of range) then they are taken out of 

service. 

Summary: 

The meter manufacturers make determination of materials of construction. 

Meter manufacturers make the determination of what particular attributes of a meter enable it to be 

considered as “part of a family.” 

Questions that need to be answered in order to make an informed decision:

1. Is there a real world problem that requires a solution by the inclusion of a new section 

specifically aimed at materials in Publication 14? 

2. Is there an inequity in the market, facilitation of fraud? 

One of the NTEP laboratories stated that during an evaluation of a mass flow meter, the performance was different 

for two meters with different “tube” materials. Two mass flow meter manufacturers stated that if both meters were 

calibrated for the product being measured, there should be no difference in performance due to “tube” material. 

Another laboratory stated that the permanence test of a meter conducted after 30 days is not a true indicator of 

long-term permanence. Another member stated that NTEP should be interested in testing key characteristics and 

metrologically significant components. 

NTEP - C26 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that the best approach for resolving the issue of what components are 

“metrologically significant” and require additional evaluation, was to include the discussion and development of a 

proposal for Sector consideration in the tasks of the WG formed to develop a new Product Families table approach, 

as discussed in agenda Item 5. 

Additional Items Added at the Meeting 

14. Number of Tests Required for Permanence Test 

Source: Endress & Hauser Flowtec AG

Background/Discussion: An application was submitted for evaluation of mass flow meter. During the initial test, 

not only was the meter tested and met all requirements for the 10 to 1 turndown ratio, but it also passed at 12 to 1 

turndown ratio. Following the required time and throughput, the permanence testing was conducted. The meter 

passed testing for the 10 to 1 turndown ratio but failed at the 12 to 1 ratio. The question was: Should a CC be 

issued for the meter limited to only a 10 to 1 turndown ratio or should the device fail and testing begin over? 

Conclusion: The Sector discussed the issue at length and agreed that the device should have a CC issued for the 

required 10 to 1 turndown ratio. During the meeting, the Sector proposed changes to Publication 14 as shown below 

to clarify how this situation should be addressed if it happened again in the future. The Sector agreed to forward its 

recommendations to the NTEP Committee for consideration at the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

Publication 14 Page - LMD – 64 

Permanence Test Procedures for Meters 

A. Field Evaluation and Permanence Test of New-Design Meters in Retail Motor-fuel Dispensers 

All new-design meters are subject to a permanence test. If a meter is the same as one in a previously tested 

dispenser, a permanence test is not required. NTEP reserves the right to require a permanence test based on the 

result of the initial examination. 

Initial Examination 

1. All meters of the new type --------------- 

2. At least one meter ------------------------- 

3. All meters must ---------------------------- 

4. Repeatability - When consecutive ------- 

Subsequent Examination 

1. Following the period of use, the tests listed above are to be repeated. All results within the range of flow rates 

to be included on the CC must be within the acceptance applicable tolerances. Extended flow range testing 

performed at the manufacturer’s discretion may be included on the CC provided the results are within the 

acceptable tolerances.

2. The examination --------------------------- 

3. Five tests ------------------------------------ 

4. Repeatability - When consecutive ------- 

NTEP - C27 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

C. Field Evaluation and Permanence Test for Vehicle-Tank; Except for LPG, Cryogenic and CO2 Meters 

The following tests are considered ----------------- 

Only one meter is required --------------------------- 

Following the period of use, the tests listed above are to be repeated. All results within the range of flow rates to be 

included on the CC must be within the acceptance applicable tolerances. Extended flow range testing performed at 

the manufacturer’s discretion may be included on the CC provided the results are within the acceptable tolerances.

D. Initial Evaluation and Permanence Tests for Wholesale Positive Displacement (PD) Meters 

The following tests are considered to be appropriate for metering systems on Wholesale PD Meters: 

1. Four test drafts at each of five flow rates. 

2. Only one meter --------------------------- 

3. Following the period of use, the tests listed above are to be repeated. All results within the range of flow rates 

to be included on the CC must be within the acceptance applicable tolerances. Extended flow range testing 

performed at the manufacturer’s discretion may be included on the CC provided the results are within the 

acceptable tolerances.

E. Field Evaluation and Permanence Test for LPG and Cryogenic Meters 

The following tests are considered to be appropriate for metering systems on LPG and cryogenic meters: 

1. Four test drafts at each of five flow rates. 

Only one meter is required --------------------------- 

Following the period of use, the tests listed above are to be repeated. All results within the range of flow rates to be 

included on the CC must be within the acceptance applicable tolerances. Extended flow range testing performed at 

the manufacturer’s discretion may be included on the CC provided the results are within the acceptable tolerances.

Repeatability on LPG & NH3 Meters (Code Reference T.3.) 

When multiple tests ----------------------------------- 

Tests of Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems - LPG & NH3 Meters 

The difference between ------------------------------- 

F. Field Evaluation and Permanence Test for LPG Vapor Meters 

The following tests are to be run on an LPG vapor meter as part of the permanence test: 

1. Three tests at the maximum discharge rate. 

2. Three slow-flow tests. 

3. One low-flame test. 

Only one meter will be required ---------------------- 

NTEP - C28 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Following the period of use, the tests listed above are to be repeated. All results within the range of flow rates to be 

included on the CC must be within the acceptance applicable tolerances. Extended flow range testing performed at 

the manufacturer’s discretion may be included on the CC provided the results are within the acceptable tolerances.

G. Repeatability on Milk Meters (Code Reference N.4.1.1. and T.3.) 

Technical Advisors Note: At the meeting, Section G. was identified for inclusion in the recommended changes; 

however, it speaks only to repeatability. Publication 14 does not have a section on Field Evaluation and Permanence 

Tests for Milk Meters other than vehicle-tank. 

H. Field Evaluation and Permanence Test for Turbine Meters 

The following tests are considered to be appropriate for turbine meters: 

1. Meters tested in a laboratory ----------------- 

2. At least one meter is required for each product type for the initial test. 

3. If the meter is to be ---------------------------- 

4. To indicate meter performance --------------- 

5. Following the initial test, ---------------------- 

6. Following the period of use, the tests listed above are to be repeated. All results within the range of flow rates 

to be included on the CC must be within the acceptance applicable tolerances. Extended flow range testing 

performed at the manufacturer’s discretion may be included on the CC provided the results are within the 

acceptable tolerances. Following evaluation of test data and analysis of the data presented by the manufacturer 

for meter performance over temperature and viscosity ranges, the evaluating laboratory may require additional 

testing prior to issuing a CC for the meter. 

I. Field Evaluation and Permanence Tests for Mass Flow Meters 

The following tests are considered to be appropriate for mass flow meters: 

Type evaluation. The gravimetric test method shall ---------------------- 

Test Data. Meters tested in a laboratory environment will --------------- 

Following the initial test, the meters will be placed into service for the permanence test. The minimum throughput 

criterion recommended for these meters are 60 days, or 2000 x maximum rated flow in units per minute. Following 

the period of use, the tests listed above are to be repeated. All results within the range of flow rates to be included 

on the CC must be within the acceptance applicable tolerances. Extended flow range testing performed at the 

manufacturer’s discretion may be included on the CC provided the results are within the acceptable tolerances.

15. Permanence Tests for RMFD 

Source: Gilbarco

Background/Discussion: During a recent evaluation the measuring element from a device with an existing CC was 

installed in a new frame. For the permanence test, the evaluator required a throughput of 20 000 gal and a minimum 

of 20 days use before conducting the follow-up tests. The manufacturer believes that the permanence criteria for 

RMFDs in Publication 14 should be separated into a 20-day requirement for electronics and a 20 000 gal throughput 

for metering elements. The Meter Manufacturers Association (MMA) developed a proposal to modify 

NTEP - C29 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

Publication 14 to distinguish between electronics and measuring elements and between elements covered by an 

existing CC and new equipment being evaluated for the first time.

Conclusion: The Sector reviewed the MMA’s proposed changes and agreed to forward them to the NTEP 

Committee with the recommendation that they be approved as revisions to the 2007 edition of Publication 14. 

Publication 14 Page - LMD – 65 

A. Field Evaluation and Permanence Test of New-Design Meters in Retail Motor-fuel Dispensers 

All new-design meters are subject to a permanence test. If a meter is the same as one in a previously tested 

dispenser, a permanence test is not required. NTEP reserves the right to require a permanence test based on the 

result of the initial examination. 

Initial Examination 

1. All meters of the new type ----------------------- 

2. At least one meter --------------------------------- 

3. All meters must ------------------------------------ 

4. Repeatability - When consecutive --------------- 

Subsequent Examination 

1. All meters of the new type installed at the type evaluation location must perform within acceptance tolerance 

throughout the time and volume period specified below. 

2. The examination will be conducted no sooner than 20 days after the initial examination and not before the 

previously chosen meters have measured at least 20 000 gallons for throughput testing.

The examination will be conducted as applicable:

• No sooner than 20 days for electronic changes of metrological significance.

• 20 000 gal for throughput testing for mechanical changes of metrological significance.

3. Five tests -------------------------------------------- 

4. Repeatability - When consecutive --------------- 

B. Field Evaluation Test of Previously Evaluated Components Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers Using Different 

Previously Evaluated Meters

Different Previously Evaluated Meter

Previously evaluated dispensers using a previously type evaluated meter and indicator (register) will be subject to an 

initial test. Based on the test results of the initial test, NTEP may require a permanence test. 

Nonmetrological Changes

An administrative review shall be conducted to issue a new CC or revise an existing CC for previously evaluated 

devices because of non metrological changes. Based on the results of the administrative review, NTEP may require 

an initial test.

NTEP - C30 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

List of Appendices:

For copies of the following listed documents, contact Richard Suiter at NIST, (301) 975-4406 or by e-mail 

richard.suiter@nist.gov. 

Appendix A – Reorganized Publication 14 – LMD Checklist 

Appendix B – Reorganized Publication 14 – ECR Interfaced with RMFD Checklist 

Appendix C – Domestic Cold Water Meters 

Appendix D – Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor Meters 

NTEP - C31 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTETC Measuring Sector 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 

NTEP - C32 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

Appendix D 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Weighing Sector 

September 26 - 28, 2006, Annapolis, Maryland 

Meeting Summary 

Carry-over Items ......................................................................................................................................................D3

1. Recommended Changes to Publication 14 Based on Actions at the 2006 NCWM Annual Meeting...........D3

1(a). G-S.1. (d) Identification and G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-forPurpose Devices ................................................................................................................................D3 

1(b). Time Dependence – Non-automatic Weighing Instruments..............................................................D3 

1(c). Time Dependence – Load Cells.........................................................................................................D4

2. S.1.1.(c). Zero Indication (Marking Requirements) .....................................................................................D4

3. Bench/Counter Scale Shift Test and Definitions..........................................................................................D4

4. Publication 14 Force Transducer (Load Cell) Family and Selection Criteria – Report of the Load Cell 

Work Group (WG)................................................................................................................................D6

5. Report of the Tare Work Group (Tare on a Multiple Range Scales)............................................................D6

6. Minimum Size of Weight and Units Indications..........................................................................................D8

7. AWS Influence Factor Temperature Ranges that Exceed -10 °C to 40 °C ..................................................D9

New Items................................................................................................................................................................D11

8. GIPSA Grain Test Scale Requirements......................................................................................................D11

9. Ad Hoc Procedures for Wireless Communication of Metrological Information ........................................D12

10. Procedures for Percentage and Proportional Tare ......................................................................................D13

11. Permanence of Identification When an Audit Trail is the “Security Means”.............................................D13

12. emin and Other Markings on Load-Receiving Elements..............................................................................D15

Railway Track Scale Items ....................................................................................................................................D15

13. CLC Type Evaluation Tests on Railway Track/Vehicle Scales – Technical Policy...................................D15

14. Railway Track Scales with a Rotary Dump Feature Technical Policy.......................................................D16

15. In-Motion Railway Track Scale Technical Policy – Developing Item.......................................................D17

15(a). Permanence Test for Indicators/Controllers (Note: This was listed as agenda Item 15 (b) in the 

original agenda.)..............................................................................................................................D17 

15(b). Permanence Test Criteria for Railway Track Scales Used to Weigh In-Motion .............................D20 

16. Added Item – Tare Annunciator at a Zero Net Load Indication.................................................................D20

Next Sector Meeting ...............................................................................................................................................D21

Appendix A. Recommendations for Amendments to Publication 14 ................................................................D23

Attachment for Agenda Item 1(a) (Ballot Item and comments):..................................................................D23 

Attachment for Agenda Item 1(b)................................................................................................................D27

Attachment for Agenda Item 1(c) ................................................................................................................D27

Attachment for Agenda Item 4.....................................................................................................................D29

Attachment for Agenda Item 5.....................................................................................................................D34

Attachment for Agenda Item 8.....................................................................................................................D36

Attachment for Agenda Item 10...................................................................................................................D38

Attachment for Agenda Item 12...................................................................................................................D40

Attachment for Agenda Item 13...................................................................................................................D42

Attachment for Agenda Item 14...................................................................................................................D43

Attachment for Agenda Item 16...................................................................................................................D43

Appendix B. 2006 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Attendees ......................................................................D44

NTEP - D1 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

Appendix C. Attachments.....................................................................................................................................D46

Attachment for Agenda Item 5.....................................................................................................................D46

Attachment for Agenda Item 7.....................................................................................................................D52

Glossary of Acronyms 

AWS Automatic Weighing Systems NTETC National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee 

CC NTEP Certificate of Conformance OIML International Organization of Legal 

Metrology 

CIM Coupled-in-Motion (Railway Track Scales) S&T NCWM Specifications and Tolerances 

Committee 

CLC Concentrated Load Capacity SWMA Southern Weights and Measures Association 

EPO Examination Procedure Outline W/LRE W/LRE 

GIPSA Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards 

Administration WG Work Group 

NCWM National Conference on Weights and 

Measures WMD Weights and Measures Division 

NIST National Institute of Standards and 

Technology WWMA Western Weights and Measures Association 

NTEP National Type Evaluation Program 

Unless Otherwise Stated: 

- “Handbook 44” (HB 44) means the 2006 Edition of NIST Handbook 44 “Specifications Tolerances, and Other 

Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices” 

- “Handbook 130” (HB 130) means the 2006 Edition of NIST Handbook 130 “Uniform Laws and Regulations in 

the areas of legal metrology and fuel quality.” 

- “Publication 14” (Pub. 14) means the 2006 Edition of NCWM Publication 14 - Weighing Devices - Technical 

Policy • Checklists • Test Procedures 

- “Sector” means the NTETC Weighing Sector. 

Note: NIST does not imply that these acronyms are used solely to identify these organizations or technical topics. 

NTEP - D2 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

Carry-over Items: 

1. Recommended Changes to Publication 14 Based on Actions at the 2006 NCWM Annual 

Meeting 

The NIST Technical Advisor, Steve Cook, provided the Sector with specific recommendations for incorporating test 

procedures and checklist language based upon actions of the 2006 Annual Meeting of the 91st NCWM. The Sector 

was asked to briefly discuss each item and provide general input on the technical aspects of the issues. 

 1(a). G-S.1. (d) Identification and G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-forPurpose Devices 

Background: See the Report of the 2006 NCWM, S&T Committee agenda Item 320-1 for additional background 

information. During its 2006 Annual Meeting, NCWM agreed to addend NIST Handbook 44 Section 1.10. 

paragraph G-S.1.(d) Identification to include requirements for identifying the required software version designation 

for not-built-for-purpose devices using acceptable words, abbreviations, or symbols and amend G-S.1.1. to clarify 

the location requirements for the required information in G-S.1. 

Discussion: The Weighing Sector discussed a proposal from the NIST Technical Advisor to consider amending 

NCWM Publication 14 Technical Policy, Checklists, Test Procedures for Weighing Devices, Electronic Cash 

Registers Interfaced to Scales, Automatic Bulk-Weighing Systems, and AWS. The Technical Advisor reported that 

the language adopted by the NCWM was edited by NIST after the proposed amendments to Publication 14 were 

developed. As a result, the language drafted by the Technical Advisor required substantial revisions and were not 

ready to be reviewed by the Sector. Additionally, the NTEP Director, Stephen Patoray, recommended that the 

proposed changes to Publication 14 AWS type evaluations procedures be considered by the AWS Work Group 

(WG) instead of the Sector. 

Recommendation: The Weighing Sector recommends that the proposed amendments in the agenda be 

revised and presented to the Sector as a ballot item on the Publication 14 Scales and Electronic Cash 

Registers Interfaced with Scales checklists as shown in Appendix A – Attachment for agenda Item 1(a). The 

result of the ballot will be forwarded to the NTEP Committee prior to the January 2007 NCWM Interim 

Meeting. The Sector also recommended that the proposed amendments to the type evaluation procedures to 

the AWS checklist be forwarded to the AWS Work Group for their consideration. 

 1(b). Time Dependence – Non-automatic Weighing Instruments 

Background: See the Report of the 2006 NCWM, S&T Committee agenda Item 320-6 for additional background 

information regarding the discussions to amend Handbook 44 requirements for load cell time dependence tests. 

During its 2006 Annual Meeting, the NCWM agreed to amend NIST Handbook 44 2.20. Scales Code 

paragraph T.N.4.5.1. Time Dependence; Class II, III, and IIII Non-automatic Weighing Instruments as follows to 

harmonize further the type evaluation test conditions with procedures included in OIML requirements. 

Discussion/Recommendation: The Sector recommends that amendments proposed in Appendix A – agenda 

Item 1(b) be incorporated into NCWM Publication 14 DES Section 58. Time Dependence Test.

NTEP - D3 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

 1(c). Time Dependence – Load Cells 

Background: See the Report of the 2006 NCWM, S&T Committee agenda Item 320-7 for additional information 

on the discussion to add creep test tolerances, procedures, and corresponding terminology and definitions. During 

its 2006 Annual Meeting, the NCWM agreed to amend NIST Handbook 44 2.20. Scales Code 

paragraph T.N.4.6. Time Dependence (Creep) for Load Cells During Type Evaluation, Table T.N.4.6., and add a 

new paragraph T.N.4.7. Creep Recovery for Load Cells during Type Evaluation. These changes are intended to 

harmonize further the type evaluation test conditions with procedures included in OIML recommendations; add 

creep recovery requirements and the appropriate apportionment factors for Class III L load cells that were 

inadvertently omitted from the language added to NIST Handbook 44 in 2005; and add definitions for the terms and 

abbreviations used in new paragraph T.N.4.7. 

Discussion/Recommendation: The Sector recommends that amendments proposed in Appendix A for 

agenda Item 1(c) be incorporated into NCWM Publication 14 FT (Force Transducers), Sections 13 and 14 

“Determination of Creep.” 

2. S.1.1.(c) Zero Indication (Marking Requirements) 

Source: 2004 Weighing Sector agenda Item 4 - S.1.1.(c). Zero Indication (Marking Requirements). 

Background: See the Report of the 2006 NCWM, S&T Committee agenda Item 320-1 for additional background 

information regarding the justifications for and against the proposed language to amend Scales Code 

paragraph S.1.1.(c) Zero Indication (Marking Requirements). 

Discussion/Recommendation: This item was included in the agenda to provide the Sector with an update on 

the status of this item. The Sector was asked if there was any new information that could be forwarded to the 

S&T Committee on agenda Item 320-1. Members of the Sector stated that there is no recommended change 

to their 2005 position that stated that the Sector does not support the proposal, and that they continue to 

agree that additional markings should not be required on devices that have an effective means to inhibit a 

weighing operation or return the device to a continuous digital indication when the scale is in an out-ofbalance condition. 

3. Bench/Counter Scale Shift Test and Definitions 

Source: NIST WMD and 2005 NTETC Weighing Sector (Carryover Item) 

Background: This item has been added to the agenda as an update to the 2005 Weighing Sector agenda Item 4. 

Please refer to the 2005 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary agenda Item 4 and the 2006 NCWM S&T 

Committee Final Report on agenda Item 320-3 for additional background information. 

Based on the comments received during the 2006 NCWM Annual Meeting, the NIST Technical Advisor to the 

Weighing Sector amended the language in the proposal as summarized below: 

Summary of Proposed Changes 

1. Made it clear that no significant changes are being made to two-section livestock scales, 

2. Simplified the language for the shift test on “Other” scales, 

3. Grouped the livestock scale shift test requirements together, 

4. Changed the order of the “test notes” so that the more common type of scales are listed first, and 

5. Made minor editorial suggestions on the existing language. 

Discussion: The Sector considered e-mail comments from the PTB and John Elengo stating that there is a higher 

risk of overloading one of the (multiple) supports by using a 1⁄2 capacity load in an eccentric loading test pattern than 

by using a 1⁄3 capacity load. This appears to stem from the difference in test method between Handbook 44 and 

OIML R 76. Handbook 44 more or less assumes a rectangular platform and places the load at a point on a line half 

NTEP - D4 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

way from the center to edge, whereas OIML R 76 acknowledges that platforms might exist in other shapes, such as 

in square, triangular, or circular platforms. Thus, OIML R 76 depends more on placing the eccentric load in a 

prescribed section of the total area of the platform rather than on a specific line; they more or less trust the load will 

be placed at the center of the quadrant according to the figures in OIML R 76 for scales with four or less supports. 

The conclusion made by these comments is that off-center moment (load times distance) in both methods, especially 

with rectangular platforms, is more or less the same. 

Otto Warnloff noted that the use of the term “known test load” in paragraph N.1.1. should be consistently used in the 

proposed language instead of “test weights.” A motion to withdraw this item from the Sector agenda was proposed 

by Otto Warnloff and seconded by Bob Feezor. During the subsequent discussion, several members of the Sector 

stated that the proposed language was unnecessary since there was no technical justification to change the current 

language in Handbook 44. Additionally, the proposed language would prohibit weights and measures officials from 

using 1⁄2 capacity even though the scale could be weighing loads up to 1⁄2 scale capacity that are not in the center of 

the platform. The NIST Technical Advisor stated that there was no technical reason to use procedures that are 

different than those in R 76. (Note: Manufacturers have stated in past discussion that they have to adjust the scales 

differently for scales intended for North America and scales intended for countries that adopt OIML 

recommendations). 

Otto Warnloff stated that the current procedures for both shift test loads and positions in Handbook 44 are the same 

that were included in the 1915 Edition of the National Bureau of Standards Handbook titled “Tolerances and 

Specifications for Weights and Measures and Weighing and Measuring Devices.” Page 19 of the handbook states: 

COUNTER BALANCES AND SCALES. 

10. All scales shall be so constructed that when a weight whose body has approximately equal 

diameter and height and which represents one-half of the capacity of the scale, is shifted in any 

direction on the weight plate or on the commodity plate, pan, or scoop to a point one-half the distance 

between the center and edge of the weight plate or the commodity plate, pan, or scoop, the additional 

resulting error in the weight indication, due to this cause alone, shall not exceed the tolerance allowed 

at the load in question given in the column headed “Tolerance on parts requiring employment of 

removable weights”: Provided, however, that in this test the edge of the weight shall not be made to 

project over the edge of the weight plate or the commodity plate, pan, or scoop. 

Measurement Canada reported that the proposal to amend Handbook 44 would be in conflict with their current 

requirements; however, they have stated in the past their commitment to align their requirements with OIML R 76. 

Darrell Flocken (Mettler Toledo) reminded the Sector that the test load positions are also changed in the proposal 

and that 1⁄3 scale capacity in the proposed change puts a different torque in the load cell that is roughly equivalent to 

current forces when using current Handbook 44 test loads and positions. 

Recommendation: The Sector recommends that this item be withdrawn from the Sector agenda and that the 

Sector withdraws their support for the proposal to amend Handbook 44 shift test positions and test loads. 

The result of the vote on the motion was: 

- 11 votes in favor of withdrawing the item from the Sector agenda and reporting to the S&T 

Committee that the Sector no longer supports S&T Item 320-3. 

- 8 votes against withdrawing the item from the Sector agenda and reporting to the S&T Committee 

that the Sector no longer supports S&T Item 320-3. 

- 0 abstentions. 

NTEP - D5 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

4. Publication 14 Force Transducer (Load Cell) Family and Selection Criteria – Report of 

the Load Cell Work Group (WG) 

Source: NTEP Committee Technical Advisor (Carryover Item) 

Background: During the 2005 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary discussion of agenda Item 5, 

Publication 14 Force Transducer (Load Cell) Family and Selection Criteria, Stephen Patoray, NTEP Director, 

described a proposal that has been forwarded to the Load Cell WG. In summary, the proposal has the potential for 

an applicant to submit only one load cell for a basic load cell family to be covered on an NTEP CC. However, 

taking into consideration possible groups within the family (e.g., material construction, methods of mounting, strain 

gauge bonding, output rating, input impedance, supply voltage, cable details, etc.), there will be no significant 

difference in the number of load cells that have to be submitted for evaluation. 

One of the questions that must be addressed in any proposed change to the selection criteria is how the criteria will 

affect applications to amend and expand existing Certificates of Conformance. 

Discussion: NTEP director Stephen Patoray updated the Sector on the status of the project and provided a copy of 

the proposed family and selection procedures for Publication 14. See Appendix A – agenda Item 4 for a copy of the 

proposed language presented by the NTEP Director. He stated that there are only a few companies in the Sector that 

are affected by the proposed language and recommended that it be sent to other holders of NTEP CC for review. He 

further requested that any comments be submitted to him no later than December 1, 2006. He also confirmed that 

the proposed language is similar to the current OIML R 60 selection criteria and that what appears to be additional 

language is in fact improvements to parts of OIML R 60 that may be subject to different interpretations. He did add 

that the selection requirements are similar for typical families of load cells and that a small family of load cells may 

require an additional load cell to be submitted for NTEP because of the current policy of evaluating additional load 

cells with more than 5000 divisions. 

In an e-mail, John Elengo stated that proposed language goes a long way towards alignment with OIML. He further 

agreed that the added language which clarifies language in OIML R 60 is an improvement and that it should be 

submitted for consideration during the next revision on the OIML recommendation. 

Recommendation: The Sector agrees with the suggestion for the NTEP Director to forward the proposal in 

Appendix A – agenda Item 4 to holders of NTEP CCs for review and comment by December 1, 2006. The 

comments will be summarized and if necessary the proposal will be amended and submitted to the NTEP 

Committee as a recommendation to incorporate them into NCWM Publication 14. 

5. Report of the Tare Work Group (Tare on a Multiple Range Scales) 

Source: NTEP Participating Laboratories (Carryover Item):

Background: See the 2005 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary agenda Item 10, Tare on Multiple Range 

Scales, for additional background information on the earlier Sector discussions and WG developing items and 

recommendations. 

During its 2005 meeting, the Sector voted 13 to 4 in favor of modifying Publication 14 to make tare rounding 

consistent with Handbook 44 General Code paragraph G-S.5.2.2.(c) Digital Indication and Representation for multiinterval and multiple range scales. The NIST technical advisor developed amendments to Publication 14 

Sections 31, 32, and 45 to 51 for Tare and other possible sections that would consistently apply the rounding of tare 

throughout the digital electronic scales checklist. The Sector was to be balloted on the proposed modifications to 

Tare in Publication 14. The Sector also agreed to consider the OIML R 76 examples of tare rounding at a later date 

once the revision of R 76 has been completed. 

During the development of the letter ballot language, it was noted that some items (e.g., tare annunciator and 

terminology) required further discussion by the Sector. Additionally, there is a developing (D) item in the 2006 

NCWM S&T Agenda that may have an impact on the Sector recommendation. The NIST technical advisor 

NTEP - D6 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

developed an alternate proposal that would address the operation of the “tare entered” annunciators, give examples 

demonstrating tare rounding in different scenarios, and add definitions clarifying the differences between semiautomatic tare and preset tare. Based on the concerns above, the NIST Technical Advisor did not believe that the 

language to amend Publication 14 was sufficiently developed to be submitted to the Sector as a letter ballot. 

The NIST technical advisor consulted with the NCWM Chairman, Don Onwiler, NTEP Committee Chairman, Jim 

Truex, Sector Chairman, Darrell Flocken, and NTEP Director, Stephen Patoray, on both proposals to amend 

Publication 14 tare requirements. Because of the differing views and complexity of the issue, it was recommended 

that a small WG be established to review the proposals, review tare operation and requirements in general, and make 

recommendations on how tare is applied to single range, multiple range and multi-interval scale operation. The WG 

was specifically asked to develop a recommendation(s) for changes to Publication 14 (based on the Sector’s 2005 

recommendation), Handbook 44, and Handbook 130 (if necessary) and provide the Weighing Sector guidance on 

checklist requirements. It was anticipated that the group could perform the tasks though the use of e-mail 

correspondence and conference calls. The members of the WG are: 

Scott Davidson, Chairman (Mettler Toledo) Andrea Buie (Maryland NTEP Laboratory) 

Jim Truex (Ohio NTEP Laboratory) Todd Lucas (Ohio NTEP Laboratory) 

Steve Cook (NIST Technical Advisor) Stephen Patoray (NTEP Director) 

The WG, having met on five occasions through conference calls, developed a list of action items which is 

summarized below with the proposed amendments to Publication 14 Sections 31, 32, and 45 to 51 based on the 

recommendation in the 2005 Weighing Sector Summary for agenda Item 10. A full copy of the report of the Tare 

WG, including the status of the action items, can be found in Appendix C – Attachment to Item 5. 

1. Amend Publication 14 Sections 31, 32, and 45 to 51. 

2. Discuss a request that the S&T Committee revisit the 1980 discussion. 

3. Propose adding definitions of “Tare” and “Preset tare” to Handbook 44. 

4. Propose adding a definition of “net” based on Handbook 130. 

5. Propose adding requirements for “Tare” and “Preset tare” to Handbook 44. 

6. Propose adding indication and printing requirements for tare values to Handbook 44. 

7. Propose adding a tolerance for scale accuracy in the net mode to Handbook 44. 

8. Consider the OIML allowance for 1e deviation of (calculated) indicated and printed net weights due to the 

rounding of tare. 

9. Propose amending Scales Code paragraph S.1.2.1. to clarify that indicated and printed net weights 

calculated from gross and tare weights on multi-interval scales, multiple range scales, and weights 

determined from two different scales may have an apparent interval other than 0, 1, 2, or 5. 

10. Agree on a position that paper/plastic zeroed off by an automatic zero-tracking mechanism (AZT) be 

interpreted as net weight without a net or tare indication based on the definition of net in Handbook 130 

(e.g., When a bag or paper is placed on the scale it is balanced off by the AZT mechanism. The product is 

then added to the scale without removing the tare material). 

11. Discuss recommending policy on tare less than 0.5 e for: 

- Single range scales, and/or 

- Multi-interval and multiple range scales. 

Alternatively discuss recommending suitability criteria and minimum number of tare intervals. (e.g., 2 e 

for single range scales and 5 e1 for multi-interval and multiple range scales) 

12. Discuss and develop a position on Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) Developing S&T 

agenda Item 360-4 Part 2, Item 1 Scales: S.2.1.7. Tare Rounding on a Multiple Range Scale. 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed and discussed Action Item 1 to amend Publication 14 Sections 31 and 32. 

Additionally, the Sector reviewed the remaining action items and the status of the “Tare” WG. The NIST technical 

advisor stated many of the proposed definitions in Appendix D; proposed amendments to the Scales Code 

paragraphs S.1.1.1. Digital Indicating Elements, S.1.2.1. Weight Units, and T.N.2.1. General and AWS Code 

paragraphs S.1.2. Value of Division Units and T.2.1. General, were sufficiently developed and could be submitted to 

the NCWM S&T Committee through SWMA for consideration. 

NTEP - D7 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

Recommendation: The Sector recommends that the amendments to Publication 14 Sections 31 to 32 and 45 

to 51 in Appendix A – agenda Item 5 be submitted to the NTEP Committee for approval. The Sector further 

recommended that the NIST Technical Advisor submit to the SWMA S&T Committee the Tare WG 

recommendations that propose: 

- Adding new and amended definitions to facilitate a uniform understanding of the terms already used 

in Handbook 44 (e.g., “tare mechanism,” “tare,” “net,” etc.) in Handbook Appendix D – Definitions; 

- Amending Scales Code and AWS Code paragraph S.1.1.1. Digital Indicating Elements. Clarifying 

that a scale can display a “center-of-zero” indication with a load on the platform provided it has been 

balanced off by a tare mechanism while the scale is in the net mode of operation, 

- Amending Scales Code paragraph S.2.2.1. Weight Units. and AWS Code paragraph S.2.1. Value of 

Division Units. by adding a note that permits calculated net weights from multi-interval and multiple 

range scales to be in units other than 0, 1, 2, and 5 in order to maintain the accuracy of tare weights 

when the gross weights are in a weighing range with a larger scale division, and 

- Amending Scales Code tolerance paragraph T.N.2.1. General and AWS Codes paragraph T.2.1. 

General to clarify that tolerances are also applied to net weight indications from a net indication of 

zero using any possible tare load. 

Copies of the proposals submitted to SWMA are included in Appendix C – Attachment to Item 5.

6. Minimum Size of Weight and Units Indications 

Source: New York NTEP Participating Laboratory (Carryover Item) 

Background: See the 2006 NCWM Specifications and Tolerance Committee Final Report on Item 320-2 for 

additional background information. 

This proposal was originally developed to address a growing problem with the readability of weight indications and 

the values that define transaction information. Field and laboratory officials indicate that both are becoming 

increasingly smaller, as demonstrated in the following example of a weight display where the actual size of the 

weight values are 23 mm in height, but the unit of measurement (g) is 4 mm in height. 

During its 2005 meeting, the Sector agreed that any proposal to specify the height of the weight display and units 

indications in NIST Handbook 44 should be limited to the Scales Code and should align with OIML R 76 to the 

extent possible. The size requirements should be limited to weight indications visible to the customer in direct sale 

applications; the weight display should be no smaller than 9.5 mm; and the units display or marking should be no 

smaller that 2 mm. 

Discussion: The Weighing Sector reviewed the background information and the original proposal. Many of the 

public Sector members believed the 2 mm height specification for the units of measures was too small. Other Sector 

members commented that the language, while permitting larger display heights for the weight, would still allow a 

2 mm display of the units. For example, a scoreboard display with a 155 mm (6 in) weight display could still have a 

unit display of 2 mm (1⁄4 in). Otto Warnloff stated that the proposed language is not needed since Handbook 44 

General Code paragraph G-S.5.1. General (Indicating and Recording Elements) states the primary indicating 

indications shall be clear, definite, and easily read under any conditions of normal use. The Sector discussed a 

recommendation to state that the minimum units display height shall be related to the height of the weight display 

similar to the relationship between the display height and the unit of measure height as specified in Handbook 44 

Taximeter Code paragraph S.1.3.1. Minimum Height of Figures, Words, and Symbols which states: 

S.1.3.1. Minimum Height of Figures, Words, and Symbols. The minimum height of the figures 

used to indicate the fare shall be 10 mm and for extras, 8 mm. The minimum height of the figures, 

words, or symbols used for other indications, including those used to identify or define, shall be 

3.5 mm. 

NTEP - D8 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

It was recognized that the ratio of the 3.5 mm requirement for figures, words, and symbols to the 10 mm for 

indication of the fare equates to 35 %. The Sector supported the concept of specifying a ratio for this relationship of 

the weight display and the “units” indication and discussed what might be an appropriate limit. The current 

language in the proposal would equate to a 21 % relationship. Some public Sector members believed that the ratio 

should be 60 %. The manufacturers stated that they could not suggest a current relationship at this time since they 

need to check with their suppliers and verify available sizes and display specifications. 

The NTEP Director, Stephen Patoray, suggested that the Sector not discuss or comment on the proposed user 

requirements at this time since NTEP typically does not evaluate user requirements during type evaluation. 

Recommendation: The Sector did not reach a consensus on where to set the minimum height of the units. 

However, the Sector still supports the proposed specifications and recommends that the minimum height of 

the units indication be stated as a percentage of the height of the weight display. The NIST technical advisor 

amended the proposed language to state that the minimum height of the units display be written in terms of 

as a percentage ratio (starting at 21 %) of the height of the weight display as shown below. The percentage 

may be changed based on research and input from manufacturers prior the January 2007 NCWM Interim 

Meeting. 

S.1.4.6. Height. - All primary indications shall be indicated clearly and simultaneously.

(a) On digital devices that display primary indications during direct sales to the customer, the numerical 

figures displayed to the customer shall be at least 9.5 mm (0.4 in) high.

(b) The units of mass and other descriptive markings or indications, such as lb, kg, gross, tare, net, etc., 

shall be clearly and easily read and shall be at least 21 % on the height of the primary weight 

indications.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2007]

(Added 200X)

The Sector did not have sufficient time at the end of its meeting to discuss and provide recommendations to 

the S&T Committee on the proposed user requirements for “Minimum Reading Distance” and “Primary 

Indicating Elements Provided By The User” and the definition for minimum reading distance. 

7. AWS Influence Factor Temperature Ranges that Exceed -10 °C to 40 °C 

Source: Ohio NTEP Participating Laboratory. (Carryover Item) 

Background: See the 1991 and 1999 NCWM S&T Committee Reports and the 2005 NTETC Weighing Sector 

Meeting Summary agenda Item 18 for additional background information. 

Juana Williams (NIST), Steve Cook (NIST), and Darrell Flocken (Mettler Toledo) agreed to develop a summary 

paragraph, with points that need to be addressed (e.g., temperature testing at the time of the NTEP evaluation vs. 

ambient temperature during subsequent verifications and the marked temperature range). 

During the research of this item for the summary paragraph, NIST WMD discovered that the technical policy 

recommended by the 2005 Weighing Sector conflicts with the position of the 1991 S&T Committee Item 320-3 (I) 

S.6.3. Marking Requirements; Temperature Range that states: 

“If a device is marked with a temperature range greater than 14 °F to 104 °F, then the device is 

tested over the wider range during type evaluation.”

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the background information provided in the agenda and considered the following 

two parts regarding: 

Part 1. Developing a recommendation for the NCWM S&T Committee to amend the temperature requirements in 

the Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems, Automatic Bulk-Weighing Systems, AWS, Multiple Dimension 

NTEP - D9 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

Measuring Devices, and Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) codes to be similar to the following Scales Code 

paragraphs T.N.8.1.4. and Table S.6.3.b. 

The Sector noted that any proposal to amend the AWS, Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems, and Grain Codes 

should be submitted to the appropriate Sectors. 

Part 2. Developing and recommending a technical policy to address the 1991 S&T position for devices submitted 

with a temperature range where the minimum and/or maximum temperature exceeds the limit specified in 

Scales Code paragraph T.N.8.1. Temperature. 

Many Sector members reiterated their concerns that the larger temperature ranges listed on the NTEP CC 

may infer higher quality devices and that applicants would consider submitting these devices in order to 

gain a potential marketing advantage. The NTEP laboratories were concerned that testing devices to the 

wider temperature ranges could be a potential safety issue when the evaluator has to spend a significant 

amount of time in their environmental chamber while devices are tested at the temperature extremes. 

Additionally, not all the laboratories have environmental chambers that are rated or capable of operating 

with the larger temperature ranges. The Sector believes that this will result in one or two laboratories 

receiving the majority of NTEP applications requesting temperature testing using the larger temperature 

ranges. 

The NTEP Director noted that the current language in Handbook 44 Scales Code Table S.6.3.b. Note 5 

states that the temperature range marking on the device is only required if “the temperature range stated 

on the CC is narrower than and within” the standard temperature range. Don Onwiler added that a higher 

range marked on the device would not be supported or covered by the NTEP CC if the CC listed that 

standard range. 

The Sector briefly discussed the possibility of utilizing the provision in the NTEP Administrative Policy to 

allow “Provisional” NTEP CCs on devices where NTEP evaluated with the larger temperature range 

submitted by the applicant. This was not recommended because of concerns that the larger temperature 

range issue may be used as a marketing issue inferring that it is a better quality device. 

Recommendation for Part 1: The NIST Technical Advisor will prepare a proposal to SWMA to amend the 

AWS Code Table S.7.b. Note for Table S.7.a. to align Note 5 with the Scales Code for only the AWS Code. 

The Sector agreed that the other codes listed by the NIST Technical Advisor need further evaluation by the 

appropriate NTETC Sector. A copy of the proposal to amend the AWS Code is in Appendix C – Attachment 

to Item 7.

Recommendation for Part 2: The Sector believes that the technical policy defining the scope of temperature 

testing conducted by NTEP that was adopted by the 2005 Weighing Sector is not in conflict with the 1991 

S&T Committee since the 1999 revision to Scale Code Table S.6.3.b. amended Note 5 by linking the 

temperature range marking requirement to the range listed on the CC. The Sector also believes the CC 

would not cover devices that are marked with a larger temperatures range than what is listed on the CC. For 

example, an NTEP CC that lists a temperature range of –5 °C to +30 °C would not cover a device that was 

not marked with a temperature range, or marked with a –5 °C to +45 °C temperature range. 

The Sector agrees with the concerns from the NTEP laboratories that testing over larger and larger 

temperature ranges may become a health and safety issue and that existing temperature chambers are limited 

in their capabilities to perform temperature tests over wider ranges. 

Additionally, the Sector asks that the NCWM S&T Committee review and amend the Committee’s 1991 

position considering changes to the marking requirements, health and safety concerns, and limitations of 

NTEP laboratory testing equipment. 

NTEP - D10 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

New Items 

8. GIPSA Grain Test Scale Requirements 

Source: GIPSA and the NTEP Committee 

Background: GIPSA is responsible for approval of equipment used to inspect grain under the USDA official 

system. GIPSA has reviewed the NTEP requirements for official grain test scales in an effort to simplify and 

harmonize with NTEP requirements for commercial grain test scales. 

GIPSA, in consultation with the American Association of Grain Inspection and Weighing Agencies, Ohaus, Mettler 

Toledo, and Seedburo Equipment Company, revised its rules for official grain test scales and user requirements in 

the GIPSA Equipment Handbook Chapter 2, Grain Test Scales (page 6) effective February 2002. This can viewed 

at the USDA web site using the following internet address: http://archive.gipsa.usda.gov/referencelibrary/handbooks/equipment/eq2-scal.pdf 

GISPA submitted recommended amendments for NCWM Publication 14 DES Section 37. Grain Test Scales to the 

Sector in order to align Publication 14 with their requirements for the suitability of scales used to weigh grain 

samples. 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the proposed amendments submitted by GIPSA and discussed the following to 

clarify information requested by GISPA in order for an NTEP Certified Grain Test Scale to be used in GISPA 

supervised applications: 

- GISPA reviews a scale’s parameters, such as accuracy class, capacity, and “e” or “d” before a scale can be 

used in a GISPA supervised application. In other words, a suitable scale may be used even if it does not 

have all the features of a grain test scale as defined in Handbook 44 Appendix D and grain associated 

calculations (i.e., bushel weight) are not required to be part of the scale. 

- Scale manufacturers reported that the availability of suitable scales has improved since the requirements for 

grain test scales were first revised in the GIPSA Equipment Handbook. 

- The GIPSA classifications for “Precision,” “Moisture,” and “General” are no longer used when applying 

scales suitability requirements on scales marked with an accuracy class. GIPSA currently determines 

suitability based on the intended loads called a “Work Portion” in the proposed amendments to 

Publication 14, and the values of “d” and if applicable “e” for Class II and Class III NTEP certified scales. 

- DRAFT NTEP CCs with references to GIPSA shall be submitted to GIPSA for review and comment. 

- The “Work Portion” column in the proposed is the range of weights for particular grain samples. Grain 

samples within a range specified the proposed table must meet the requirements for “d.” This can be 

accomplished by using scales with expanded resolution, multi-interval and multiple range scales, a 

precision scale scales that covers the anticipated sample weights, or by using more than one scale. 

- The GIPSA requirement permits the use of “d” when “d” is smaller than “e.” 

There were additional discussions about the suitability of Class II or III grain test scales used for other Class II or III 

applications such as gem and jewelry weighing. Sector members stated that the current Class II or III scales 

intended for either application are able to be configured to be suitable for direct sale commercial weighing by 

disabling the grain associated features or making “e” equal to “d” and that the use of grain test scales in other non 

grain weighing applications is not within the scope of NTEP. 

Recommendation: The Sector made some editorial changes to the proposal and recommends that the 

amended proposed changes in Appendix A – agenda Item 8 be incorporated into Publication 14. 

NTEP - D11 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

9. Ad Hoc Procedures for Wireless Communication of Metrological Information 

Source: NTEP Laboratories 

Background: NTEP has received several inquiries about the suitability of scales with wireless communication 

capability between the W/LRE and the indicating element (and recording element, if applicable). Several NTEP 

applicants had this feature reviewed, evaluated, and listed on their CCs according to NTEP Technical Policy in 

Publication 14 Section A that states that “All options and features to be included on the CC must be submitted for 

evaluation. Nonmetrological features may be listed on a CC, but only if the feature has been evaluated and operates 

as intended.” Other holders of NTEP CCs did not have the feature evaluated and listed on the CC. Because of this 

discussion, it was noted that there are no specific procedures in Publication 14 and that the participating laboratories 

were evaluating this feature based on interpretations of language in Publication 14 Section 11. Indicating and 

Recording Elements - General. Therefore, the Participating Laboratories developed ad hoc procedures specifically 

for weighing devices using wireless communication to transmit weight values between the load-receiving element 

and a receiver (i.e., indicating element and/or printing element).

The Sector was asked to: 

1. Review and recommend the proposed ad hoc language in the agenda be added to Publication 14 

Section 11. Indicating and Recording Elements – General; and 

2. Discuss installations where scale owners or third parties are adding wireless communication capability to 

weighing equipment that already has an NTEP CC, and whether or not additional NTEP policies or 

procedures are needed to address this type of modification. 

Part 1 Discussion/Recommendation: The Sector made several editorial suggestions for formatting and 

clarification to the proposed ad hoc procedures. The Sector agreed that the ad hoc procedures in the agenda 

are sufficiently developed and recommends that the proposed amended ad hoc procedures in Appendix A – 

agenda Item 9 be incorporated into Publication 14. 

Part 2 Discussion/Recommendation: The Sector discussed several scenarios where a device owner or third 

party replaces cables between the various weighing/load-receiving, indicating, and recording elements, and if 

the original device would still be traceable to the NTEP CC for the device. The Sector Chairman, Darrell 

Flocken, asked the Sector about the following scenario. 

Does the NTEP CC still cover an NTEP certified scale with a third party wireless printer on a scale that 

was originally evaluated with a cable between the scale (printer output) and a printer or a remote display 

that was not used as the primary indictor (i.e., a transmitter would be installed on the scale and a receiver 

would be installed on the printer or slave display)? 

Many of the Sector members believed that this would be a non-metrological modification to the device since 

the NTEP CC does not state that the “printer output” feature is limited to printers that are physically 

connected to the device. Therefore, the CC would still apply to installations with printer outputs that have 

already been evaluated by NTEP where the printer cable is replaced by a wireless communication device. 

Although the dumb printers and auxiliary displays should not be subject to NTEP evaluation, they are 

typically verified for agreement of indications during normal inspections. Other Sector members disagreed 

and stated that this would not be covered by the NTEP CC since it needs to be verified that there is no 

metrological effect on the measurement when metrological information is sent to the printer via the wireless 

communication. 

- The Sector agreed that the devices would no longer be traceable to the NTEP CC when wireless 

communication is added between metrological elements and is not listed on the NTEP CC. 

- The Sector also recommended that the discussion on wireless communication between a metrological 

element and a non-metrological element be carried over as an item to be further developed and 

discussed for the 2007 meeting of the Sector. 

NTEP - D12 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

10. Procedures for Percentage and Proportional Tare 

Source: NTEP Laboratories 

Background: During the April 2000 NTEP Participating Laboratories Technical Session, the weighing devices 

laboratories discussed the use of percentage and proportional tare. A WG was formed to develop proposed additions 

to Publication 14. The 2000 WG developed the following definitions and type evaluation procedures for 

consideration by the Sector in order to facilitate a consistent understanding of the terms used in the proposals. 

However, the proposals did not get placed on the 2001 Weighing Sector Agenda: 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed proposed definitions and Draft Publication 14 type evaluation procedures. A few 

of the Sector members stated that the terms “proportional tare” and “percentage tare” are not in Handbook 44, and 

therefore, the proposed type evaluation procedures should not be used in Publication 14. The NTEP Director stated 

that evaluations of percentage tare are currently being conducted by the NTEP laboratories and that procedures need 

to be included in Publication 14. Andrea Buie, Maryland, stated that the procedures and definitions are consistent 

with those used by Measurement Canada and that NTEP uses those procedures for U.S./Canada mutual recognition 

type evaluations. 

Recommendation: The Sector believes that it needs additional time to study the proposed language 

developed by the NTEP laboratories and recommends that the proposed Publication 14 language be 

submitted to the Sector as a ballot item prior to the January 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

The Sector voted nine to zero to approve and recommend that the 2000 WG proposal in 

Appendix A - Agenda Item 10 to evaluate weighing devices with percentage and proportional tare be included 

in NCWM Publication 14. 

11. Permanence of Identification When an Audit Trail is the “Security Means” 

Source: New York NTEP Laboratory 

Background: The New York NTEP Laboratory has stated that audit trails may not always be the appropriate 

method of sealing for a scale or indicator to ensure permanence of the identification information. This is true if the 

identification information marked on the device is on a removable part of the weighing (or measuring) device such 

as a cover or outer case. The identification information marked on the device should not be considered “permanent” 

according to NIST Handbook 44 paragraph G-S.3. Permanence if it is on a removable part of the device unless the 

cover can be physically sealed to an integral part of the scale. 

1. If an audit trail is the means of sealing, then the outer case or cover containing the identification 

information can be removed and replaced with that of another scale or indicator, making the information 

not permanent. This is true of some scales with physical seals where the security seal is located on a cover 

that is not on an integral part of the scale. 

2. If an audit trail is the approved method of sealing for this case, the case base containing the ID plate can be 

switched with the ID plate on another case. 

NTEP - D13 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

The New York NTEP Laboratory recommends that a scale with the identification located on an easily removed 

cover and electronic means of sealing still should have a physical security means to seal the cover to an integral part 

of the scale. 

The NIST Technical Advisor provided the Sector additional information on this subject from the June 1989 

Weighing Sector NTETC-Weighing Sector meeting discussions on agenda Item 4 regarding identification 

information located on a removable part of a scale, such as a cover. During that meeting, the Sector recommended 

that: 

“. . . the fraud aspects of manipulating identification badges were not valid. Many other 

possibilities exist for fraud and are easier to perpetrate if someone chooses to do so. Tampering 

was not considered significant relative to the marking requirement. The consensus of the 

Committee was that "permanent" should mean that the identification information must be 

sufficiently durable to withstand normal wear and tear throughout the life of the device. An 

identification badge must be difficult to remove. Blind rivets to attach a badge to a device are 

acceptable, but removable screws are not... 

“The Committee concluded that the sentence (It may be installed on a removable cover if the 

cover can be fitted with a security seal.) in the second paragraph on page 69 of NCWM 

Publication 14 (1989) shall be deleted.” 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the background information and discussed whether there is sufficient justification 

for this subject to be revisited. During the discussions, the New York and Maryland participating laboratories stated 

that sealing a cover to the base of the scale is a deterrent and is intended to indicated that a security seal that has 

been broken or removed from the scale indicates that something has happened to the device. Maryland stated that 

they have experienced a situation where a cover (and the identification information) was removed from a rejected 

scale and placed on a sealed scale thereby inferring that the rejected scale was corrected. 

Other Sector members agreed with the 1989 Sector discussions that the fraud aspects of manipulating identification 

badges were not valid. Many other possibilities exist for fraud and are easier to perpetrate if someone chooses to do 

so. Tampering was not considered significant relative to the marking requirement. 

The New York laboratory suggested that the serial number of the scale could be made part of the electronic method 

of sealing and available in a similar fashion as other forms of audit trails. The manufacturers stated that adding 

serial numbers to event counters and event loggers would add a significant cost to the scale since the audit trail 

components would require unique programming for every scale. 

The NTEP Director, Stephen Patoray, commented that the identification information and serial number are currently 

not considered sealable parameters and do not fall within the “Philosophy for Sealing” in Publication 14. He also 

suggested that the Sector consider developing language similar to Handbook 44 Liquid-Measuring Devices Code 

paragraph S.4.4.2. Location of Marking Information; Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers that requires the identification 

NTEP - D14 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

information on a portion of the device that cannot be readily removed or interchanged and allows the information be 

located internally provided there is easy access through the use of a key or tool. However, the words “easily” and 

“readily” used in the referenced LMD code paragraph are too subjective. The manufacturers responded that there is 

no part of a computing scale that is not removable and added that the platter support is an integral part of a scale 

which can be removed with two screws. 

Recommendation: The Sector did not reach a consensus on this item and stated that there was no proposed 

language to be reviewed in order for the Sector to comment on a proposal to amend Handbook 44 or 

Publication 14. The New York laboratory was requested to consider the comments made during the 

discussion and if they still believe that there is sufficient justification, develop a specific proposal to be 

considered by the Sector or the S&T Committee. 

12. emin and Other Markings on Load-Receiving Elements 

Source: California NTEP Laboratory 

Background: The California NTEP Laboratory has reported that applicants are using incorrect abbreviations for 

minimum verification scale interval, maximum number of scale division, and load cell verification interval that are 

used in NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code Table S.6.3.a. and in the applicable definitions in Appendix D. That is, the 

applicants are using the letters in both upper and lower text cases and without the appropriate subscript. The 

incorrect case and lack of the subscript “min” or “max” completely changes the definition of the symbol or 

abbreviation. For example, a lower can “n” by itself indicates the number of divisions configured for a specific 

instrument and not the maximum number of divisions (nmax) and an uppercase “E” is a symbol used for load cells to 

define the dead load of a load cell in a specific instrument. 

Discussion/Recommendation: The Sector considered a proposal to amend NCWM Publication 14 Section 4.

Additional Marking Requirements – W/LREs and Section 76. List of Acceptable Abbreviations/Symbols. The 

NIST technical advisor suggested that the Sector may want to review other sections of Publication 14 for other 

symbols and abbreviations that are not permitted in Handbook 44 such as markings for load cells and separable 

indicating elements and clearly state that “Class IV” is or is not an acceptable Marking for Class IIII instruments. 

The Sector recommends that the proposed amendments in Appendix A – agenda Item 12 be added to Publication 14 

DES Sections 4 and 76. Additionally, the Sector recommends that the proposed amendments to Section 76 be added 

to the “List of Acceptable Abbreviations/Symbols” that was adopted by the 2006 NCWM during its 91st Annual 

Meeting. 

Railway Track Scale Items 

13. CLC Type Evaluation Tests on Railway Track/Vehicle Scales – Technical Policy 

Source: Brechbuhler Scales Inc. (Carryover Item) 

Background: During its 2005 meeting, the NTETC Weighing Sector agreed that NCWM Publication 14 Technical 

Policies and Test Criteria for vehicle scales and railway track scales should be reviewed and that separate test 

criteria should be developed for combination vehicle/railway track scales. The new criteria should include technical 

policies and test procedures for: 

1. New NTEP applications, 

2. Amendments to existing Certificates of Conformance (CCs) for railway track scales to include the vehicle 

weighing feature including: 

 a. CLC ratings, 

 b. CLC testing using field standard weights (center vs. off-center), 

 c. Permanence tests, and 

3. Tests using the vehicle scale emin for new NTEP applications and existing CCs. 

NTEP - D15 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

Ed Luthy developed a draft proposal and distributed it for review and comment to Stephen Langford, Darrell 

Flocken, and Bob Feezor prior to it being placed on the Sector agenda. 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the proposed amendment to Publication 14 technical policies in Section 8.e., and 

made some editorial suggestions to the proposed language in Appendix A – Attachment to Item 13, and 

recommends that it be incorporated into Publication 14 Section 8.e. 

The NTEP Director, Stephen Patoray, noted that the proposed amendment to Section 8.e. applies only to devices 

submitted for evaluation and could not be applied to previous evaluations without additional testing as it is currently 

worded. The Sector discussed the impact of the proposal to accept a vehicle scale application on an existing NTEP 

CC for railway track scales. 

Some of the Sector members commented that vehicles are wider than the width of the rails and that they may travel 

along one side of the scale or the other; consequently, it may not be appropriate to include vehicle weighing 

applications without additional testing since the evaluation of the railway track scale applies test loads directly on 

the rail and cannot be conducted side-to-side. (NOTE: Side to side testing is not required for an evaluation of a 

single platform vehicle scale that is less than 14 ft wide). Additionally, it was noted that Publication 14 Section 69.5 

Increasing Load and Section Test does not specifically state that sections are to be tested up to 100 000 lb although it 

is implied. 

The NTEP Director asked the Sector to confirm that railway track scale section and strain load tests were similar to 

and had the same impact as vehicle scale evaluations. The Sector stated that the tests are equivalent although the 

language in Section 69. Performance and Permanence Tests for Railway Track Scales Used to Weigh Statically is 

not the same as Section 66.a. Performance and Permanence Tests for “Single Load-Receiving Element” Legal for 

Highway Vehicle Scales and Permanently-Installed Axle-Load Weighing Elements. 

The NTEP Director suggested and the Sector agreed that Publication 14 Section E. Modification of Type could be 

amended to update existing railway track scale CCs to include vehicle-weighing applications without additional 

testing if: 

- the section test on the railway track scale was performed with 100 000 lb of certified test weights or weight 

carts; 

- strain load tests were conducted during the original railway track scale evaluation; 

- the design of the load-receiving element is no wider than 12 ft; and 

- the design of the weighing element is “beam and girder” design (this would not be applicable to other scale 

designs such as composite designs where the strength of the deck is dependent on several individual 

elements being combined in the design of the scale deck). (See SAP suggestions) 

Recommendation: The Sector recommends that Section 8.e. as amended by the Sector in Appendix A – 

Attachment to Item 13 be incorporated into Publication 14 Section 8.e. 

The Sector also recommends that specific language for Publication 14 Section E. Modifications be developed 

as a carryover item based on the above discussion. Stephen Patoray, Todd Lucas and Steve Beitzel agreed to 

review Section E and develop language to be considered by the Sector during its 2007 Annual Meeting. 

14. Railway Track Scales with a Rotary Dump Feature Technical Policy 

Source: Bob Feezor, Norfolk Southern Corporation (Carryover Item) 

Background: The following is from the 2005 Annual Meeting of the NTETC Weighing Sector, agenda Item 19 

which included a discussion and recommendation on the lack of documentation and test procedures for railway track 

scales with the rotary dump feature that facilitates emptying loose bulk material (e.g., coal) from a railway car while 

still on the load-receiving element. 

NTEP - D16 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

Manufacturers of rotary dump mechanisms for railway track cars offer a weighing option where a railway track 

scale is built into, or installed in the rotary dump mechanism. The manufacturers of these systems frequently 

believe that the railway track scale is approved for this application (or in some cases, just the load cells and 

indication elements), and is covered by an NTEP CC. Additionally, there are many existing rotary dump 

mechanisms that were installed prior to the formation of NTEP that are nearing the end of their useful life, and the 

users of these devices are requesting that the railway track scales be covered by NTEP CCs. The submitter of this 

item is concerned there are no documented policies and test criteria for these devices, and therefore promotes 

inconsistent enforcement of the NTEP requirements on these devices. 

NTEP and the laboratories have consistently stated that a railway track scale CC must include the rotary dump 

mechanism and must be verified by NTEP and subsequently listed on the CC. The problem is that this policy is not 

documented in NCWM Publication 14, nor are there any documented procedures to test the rotary dump scales. 

Robert Feezor recommended that ad hoc policies and test criteria should be developed to add the rotary dump 

mechanism as a feature on the. 

Recommendation: The Sector agreed with the submitter that the rotary dump option should be included on CCs for 

railway track scales, and that NTEP Technical Policies and test criteria are needed for Publication 14. Robert 

Feezor and Steve Cook agreed to draft technical policies and test criteria will be developed and submitted for the 

2006 meetings of the NTEP Labs and Weighing Sector. 

Bob Feezor and William Bates (GIPSA) submitted a test form and procedures for testing railway track scales with a 

“rotary dump” feature. 

The NIST Technical Advisor recommended that the “Railway Track Scale Rotary Unloading (Dump)” feature be 

added to the “Features and Options - Characteristics of Each Model(s)/Type(s) or Sub-Group(s)” section of the 

NTEP application for scales.

Discussion/Recommendation: The Weighing Sector reviewed the proposed amendment to Section E. 

Modification of Type and recommends that Section E, as amended by the Sector in Appendix A – Attachment 

to Item 14, be incorporated into NCWM Publication 14. 

15. In-Motion Railway Track Scale Technical Policy – Developing Item 

Source: NTEP Director 

15(a). Permanence Test for Indicators/Controllers (Note: This was listed as agenda Item 15 (b) in the original 

agenda.) 

Background: During recent months, there has been extensive discussion by the NTEP Committee, the NTEP 

Director, and several NTEP CC holders regarding this device type. The question has been raised as to the necessity 

of a permanence test, or more appropriately, the value of a permanence test, for this device type. 

The current Section 68 appears to be written to evaluate an entire system, including a previously NTEP-certified 

W/LRE and NTEP-certified indicating element. 

It has been suggested that the CIM device is actually an electronic device that is software-based, which in many 

cases, is added onto the existing indicating element. It has been further suggested that other electronic devices such 

as separable indicating elements or POS systems are not required to be subjected to a permanence test in 

Publication 14. So the question is raised: Should this type of device be required to go through a permanence test 

when both the W/LRE and indicating element already have an NTEP CC and the W/LRE has already gone through a 

permanence test? 

Discussions on the permanence requirements for the W/LRE indicate that the method of loading does not change 

with this type of device whether it is a static or a CIM device. The rail car must still travel on the rail over the scale. 

NTEP - D17 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

However, arguments against the above position indicate that the CIM device is subject to other factors that 1) can 

only be evaluated as an actual system; 2) cannot be simulated in the laboratory; and 3) must be subjected to some 

type of actual performance tests and permanence tests to determine if the device can gather and perform the 

necessary calculations to estimate the weight of both the individual cars and the unit train. Other factors may 

include, but are not limited to, something in the W/LRE "working loose" in the time between the initial performance 

test and the permanence test causing additional vibrations that would not effect static weighing, but would have an 

impact on the software’s ability to determine a weight while the railway car is in motion. 

In summary, questions that need to be addressed are: 

1. Should an in-motion type of device be required to go through a permanence test when the W/LRE is 

covered by an NTEP CC and has already been tested for permanence for static weighing applications? 

2. Should there be different permanence test requirements for W/LRE that are evaluated for static or CIM 

weighing applications? 

3. Should there be different permanence test requirements for CIM or uncoupled in-motion weighing 

applications? 

Additionally, it may be necessary to review the entire Section 68 to clarify several sections applicable to the inmotion indicators and controllers that are not currently clear (e.g., the three sentences before the recording Data 

table on page DES 113 in the Actual In-Motion Test paragraph that state that the system is to be tested under normal 

operating conditions and then specifies tests that are outside of the normal operation conditions). 

Jim Truex submitted the following comments in an e-mail to Stephen Patoray dated September 9, 2006: 

As you are aware, the NTEP Committee ruled on an issue pertaining to the need for a permanence 

test on a CIM railway system controller. Section 68 of Publication 14, in present form, appears to 

require a full permanence test (initial and follow-up). The decision by the NTEP Committee was 

that a full permanence test was not necessary. A one time test, if the controller passed, would be 

sufficient. In effect, the decision was an ad hoc type decision as it needs to be addressed and “red 

stamped” by the NTETC Weighing Sector. Ohio NTEP laboratory personnel discussed the issue 

and provided input prior to the decision of the NTEP Committee. The Ohio NTEP laboratory 

agrees with the decision of the NTEP Committee and is recommending a change to Publication 14 

to reflect the decision of the NTEP Committee. The following represents our position and 

rationale. 

1. The manufacturer is requesting an evaluation and CC for the controller only. If the request was 

for a complete railway system CC, a permanence test would be necessary. 

2. If the manufacturer was requesting to have their CC for the weighing element amended to cover 

in-motion weighing, a permanence test would be necessary. It is our understanding that a CC 

will only be issued for the controller upon successful completion of the evaluation. NTEP does 

not perform permanence tests on scale indicators and controllers (e.g., hopper scale controllers, 

vehicle scale controllers/weigh-in & weigh-out system controllers, cash registers, etc.) in the 

laboratory. 

3. Yes, in this case we are evaluating and testing a system, as necessary to evaluate the 

performance of the controller in the system, but in this case, we are only issuing a CC for the 

controller. We do not perform permanence tests on electronics. 

4. What purpose would the permanence test serve? If the system fails the permanence test, but we 

determine the system failed because a load cell went haywire, what would be our rationale for 

failing the controller and refusing to issue a CC? 

NTEP - D18 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

5. It goes without saying Publication 14 needs to be addressed and clarified. It is appropriate to 

direct any changes to Publication 14 through the appropriate Sector – in this case the Weighing 

Sector. 

Discussion: The NTEP Director provided the Sector with additional background information stating that this item 

arose from an appeal from a manufacturer to the NTEP Committee regarding permanence testing for a coupled inmotion indicator/controller. The NTEP Committee stated that permanence testing was not needed for the “controller 

electronics and software.” As a result, other manufacturers and the railroads believed that it was an incorrect 

decision. 

Steven Beitzel, Systems Associates provided the Sector with their justification as to why permanence testing is 

required on both the weighbridge and electronics. He indicated that NTEP Publication 14 Section 68. Performance 

and Permanence Tests for Railway Track scales Used to Weigh-In-Motion clearly states that a permanence test shall 

be performed. To issue a certificate with the knowledge that required testing had not been performed cannot be 

allowed. There can be only one interpretation of the word "shall" under the permanence-testing requirement in the 

"Permanence Test" paragraph of the procedure. 

With regards to modifying the test procedure, Steven Beitzel added that the permanence testing cannot be 

eliminated. The weight-processing unit of an in-motion railcar weighing system uses a set of filters or algorithms to 

differentiate the railcar's weight from the extraneous information from the load cell data being generated as the 

railcar passes over the weigh rail. These algorithms are trade secrets and confidential and not open for evaluation 

except by performance and permanence testing. These algorithms must determine the true weight while filtering out 

the erroneous signals generated by impacts of steel wheels on steel rail. As the nature of the "noise" generated by 

the railcar traffic changes with use of the weighing system and the cars being tested, the follow up test is critical to 

insure the system can continue to differentiate the actual weight with a system that has seen the effects of time and 

traffic. This permanence test cannot be eliminated. 

Many of the railroads support permanence testing for controllers since Publication 14 Section 68 is intended for the 

system regardless if the W/LRE has already passed a permanence test and they question the waiving of the 

requirements without receiving input from the Sector. 

Other Sector members stated that many of the arguments presented by Steve Beitzel and the railroads in the previous 

paragraph are legitimate concerns but that they are mechanical influences of the various part of the track and are 

installation-related, and not related to the controller electronics and software. NTEP has several examples where 

permanence testing is waived for electronics and software and that permanence testing is limited to the mechanical 

portion of a weighing system. 

The NTEP Director stated that the comments made by the Sector are all good points, but the language in Section 68 

is unclear as to what constitutes a permanence test. Is it intended to evaluate the permanence of the installation? 

Otto Warnloff added that permanence testing is based on Handbook 44 General Code paragraph G-S.3. Permanence. 

which states that all equipment shall be of such materials, design, and construction as to make it probable that, 

under normal service conditions, accuracy will be maintained, operating parts will continue to function as intended, 

and adjustments will remain reasonably permanent. Prior to the establishment of NTEP, NBS (now NIST) Report of 

Tests for all weighing and measuring devices clearly stated that the report did not verify permanence. 

Stephen Langford added that the results of permanence testing reflect a device’s ability to maintain its accuracy over 

a period of time established by NTEP. Electronic elements historically demonstrated that permanence testing was 

not required and the cost of the additional testing provided no benefit to the evaluation. 

The Sector was unable to come to a consensus, and the Sector Chairman asked for a vote to see if the Sector agrees 

with the NTEP Committee decision to waive permanence testing for indicators and controllers used in CIM railway 

track scale type evaluations. 

NTEP - D19 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

- 8 Sector members voted to support the NTEP Committee decision. 

- 9 Sector members voted not to support the NTEP Committee decision. 

- 1 Sector member abstained from voting. 

Recommendation: The Sector did not make a specific recommendation on this item and will forward the 

discussion and voting results to the NTEP Committee. This item will be carried over to the 2007 Weighing 

Sector agenda. 

15(b). Permanence Test Criteria for Railway Track Scales Used to Weigh In-Motion

Source: NTEP Director (Note: This was listed as agenda Item 15(b) in the original agenda.) 

Background: There are no criteria specified in the permanence test paragraph on page DES-100 of Section 68 of 

NCWM Publication 14 - Performance and Permanence Tests for Railway Track Scales Used to Weigh-In-Motion, 

other than the requirements to repeat the tests after a minimum of 20 days after the initial performance test. There 

needs to be specific “minimum use” requirements in the permanence test similar to permanence test requirements 

for other weighing devices. For example, the permanence section should include a minimum number of cars (or 

hours) to be run across the device during the 20-day period. 

Discussion/Recommendation: The Sector discussed this item in conjunction with the previous item. During 

the discussion, the question arose if a WG was needed to better answer the technical issues, propose NTEP 

technical policies, and develop specific permanence test procedures for CIM performance and weighbridge, 

and possibly CIM indicators/controllers. 

The Sector made no recommendation on this item since Don Onwiler reported that the NTEP Committee 

would reconsider their decision during their October 2006 meeting. This item will be carried over to the 2007 

Weighing Sector Agenda. 

16. Added Item – Tare Annunciator at a Zero Net Load Indication 

Source: California NTEP Laboratory 

Background: This item was inadvertently left off the agenda. 

The California NTEP laboratory has reported that some scales submitted for evaluation have a “TARE” annunciator 

in lieu of Gross or Net annunciators, which do not have a labeled “GROSS” or “NET” display. The scale operates 

as follows: 

- With no weight on the scale, the display shows 0.000 lb with the words STABLE and ZERO on the display 

underneath the weight. 

- With 5 lb on the load-receiving element, the scale displays 5.000 lb with the word STABLE on the display 

below the weight indication. 

- When the TARE button is pressed, the scale displays 0.000 lb and the words STABLE and TARE are 

displayed below the weight indication. (See picture.) 

NTEP - D20 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

- With 10 lb added to the load-receiving element, the scale displays 10.000 lb with STABLE and TARE 

displayed below the weight indication. 

- When all weights are removed, the scale displays –5.000 with STABLE and TARE displayed below the 

weight indication. 

The California NTEP laboratory is asking the Sector if the word “TARE” is considered to be similar to “TARE 

ENTERED” according to paragraph 46.1.5. in Publication 14 which states: 

46.1.5. A lighted legend or annunciator of TARE ENTERED or similar statement is used to indicate that a 

tare value has been entered and the display indicated net weight. 

The California NTEP laboratory recommended that the language be amended as follows: 

46.1.5. A lighted legend or annunciator of TARE ENTERED or words that clearly state similar statement is 

used to indicate that a tare value has been entered and the display indicated net weight. 

The other NTEP laboratories agreed that “TARE” should not be considered to be a similar statement as “TARE 

ENTERED” during their April 2006 meeting. Steve Cook and Jim Truex provided background information and 

stated that they, too, had questioned the use of the term “TARE” back in the late 1970’s. The response was given 

that it had been accepted as “TARE ENTERED” since the 1970’s on devices evaluated under NBS Reports of Test 

(prior to NTEP). The NTEP laboratories believe that both terms “TARE” and “TARE ENTERED” alone do not 

clearly describe that net weights are being displayed. The laboratories also asked that the Tare WG discuss this item 

and which terms should and should not be used when the scale is displaying net weight. 

The Tare WG has not discussed this item and was not able to provide the Sector with their position prior to the 

Sector meeting. 

The Sector was asked to review the background information and the current language in Publication 16 Section 46.1. 

If the Sector agrees with the NTEP laboratories, they should review the following proposal to delete Publication 14 

paragraph 46.1.5. to clarify that the terms TARE or TARE ENTERED alone are not acceptable as indication of the 

displayed net weight: 

Discussion/Recommendation: The Sector agreed that an indication of “zero” in the net mode should not be 

identified as “tare” as shown in above picture. Additionally, this example is not consistent with the intent of 

Handbook 44 General Code paragraphs G-S.5.1. (Indicating and Recording Elements). and General, 

G-S.5.2.4. Values. that state that primary indications shall be clear, definite, and adequately defined by a 

sufficient number of figures, words or symbols. 

The Sector recommends that NCWM Publication 14 be amended as shown in Appendix A – Attachment to 

Item 16. 

Editorial Note: The NIST Technical Advisor also recommends that Publication 14 Section 46. Tare Operation – 

Facilitation of Fraud code references include Handbook 44 General Code paragraph G-S-5-2.4. Values and that 

paragraph 46.2. be amended by deleting the words “TARE ENTERED” and is shown in Appendix A – Attachment 

to Item 16.

Next Sector Meeting 

Discussion/Recommendation: The Sector recommends that the 2007 meeting be held in conjunction with the 

WWMA Annual Technical Conference in Nevada. The WWMA is considering two different times for their 

technical conference; September 10 - 14 or October 1 - 4. The Sector prefers to meet after the conference if it 

is held in September or before the conference if it is held in October to keep it in the 2007 fiscal year. 

NTEP - D21 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

NTEP - D22 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

Appendix A 

Recommendations for Amendments to Publication 141

Attachment for Agenda Item 1(a) (Ballot Item and comments): 

The results of the ballot are: 

- 8 affirmative votes in favor of the proposed language, 

- 3 negative votes against the proposed language unless amended to eliminate the word “identifier,” and 

- 1 member abstained from voting. 

The three members who voted against the proposed language (and one other non voting member) commented that 

the use of the word “identifier” was inappropriate although it was adopted into HB 44 by the 91st NCWM during 

their 2006 Annual Meeting. Other Sector members that voted for the proposed language commented that they also 

agreed that the word “identifier” was not appropriate, but stated that the language in Publication 14 should reflect 

the language adopted into HB 44. 

During the 2007 Interim Meeting, the NTEP Committee reviewed the ballot language and results. They also 

considered all comments that were received during the balloting process regarding the use of the word “identifier” 

that was adopted during the NCWM 2006 Annual Meeting. The Committee concurred with the three sector 

members who voted against the proposed language and agreed that the word “designation” will remain in 

Publication 14. 

(DES 2) B. Certificate of Conformance Parameters 

Certificates of Conformance (CC) shall detail the main elements, load cells, and auxiliary devices used during an 

evaluation, including model designationidentifier and other significant parameters, under the "Test Conditions" 

portion of the CC. Only the standard features and options that have been evaluated will be included on the CC. 

(DES 6) 8. Weighing Systems, Scales or Weighing/load-receiving elements Greater than 30 000 lb Capacity 

In the case of a weighbridge design where the deck is integrated into the weighbridge to be structurally significant, 

both concrete and steel decks must be tested separately to cover both options on an NTEP Certificate of 

Conformance. Full NTEP tests are required on both options unless NTEP decides otherwise. A composite scale 

consisting of a minimum of two decks, (i.e., two spans), one span deck being of steel construction and the other of 

concrete may be submitted and tested to include both types of decks. Concrete-deck and steel-deck scales should be 

marked with unique model designationsidentifier to indicate the difference in platform material.

(DES 17) 1. Marking - Applicable to Indicating, Weighing/Load-Receiving Elements and Complete Scales 

Virtually all weighing and measuring equipment (except separate parts necessary to the measurement process but 

not having any metrological effect) must be clearly and permanently marked with the manufacturer's name or 

trademark, model designationidentifier, and serial number. “Permanent” markings addresses two aspects: (1) the 

printed information will withstand wear and cleaning, and (2) if the markings are on a plate or badge, then the 

marking badge must be “permanently” attached to the device. Permanence of it must be obvious that the badge or 

plate containing this information has been removed. All markings must be clear and attachment of the badge means 

that the identification information required by G-S.1. is not easily removed, if it is removed, then easily readable. 

The following test procedure shall be used to determine the permanence of the identification markings. 

 

1 Recommended changes to Publication 14 are indicated in shaded, strike out, and underlined text. 

NTEP - D23 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

The system must be clearly and permanently marked on an exterior surface, visible after installation, as follows: 

1.1 The name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor. A remote 

display is required to have the manufacturer's name or trademark and model

designationidentifier. (Code Reference G-S.1.) 

Yes  No  N/A 

1.2 A model designationidentifier that positively identifies the pattern or design of the 

device. The Model designationidentifier shall be prefaced by the word “Model,” 

“Type,” or “Pattern.” These terms may be followed by the term “Number” or an 

abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word “Number” shall, as a 

minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.). The abbreviation for the 

word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.” (Code Reference G-S.1.) 

Yes  No  N/A 

(DES 23) 3. Additional Marking Requirements - Not Built-for-Purpose Software-Based Devices 

References: G-S.1. (c) and G-S.1.1.

For software-based, not built–for–purpose devices, the required G-S.1. marking information shall be:

 permanently marked on the device, or continuously displayed, or 

 displayed in a clearly identified “System Identification”, “G-S.1. Identification”, or 

 Weights and Measures Identification” that is accessible through the "Help" menu or submenu.

3.1. 2006 language was amended and moved to new Section 3.3. 

For software-based, not built–for–purpose devices, the required G-S.1. marking 

information shall include the current version or revision identifiers in G-S.1. (d) 

instead of non repetitive serial numbers in G-S.1. (c). The words “version” or 

“revision” shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol that clearly 

identifies the number as the required version or revision.

Yes  No  N/A 

3.2. 2006 language was deleted and replaced with language in 3.32. 

If an abbreviation is used for the words “version” or “revision,” the abbreviation 

shall begin with an uppercase “V” or “R” followed by the number. Acceptable 

examples include, “Ver. 1234,” “V 1234,” “REV 1234,” and “R 1234.” 

Unacceptable abbreviations include “v 1234,” “ver 1234,” “r 1234,” and “rev 1234.”

Yes  No  N/A 

3.31. At least one of the following methods in 3.3.1. or 3.3.2. must be used: 

3.3.1. The required information in G-S.1. (a), (b), (d), and (e) manufacturer or 

distributor and the model identifier designation areshall be (check all that 

apply):

 permanently marked on the device according to Section 1 Markings - 

Applicable to Indicating, Weighing/Load-Receiving Elements and 

Complete Scales., or

 continuously displayed, or

 accessible through an easily recognized menu, and if necessary, a sub 

menu. Examples of menu and submenu include, but are not limited to 

“Help,” “System Identification,” “G-S.1. Identification,” or “Weights 

and Measures Identification.”

Yes  No  N/A 

3.3.1.1. If the “Help” menu or submenu is used to access the required 

marking information, the “Help” menu or submenu must be a 

part of the main operator screen that is used during normal 

operation of the device. 

Yes  No  N/A 

3.3.1.2. If the “Help” menu or submenu is used to access required 

marking information it must be limited to view-only access. 

Yes  No  N/A 

NTEP - D24 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

3.3.2. The Certificate of Conformance number may be permanently marked or 

displayed on the device. If this method is used then clear instructions for 

accessing the information required in G-S.1. (a), (b), and (d) shall be listed 

on the CC, including information necessary to identify that the software is 

the same type that was evaluated.

Yes  No  N/A 

List instructions for accessing the required G-S.1. markings using a menu or submenu, or by 

referencing the information on the CC: 

3.1.2. The manufacturer or distributor and the model designation are 

continuously displayed on the device.

Yes  No  N/A 

3.1.3. The manufacturer or distributor and the model designation are accessible 

through the “Help” menu. Clear instructions for accessing the remaining 

required information shall be listed on the CC.

Yes  No  N/A 

3.2. At least one of the following methods must be used:

3.2.1. The Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number is permanently marked on 

the device.

Yes  No  N/A 

3.2.2. The Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number is continuously displayed on 

the device.

Yes  No  N/A 

3.2.3. The Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number is accessible through the 

“Help” menu or submenu. Clear instructions for accessing the remaining 

required information shall be listed on the CC.

Yes  No  N/A 

3.3. All required marking information that is not permanently marked on the device or 

not continuously displayed must be accessible in an easily recognized clearly 

identified “System Identification”, “G-S.1. Identification”, or “Weights and 

Measures Identification” that is accessible through the “Help” menu or submenu.

Yes  No  N/A 

3.4. Moved to 3.3.1.1. Yes  No  N/A 

3.5. The software is identified with a software version that is sufficient to identify that the 

software is the same type evaluated.

Yes  No  N/A 

3.6. Moved to 3.3.1.2. Yes  No  N/A 

3.7. Clear instructions for accessing the remaining required information shall be listed on 

the CC.

Yes  No  N/A 

List instructions for accessing the required G-S.1. markings:

ECRS – 6 

5.7. (Delete Existing paragraphs 5.7. through 5.7.4). 

For software-based, not built–for–purpose devices, the required G-S.1. marking 

information shall include be the current version or revision identifiers in G-S.1. (d) 

instead of non repetitive serial numbers in G-S.1. (c). The words “version” or 

“revision” shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol that clearly 

identifies the number as the required version or revision.

Yes  No  N/A 

5.8. If an abbreviation is used for the words “version” or “revision,” the abbreviation 

shall begin with an uppercase “V” or “R” followed by the number. Acceptable 

examples include, “Ver. 1234,” “V 1234,” “REV 1234,” and “R 1234.” 

Unacceptable abbreviations include “v 1234,” “ver 1234,” “r 1234,” and 

Yes  No  N/A 

NTEP - D25 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

“rev 1234.”

5.9. At least one of the following methods in 5.7. or 5.8. must be used:

5.9.1. The required information in G-S.1. (a), (b), (d), and (e) manufacturer or 

distributor and the model identifier designation areshall be (check all that 

apply:

 permanently marked on the device according to Section 1 Markings -

Applicable to Indicating, Weighing/Load-Receiving Elements and 

Complete Scales., or

 continuously displayed, or

 accessible through an easily recognized menu, and if necessary, a sub 

menu. Examples of menu and submenu include, but are not limited 

to “Help,” “System Identification,” “G-S.1. Identification,” or 

“Weights and Measures Identification.”

Yes  No  N/A 

5.9.1.1. If the “Help”menu or submenu is used to access the required 

marking information, the “Help”menu or submenu must be a 

part of the main operator screen that is used during normal 

operation of the device. 

Yes  No  N/A 

5.9.1.2. If the “Help”menu or submenu is used to access required 

marking information it must be limited to view only access. 

Yes  No  N/A 

5.9.2. The Certificate of Conformance number may be permanently marked or 

displayed on the device. If this method is used then clear instructions for 

accessing the information required in G-S.1. (a), (b), and (d) shall be listed 

on the CC, including information necessary to identify that the software is 

the same type that was evaluated.

Yes  No  N/A 

List instructions for accessing the required G-S.1. markings using a menu or submenu, or by 

referencing the information on the CC: 

NTEP - D26 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

(ECRS 8-9) 7. Marking Requirements 

Figure 1. 

Example of Marking Requirements for Various System Components 

COMMON COMPONENTS 

Electronic Cash Register 

- Model DesignationIdentifier

Cash Acceptor, Card Reader, Etc. Which Authorizes 

Sales 

- Model DesignationIdentifier

Printer 

• G-S.1. 

- Manufacturer’s ID 

- Model DesignationIdentifier

- Serial Number and Prefix 

Figure 2. 

WEIGHING SYSTEMS 

Weighing/load receiving element 

- DesignationIdentifier

Indicating Element 

99.99 lb 

- Model DesignationIdentifier 

- Serial Number and Prefix 

Attachment for Agenda Item 1(b) 

(DES-78) 58. Time Dependence Test 

This test shall be conducted on Class II, III and IIII complete scales and W/LREs in a laboratory. The applied load 

shall be between 90 % and 100 % of capacity for scales with capacities of 2000 lb or less. For scales with capacities 

greater than 2000 lb, the load cell or load cells shall be tested individually. The test shall be conducted at 

20 °C ± 2 °C (68 °F ± 4 °F) the temperature extremes specified for the device under test (DUT). 

For Class III L scales . . . 

Technical Advisor’s Note: No changes to the Time Dependence Test Form are necessary.

Attachment for Agenda Item 1(c) 

(FT 13 – 14) II. Determination of Creep 

1. At 20 °C ambient, insert the force transducer (load cell) into the force generating system and load to the 

minimum dead load. If Procedure I. (which includes increasing and decreasing load tests) has just been 

completed, wait 1 hr. If a separate creep test is being conducted, exercise the force transducer (load cell) as in 

Procedure I.5 and then wait 1 hr. 

NTEP - D27 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

2. If the indicating element for the force transducer (load cell) is provided with a convenient means for checking 

itself, conduct the self-test at this time. 

3. Monitor minimum load output until stable. 

4. There are two test methods to determine the creep characteristics of force transducers (load cells). The 1-hr 

creep test at the maximum load (step 4. (a)) is the preferred form of the creep test; run the return-to-zero creep 

test (step 4. (b)) only when justified by limitations in the test equipment. The NTEP will conduct step 4. (a) 

creep tests whenever possible.

Take readings at 1 min time intervals for the first 10 minutes and every 10 min thereafter.

a. Test for Creep: Apply a load equal to 90 % to 100 % of the maximum capacity of the force transducer 

(load cell) and record the indication 20 sec after reaching the load. The time to load test weights and read 

the indicator shall be as short as possible and shall not exceed the time specified in Table 5. With the load 

remaining on the load cell, cContinue to record indications periodically, thereafter, at time intervals over a 

30 min 1 hr period. 

Note: A 30-min test is acceptable if the creep test is performed in accordance to OIML R 60 tolerances.

b. Test for Creep Recovery: Remove a load equal to 90 % to 100 % of the maximum capacity of the force 

transducer (load cell) that has been applied for 1 hr. Record the indication after 20 sec. The time to unload 

test weights and read the indicator shall be as short as possible and not exceed the time specified in Table 5. 

Continue to record indications periodically thereafter at time intervals over a 1 hr period (or30 min periodif 

the creep test is conducted according to OIML R 60 requirements). 

5. Repeat the operations described in steps 2 through 4 at the high and low temperature limits for the accuracy 

class., iIf the manufacturer has specified a smaller or a larger range, repeat operations at the limits marked on 

the cell, provided the temperature range is at least the range required for the accuracy class. 

6. With the resulting data, and accounting for the effect of barometric pressure changes, determine the magnitude 

of the creep and compare it to the tolerance in NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code Table T.N.4.6. 

Table 5 Loading Times 

Load 

G t th T d i l di

NTEP - D28 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

Table T.N.4.6. Time Dependence (Creep)

Maximum Permissible Error (mpe) * for Load Cells 

During Type Evaluation

mpe in Load Cell Verifications Divisions (v) = pLC x Basic Tolerance in v 

Class pLC x 0.5 v pLC x 1.0 v pLC x 1.5 v

 I 0 - 50 000 v 50 001 v - 200 000 v 200 001 v + 

 II 0 - 5 000 v 5 001 v - 20 000 v 20 001 v + 

 III 0 - 500 v 501 v - 2 000 v 2 001 v + 

 IIII 0 - 50 v 51 v - 200 v 201 v + 

 III L 0 - 500 v 501 v - 1 000 v 

(Add 0.5 v to the basic tolerance for each 

additional 500 v or fraction thereof up to a 

maximum load of 10 000 v) 

v represents the load cell verification interval 

pLC represents the apportionment factors applied to the basic tolerance 

pLC = 0.7 for load cells marked with S (single load cell applications) 

pLC = 1.0 for load cells marked with M (multiple load cell applications) 

pLC = 0.5 for Class III L load cells marked with S or M

* mpe = pLC x Basic Tolerance in load cell verifications divisions (v) 

Attachment for Agenda Item 4 

D. Force Transducers (load cells) to be Submitted for Evaluation 

Force transducers (load cells) of essentially the same design may be considered to form a family that can be listed on 

an NTEP CC. If force transducers (load cells) within a family are made from different materials, such as aluminum, 

alloy steel, or stainless steel, then all material types must be submitted for evaluation. If the force transducers (load 

cells) within a family are available in either a 4-wire or 6-wire version, then at least one 4-wire version and one 

6-wire version must be evaluated. This policy applies to all applications for new or amended NTEP Certificates of 

Conformance received after January 31, 2007. This policy is non-retroactive for NTEP Certificates of Conformance 

issued prior to February 1, 2007. 

Under the Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) for the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML), 

it is possible to obtain either an NTEP CC or an OIML R 60 Certificate or both with a single evaluation. NCWM is 

a utilizing participant under the MAA and as such will accept test data from issuing participants within the MAA. 

Evaluations performed by NTEP laboratories can only result in an NTEP CC. These certificates can cover a family 

of force transducers (load cells) based on the evaluation of representative samples from the family. In order to 

determine which specific models of force transducers (load cells) are to be used for evaluation, the following 

selection criterion shall be used: 

1. Evaluation of New Force Transducers (load cells) for NTEP Certificates Only

Required Information 

The following information is required from the manufacturer for review and selection of sample force transducers 

(load cells): 

a. Properly completed request for evaluation 

b. Drawing of each capacity force transducer (load cell) within the family to substantiate that they are of 

the same basic design 

c. Quality or accuracy class 

NTEP - D29 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

d. Maximum number of scale divisions requested (n-max) 

e. Minimum verification scale division requested (V-min) 

f. Force transducer (load cell) capacities 

g. The type(s) of material from which the force transducers (load cells) are made 

h. As applicable, outline dimensions and general description illustration of any special equipment 

(loading fixtures, interconnection boxes, etc.) that are intended to accompany the force transducers 

(load cells) submitted 

i. A complete set of test data on the force transducers (load cells) submitted for evaluation. (Test data is 

only required for those force transducers (load cells) submitted for type evaluation; test data for each 

capacity model in the family is not required.) 

j. The technology employed by the force transducer (load cell); e.g. strain gage (analog or digital), 

hydraulic, vibrating wire, piezoelectric, or other. Applicants for analog strain gage force transducers 

(load cells) must indicate on the application whether 4-wire or 6-wire (or both) design force 

transducers (load cells) are included in the family. 

Note: The manufacturer may market force transducers (load cells) with a smaller number of scale divisions (n-max) 

and/or with a larger V-min value than those listed on the approval certificate; however, the force transducer (load 

cell) or accompanying documentation must be marked with the appropriate n-max and V-min for which the force 

transducer (load cell) may be used. 

Selection Criteria 

A. Selection of force transducers (load cells) from the family shall be based on the following considerations: 

1. The selection of force transducers (load cells) shall be such that the number of force transducers (load cells) 

to be evaluated is minimized. 

2. Where force transducers (load cells) of the same capacity belong to different groups within the family, 

approval of the force transducer (load cell) with the best metrological characteristics (greatest n-max, 

smallest V-min) implies approval of the force transducers (load cells) with the lesser metrological 

characteristics. When a choice exists, the force transducers (load cells) with the best metrological 

characteristics shall be selected for the evaluation. 

3. Force transducers (load cells) with a capacity in between the capacities evaluated, as well as those with a 

capacity greater than the largest capacity model tested, but not over five times the largest capacity 

evaluated, are deemed to be approved. 

4. For any family of force transducers (load cells), the model with a capacity nearest the center of the range of 

capacities and with the best metrological characteristics shall be selected for evaluation. When the ratio of 

the largest capacity force transducer (load cell) within the group or family to the smallest capacity force 

transducer in the same group or family is 10:1 or less, a cell with a capacity nearest the center of the range 

shall be selected. The capacity of the selected cell shall not have a ratio greater than 5:1 in regard to the 

capacity of the force transducers (load cells) at the each extreme of the capacity range. If this is not 

possible, a second force transducer (load cell) must be selected for evaluation (see Item 5 below). If the 

selected mid-range capacity cell cannot be evaluated due to laboratory limitations, the NTEP representative 

should be contacted to select the specific model for evaluation. 

5. When the ratio of the largest capacity force transducer (load cell) within the group to the smallest capacity 

force transducer (load cell) within the same group or family significantly exceeds 10:1, then another force 

NTEP - D30 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

transducer (load cell) shall be selected for evaluation. The selected force transducer (load cell) shall have a 

capacity between 5 and 10 times that of the first force transducer (load cell) that was selected for 

evaluation. When no capacity meets this criteria, the selected force transducer (load cell) shall be that 

having the smallest capacity that exceeds 10 times that of the nearest smaller capacity force transducer 

(load cell) that has been selected for evaluation. Should the capacity of the selected cell exceed the 

capacity of the greatest capacity model in the family or group by a ratio greater than 10:1, an additional 

model must be selected for evaluation. 

6. If both 4-wire and 6-wire designs of force transducers (load cells) are included in the family, then at least 

one of the selected models for evaluation shall be of the 4-wire design and at least one of the remaining 

models shall be of the 6-wire design. 

7. If the family of force transducers (load cells) includes two or more types of material used for construction 

of the device, then at least one of the selected models for evaluation shall be of each type of material used 

for construction. 

8. If the family of force transducers (load cells) includes two or more means of environmental sealing 

(potting, welded cups, etc.) then at least one model using each sealing means shall be selected for 

evaluation. 

9. If the family of force transducers (load cells) includes two or more output levels (2 or 3 mV/V), then at 

least one model with each output level shall be selected for evaluation. 

B. Examples of force transducer (load cell) model selection for evaluation: 

a. Force Transducer (load cell) Family A characteristics 

1. Both stainless steel and alloy steel models 

2. 2 mV/V and 3 mV/V outputs 

3. Bending beams in smaller capacities and shear beam in larger 

4. 4-wire and 6-wire designs 

5. n-max is 5000 on all models 

6. Potting or welded metal cup sealing variations 

7. All V-min values equal to 0.015 % of cell capacity 

8. All capacities in pounds: 

500, 1000, 2000, 2500, 4000, 5000, 7500, 10 000, 15 000, 20 000 

The following cell models would be selected for evaluation: 

• One - 500 lb stainless steel, potted, 3 mV/V, 4-wire bending beam cell 

• One - 2500 lb alloy steel, potted, 2 mV/V, 4-wire shear beam cell 

• One - 15 000 lb stainless steel, welded, 3 mV/V, 6-wire shear beam cell 

Note that Item 2 in Part A above is not applicable in this situation since the metrological characteristics (n-max and 

V-min) for all of the models are equivalent. 

Note that Item 3 in Part A above is met since the 20 000 lb model is less than five times the capacity of the greatest 

capacity model selected for evaluation (15 000 lb). 

Note that Item 4 in Part A above is met since the 2500 lb capacity model of force transducer (load cell) is the closest 

to the center and is able to meet the requirements in both Item 4 and 5 and therefore was selected for evaluation. 

Note that Item 5 in Part A above is met since the ratio between the capacities of the models selected for evaluation 

does not exceed five. 

Note that Item 6 in Part A above is met by having at least one of the models selected of a 4-wire design and at least 

one of the models selected of a 6-wire design. 

NTEP - D31 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

Note that Item 7 in Part A above is met by having at least one of the models constructed from each type of materials 

used. 

Note that Item 8 in Part A above is met by having at least one of the selected models with each environmental 

sealing method employed within the family. 

Note that Item 9 in Part A above is met by having at least one of the selected models with a 3 mV/V output and at 

least one with a 2 mV/V output. 

b. Force Transducer (load cell) Family B characteristics 

1. Compression cells constructed from either alloy steel or stainless steel 

2. All cells are Class III L 

3. Cells from 10 000 lb to 75 000 lb have an n-max of 7500 and cells from 50 000 lb to 200 000 lb have 

an n-max of 10 000 

4. All cells are 2 mV/V 

5. All cells have the same environmental sealing 

6. All cells have V-min values equal to 0.018 % of their capacity 

7. All cells are of 6-wire design 

8. Cell capacities are: 

10 000; 25 000; 50 000; 75 000; 100 000; 200 000 

 The following models would be submitted for evaluation: 

• One - 50 000 lb with an n-max of 10 000 in stainless steel 

• One - 10 000 lb in alloy steel 

Note that Item 2 in Part A above is met with the selection of the 50 000 lb model with an n-max of 10 000 since it 

has the best metrological characteristics. 

Note that Item 3 in Part A above is met with the selection of the 10 000 lb model. Selection of the 200 000 lb model 

could have taken place but the 10 000 lb model was chosen because of the ease of testing. 

Note that Item 4 in Part A above is met with the selection of the 10 000 lb model since it is within the 5:1 capacity 

ratio of the 50 000 lb model initially selected. 

Note that Item 5 in Part A above is met with the selection of the 10 000 lb model since the ratio of its capacity to 

that of the 50 000 lb model does not exceed 5:1. 

Note that Item 6 in Part A above does not apply since all models are of 6-wire design. 

Note that Item 7 in Part A above is met with the selection of the 10 000 lb model in stainless steel and the 50 000 lb 

model in alloy steel thus covering both types of material used for construction of the force transducers (load cells) in 

the family. 

Note that Item 8 in Part A above does not apply since all models use the same means of environmental sealing. 

Note that Item 9 in Part A above does not apply since all models use the same output level of 2 mV/V. 

2. Evaluation of New Force Transducers (load cells) for OIML R 60 Certificate or OIML R 60 Certificate and 

NTEP Certificate of Conformance under the DoMC

Required Information 

The information needed for an OIML R 60 evaluation is listed in OIML Recommendation 60. If the manufacturer is 

seeking an NTEP Certificate of Conformance for the force transducer (load cell) family or individual model, the 

information shown in Section 1 above shall also be provided along with a properly completed application for NTEP 

NTEP - D32 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

evaluation. All NTEP requirements are to be met in this type of evaluation. The manufacturer must make certain 

that the issuing participant selected for the evaluation of the force transducer(s) (load cell(s)) is aware that the 

submittal is for both NTEP and OIML R 60. A completed application and copies of all submitted data must be sent 

to NTEP. Once the evaluation has been successfully completed, the issuing authority will provide an OIML 

Evaluation Report that may then be used to secure an OIML R 60 Certificate. This report is also sent to NTEP. 

NTEP will evaluate the OIML Evaluation Report and issue an NTEP Certificate of Conformance based on this 

evaluation. Note that issuance of an NTEP Certificate of Conformance may require the conduct of other tests not 

performed by the issuing participant. If this happens, the costs of these tests are the responsibility of the applicant. 

Note: Should the force transducers (load cells) submitted fail to comply with all OIML R 60 requirements and the 

manufacturer then seeks to secure an NTEP Certificate of Conformance based on the OIML Evaluation Report, 

additional testing may be required in order to fully determine compliance of the device(s) with NTEP requirements. 

The costs for any additional testing deemed necessary for completion of the NTEP review will be the responsibility 

of the applicant. 

Selection Criteria 

Selection of the force transducers (load cells) for evaluation shall be based on the OIML R 60 selection criteria as 

described in OIML Recommendation 60. 

3. Amendment of an Existing NTEP Certificate of Conformance to Add Capacities and/or Change 

Metrological Characteristics in Conjunction with an OIML R 60 Evaluation Under the DoMC

Required Information 

The information needed for an OIML R 60 evaluation is listed in OIML Recommendation 60. If the manufacturer is 

seeking to amend an existing NTEP Certificate of Conformance for the force transducer (load cell) family or 

individual model, the information shown in Section 1 above shall also be provided along with a properly completed 

application for NTEP evaluation. All NTEP requirements are to be met in this type of evaluation. 

Successfully completed, this type of evaluation will result in a test report and test certificate that may be used to 

secure an amended OIML R 60 Certificate. The test report will be reviewed by the NTEP and if the appropriate 

criteria are met a NEW NTEP Certificate of Conformance will be issued. Note that the original NTEP Certificate of 

Conformance will remain active and will not be amended. The new NTEP Certificate of Conformance resulting 

from this evaluation will list the new capacities added and/or the change in metrological characteristics. Note that 

the appropriate NTEP Certificate of Conformance number must be marked on the device in compliance with 

G-S.1. Marking Requirements of NIST Handbook 44. 

Note: Should the force transducers (load cells) submitted fail to comply with all OIML R 60 requirements and the 

manufacturer then seeks to only amend the existing NTEP Certificate of Conformance based on the test report, 

additional testing may be required in order to fully determine compliance of the device(s) with NTEP requirements. 

The costs for any additional testing deemed necessary for completion of the NTEP review will be the responsibility 

of the applicant. 

Selection Criteria 

The proper models for evaluation will depend upon the nature of the change or addition to be made. Because of this, 

NTEP personnel shall be contacted and shall determine which model or models of force transducer (load cell) are to 

be submitted. 

4. Amendment of an Existing NTEP Certificate of Conformance ONLY

Required Information 

The required information will depend upon the nature of the change being made. If additional models of force 

transducers (load cells) are being added to a family, then the same information and selection criteria as listed in 

NTEP - D33 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

Section 1 above apply. If the change is to add another version of the force transducer (load cell) listed on the current 

NTEP Certificate of Conformance the nature of the change or addition must be fully disclosed in the application. 

Selection Criteria 

The necessity of an evaluation to implement the requested change will depend upon the nature of the change. In 

general, addition of new models of force transducers (load cells) with capacities outside the 5:1 ratio of those 

previously evaluated will require additional evaluation. Addition of a 4-wire design with no change in capacity will 

require an evaluation while the addition of a 6-wire design with no change in capacity will not. The addition of 

models constructed from a different material will require the evaluation of at least one model constructed of the new 

material. NTEP personnel will inform you of what models, if any, require evaluation after review of the application. 

Attachment for Agenda Item 5 

31. Multi-Interval Scales 

. 

. 

. 

There are several considerations regarding the proper operation of tare on multi-interval scales. 

• All tares must be taken in the minimum increment. Therefore, the maximum tare allowed is the maximum 

capacity of the smallest weighing segment (WS). 

• Whenever gross and tare weights fall in different weighing segments, (hence the scale divisions for the 

gross and tare weights differ), the net weight must be in mathematical agreement with the gross and tare 

weights that are indicated and recorded, (i.e., net = gross - tare). 

• Scales that display or record only net weight values (e.g., most computing scales) may semi-automatically 

(pushbutton) take tare values to either the internal resolution or the displayed scale division.

• Manually entered keyboard, thumb-wheel, and digital tare values, and programmable tare values stored in 

memory for multiple transactions must be entered to the displayed scale division. 

In applying these principles, it is acceptable to:

• round the indicated and printed tare values (in the upward direction to the nearest) to the nearest 

appropriate net weight scale division.

• or display net weight values in scale divisions other than the scale division used in the display of gross 

weight, as when the gross and tare weights are in different ranges of the device. For example, a scale 

indicating in 2-lb divisions in the lower range and 5-lb divisions in the next higher range may result in net 

values ending in three or eight in the higher range.

In every case, it is required to maintain the mathematically correct equation:

net + tare = gross net = gross - tare

For multi-interval instruments, all tares, except for semi-automatic tare, must be taken in the minimum increment. 

Therefore, the maximum tare allowed is the maximum capacity of the smallest weighing range. 

Semi-automatic tare may be taken to the internal resolution of the scale and any indications or recorded 

representations of tare shall be rounded to the nearest verification scale division.

31.1. The requirements for the displayed scale division and the mathematical agreement of gross, tare, and net 

values depend on the information that can be displayed or recorded by the weighing system and may be 

summarized as follows: 

NTEP - D34 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

31.1.

6. 

Keyboard, programmable, and digital, tare entries, and tare stored in 

memory for multiple transactions must be consistent with the displayed 

division size. Incorrect entries may be rounded to the nearest displayed 

scale division or rejected. 

Yes  No  N/A 

31.1.

7. 

Devices equipped with a tare capability must, at all times, indicate and 

record values that satisfy the equation net = gross - tare. 

Yes  No  N/A 

31.1.

8. 

Devices equipped with a semi-automatic (push-button) tare must meet 

the tolerances for net loads for any tare value. 

Yes  No  N/A 

31.1.

9. 

Scales that display or record only net weight values (e.g., most 

computing scales) 

• may take semi-automatic (push-button) tare and gross values 

to either the internal resolution of the scale. Printed and 

displayed net weights shall be rounded to the nearest division, 

or the displayed scale division. 

Yes  No  N/A 

• may take all tare values to either the internal resolution or the 

displayed scale division, and. 

Yes  No  N/A 

• must always begin with the lowest weighing segment on the 

device regardless of the amount of tare that is taken. 

Yes  No  N/A 

31.2. For scales that indicate in only one mode (gross or net) while under load, the scale division for the net 

weight, whether positive or negative, must be displayed in scale divisions consistent with the weighing 

range in which the net weight falls. 

31.2.

4. 

Devices equipped with semi-automatic (push-button) tare must meet 

the tolerances for net loads for any tare taken up to the tare capacity of 

the scale. 

Yes  No  N/A 

31.2.

5. 

Whenever semi-automatic (push-button) tare is taken and a scale is 

equipped with only a net display mode, the net weight values must 

always begin with the lowest weighing range on the device. 

Yes  No  N/A 

. 

31.2.

9. 

For all weighing segments ranges, e must equal d. Yes  No  N/A 

32. Multiple Range Scales 

A multiple range scale is an instrument having two or more weighing ranges with different maximum capacities and 

different scale intervals for the same load receptor, each range extending from zero to its maximum capacity. The 

weighing ranges may be either manually or automatically selected. Each weighing range is considered to be an 

individual scale and evaluated accordingly. 

The capacity and verification scale division for each weighing range must be conspicuously marked near on the 

reading face of the weight display. The range in use must be clearly indicated. If a scale has a decimal point and a 

different number of decimal places in each weighing range, the position of the decimal point and the number of 

digits following is an adequate definition of the weighing range in use. If the weighing ranges do not utilize a 

decimal point and differing numbers of decimal places, (e.g., scale division are 20 lb, 50 lb, and 100 lb), another 

method such as an external range indicator must be provided to indicate the weighing range in use. 

Whenever gross and tare weights fall in different weighing ranges so that the scale divisions for the gross and tare 

weights differ, the net weight must agree mathematically with the gross and tare weights that are indicated or 

recorded (i.e., net = gross - tare) 

On a multiple range instrument, a tare value may only be transferred from one weighing range to another one with a 

larger verification scale interval and but shall then be rounded in the upward direction to the nearest scale division of

the latter verification interval. 

NTEP - D35 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

32.1

. 

The range in use shall be conspicuously indicated. Yes  No  N/A 

32.3

. 

Devices with a tare capability must indicate and record values that satisfy the 

equation net = gross - tare and round the tare value up to the nearest larger division 

size when entering the larger division. Examples, 2 g changes to 50 g not 05 g and 

3 g changes to 5 g not 0 g.

Yes  No  N/A 

32.4

. 

Keyboard tare entries must be consistent with the displayed scale division. Yes  No  N/A 

Attachment for Agenda Item 8 

37. Grain Test Scales 

Code Reference: G-S.2., S.2.1.2., and S.2.3., UR.1.4. 

Grain test scales are those used for weighing grain samples to determine moisture content, dockage, weight per unit 

volume, etc. These scales may compute percentages based upon a stored sample weight and a load placed on the 

scale platform. The scale may also compute a weight per bushel or hectoliter based upon a specified volume of 

grain placed on the platform. 

If a scale is to be used by the Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA, formerly the Federal 

Grain Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture), for the official grading of grain, the scales must meet 

more stringent requirements than are necessary for Handbook 44 applications and listed on the NTEP CC. These 

differences are given in Items 7, 8, and 9 37.8. and 37.9. 

37.7. For Handbook 44 only (non-GIPSA) applications, percent calculations may not 

be displayed unless the value of the scale division is less than or equal to 0.2 g for 

loads up to 500 g and less than or equal to 1.0 g for loads greater than 500 g. (See 

NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph UR.1.4.) 

Yes  No  N/A 



37.8. For GIPSA grain test scale applications to be listed on the CC, calculations for 

test weight must be based on a sample size of one quart only. Calculations are not to 

be based on a sample size of one1 pint nor shall the capability to compute the test 

weight per bushel on the basis of 1 pint to be permitted on scales for use by the 

GIPSA. 

Yes  No  N/A 



37.9. For GIPSA grain test scale applications to be listed on the CC, the following 

requirements must be satisfied: 

37.9.1. The percent values shall be rounded and displayed to at least 0.1 %.To 

calculate and display percent values, the verification scale division cannot 

exceed 0.01 g for loads up to 120 g and 0.5 g for loads in excess of 120 g 

through 1000 g.

Yes  No  N/A 



37.9.2. The verification scale division (e) for grain-test scales shall not exceed:

- 0.1 g for separations from loads through 500 g, and

- 1.0 g for separations from loads above 500 g through 1000 g.

For scales used to weigh separations from loads of 100 g and less, d shall 

be less than or equal to 0.01 g, but may utilize expanded resolution.The 

percent values shall be rounded and displayed to at least 0.1 percent.

Yes  No  N/A 



NTEP - D36 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

37.9.3. Selection of a scale with an appropriate division size shall be a user 

requirement, based on the work portion size, and both the work portion 

and the separation shall be weighed using a scale with the same (or 

smallerbetter) maximum division size. For example: To calculate and 

display test weight values, the verification scale division cannot exceed 

0.5 g.

Yes  No  N/A 



GIPSA Required Division Sizes

Work Portion Division Requirement Accuracy Class

≤ 100 g e ≤ 0.1 g; d ≤ 0.01 g II (expanded resolution*)

> 100 g e ≤ 0.1 g; d ≤ 0.1 g II, III

> 500 g e ≤ 1 g ; d ≤ 1 g II, III

37.9.4. For official weighing, the GIPSA has three categories of electronic 

laboratory scales used as grain test scales: precision, moisture, and 

general. The accuracy classes and scale divisions used for these scale 

categories shall not exceed those given in the following table.

Yes  No  N/A 

Category Accuracy Class Scale Division

Precision II e ≤ 0.01 g d ≤ 0.01 g

Moisture II, III e ≤ 0.1 g d ≤ 0.1 g

General II, III e ≤ 0.5 g d ≤ 0.5 g

NOTE: For Class III scales e ≤ d. GIPSA requires that e = d for Moisture and General 

Categories, Class II grain scales used in GIPSA applications. 

List the models and capacities that satisfy the requirements for each category.

Attachment for Agenda Item 9 

11. Indicating and Recording Elements – General 

Code References: G-S.2., G-S.5.1., G-S.5.2.2., and S.1.2. 

There are several general requirements to facilitate the reading and interpretation of displayed weight values. Other 

requirements address the proper operation of indicating and recording elements.

11.19 As used in this section, a wireless communications device may include weighing elements, load-receiving 

elements, indicating elements, recording elements (output), etc. that are capable of transmitting and/or 

receiving metrological information between elements.

The following procedures shall be used to evaluate indicating elements that communicate digital weight 

and other information from separable load-receiving elements or other peripheral equipment (i.e., PC or 

remote control) by means of a radio transmitter/receiver or other wireless communication devices. At least 

two (2) complete devices (e.g. crane scales) indicating elements shall be evaluated to ensure:

11.19.1 There is no interference from one complete device to another of the same 

type.

Yes  No  N/A 

11.19.2 The signal from a weighing element is sent to the appropriate (correct) 

indicator.

Yes  No  N/A 

11.19.3 The indicator displays an error message or displays meaningless 

information that could not be mistaken for a valid weight indication, when 

the signal from the weighing element (or the metrologically significant 

Yes  No  N/A 

NTEP - D37 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

peripheral equipment) is interrupted or blocked by all of the following 

actions:

11.19.3.

1

-turning the power off to the weighing element, Yes  No  N/A 

11.19.3.

2

-turning the power off to the metrologically significant 

peripheral equipment,

Yes  No  N/A 

11.19.3.

3

-attempting to block the signal with a steel plate, or Yes  No  N/A 

-moving the indicator away from the weighing element, or

-moving the indicator away from the metrologically significant 

peripheral equipment.

Record the actions above (e.g., distance) at which an accurate 

indication is maintained: __________________.

This information is for reference purposes and will not be 

listed or reported on the CC.

11.19.4 If the indicator can be connected to more than one W/LRE at the same 

time, by means of a radio link or other wireless means, the indicator will 

be evaluated with at least two weighing elements (placed side by side) 

with the wireless communication capability and shall meet all the same 

requirements as an indicator using physical connection to the weighing 

elements.

Yes  No  N/A 

11.19.5 If more than one wireless communicating device indicatorcan be 

connected to one single communicating device weighing elementat the 

same time using the wireless communication method, the evaluation will 

be performed with at least two indicators (placed side by side) and 

connected to the weighing element using the wireless communication 

method and shall meet all the same requirements as indicators using 

physical connection to the weighing element.

Yes  No  N/A 

11.19.6 If the wireless communication is battery powered, the device continues to 

perform within applicable tolerance when the DC voltage to the device is 

lowered to the lowest DC voltage where a weight display is available and 

raised to the highest voltage recommended by the device manufacturer.

If the manufacturer does not specify the highest DC voltage, the device 

will be tested with a DC power supply equal to the nominal DC voltage. 

The device will then be tested with a DC power supply equal to the 

nominal DC voltage plus 10 %. The low power supply testing will be 

conducted at the maximum range (distance) determined at the nominal 

DC voltage which an accurate indication is maintained.

Yes  No  N/A 

Attachment for Agenda Item 10 

51. Proportional and Percentage Tare

Code References: G-S.2, G-S.5.1, G-S.5.5.2.2, G-S.5.6

Proportional tare is a value, automatically calculated by the scale, proportional to the gross weight indicated by the 

scale. A proportional tare can be a percentage tare or a fixed tare value proportional to a range of gross weights (i.e., 

a 10 g tare for gross weights between 0 and 2 kg, a 20 g tare for gross weights between 2 kg and 4 kg, etc.). A 

proportional tare is, therefore, not limited to being a percentage tare.

Percentage tare is a value, expressed as a percentage (i.e., 5.6 %), that represents the percentage of tare material 

NTEP - D38 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

compared to the gross or net weight of the commodity. A percentage tare is one form of proportional tare.

The following terms and abbreviations will be used in determining percentage tare:

GW1 = First Gross Weight % TV = Percentage Tare Value (example: 2 %, 5 %)

FTW = Fixed Tare Weight % TW = Percentage Tare Weight

GW2 = Final Gross Weight NW = Net Weight

51.1 The scale does not accept negative values for percentage tare. The tare shall operate 

only in the backward direction.

Yes  No  NA 

51.2 Percentage tare values may only be entered through the keyboard when the device is at 

gross load zero and in a "configuration" mode.

Yes  No  NA 

Percentage and/or proportional tares may be preprogrammed into PLU codes. PLU codes may 

be entered or changed at any time, whether or not a load is on the platter.

Both fixed and percentage tares may be deducted from the gross weight to obtain the final net 

weight for a transaction. For instance, a PLU code may be preprogrammed with fixed and 

percentage tares; or a platter or keyboard tare may be manually entered first. Then a 

percentage tare may be applied, through a PLU code.

51.3 The tare weight shall not be rounded prior to subtracting the tare weight value from 

the gross weight. The tare value(s) must be deducted first and then the final net 

weight value rounded off to the nearest scale interval. Rounding of the net weight is 

not performed until the last mathematical operation.

Yes  No  NA 

51.4 The visual confirmation that a tare has been applied (i.e., "Net" annunciator) must 

only be enabled if the percentage tare multiplied by the final gross weight represents 

one or more scale intervals after the appropriate rounding. The turning on of the "Net" 

annunciator must only occur if tare has actually been applied to the gross weight.

Yes  No  NA 

51.5 Percentage tare shall be manually entered or preprogrammed as part of a PLU in units 

of percent (or as a decimal fraction, e.g., 1 % = 0.01). Percentage tare shall not exceed 

99.9 %.

Yes  No  NA 

51.6 Except for POS systems, the net weight must be displayed when a percentage or 

proportional tare is entered.

Yes  No  NA 

51.7 If the device deducts both a fixed tare and a percentage tare from the gross weight, the 

fixed tare shall be deducted first.

Yes  No  NA 

When percentage tare is used, the preferred method* of calculating the net weight is:

Net Weight = (GW1–FTW) – GW2 (%TV/100)

The net weight of the following example is:

 Net Weight = (GW1 – FTW) – [GW2 (%TV/100)]

= (355 g – 10 g) – [345 g (10/100)]

= (345 g) – 345 g (0.10)

= 345 g – 34.5 g

= 310.5 g Rounded to the nearest scale division = 310 g

*Note: Another acceptable method of calculating the net weight is based on the percentage of net weight (%NW).

Scale GW1 FTW GW2 %TV %TW = %TV * GW2 NW

15 kg x 5 g 355 g 10 g 345 g 10 34.5 g 310.5 g

NTEP - D39 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

The percentage of net weight = [1 - (%TV/100)]).

Net Weight = GW2 [1–(%TV/100)]

The net weight of the following example is:

Scale GW1 FTW GW2 %TV %TW = %TV * GW2 NW

15 kg x 5 g 355 g 10 g 345 g 10 34.5 g 310.5 g

 Net Weight = (GW1–FTW) [1–(%TV/100)]

= 345 g [1–(10/100)]

= 345 g [1–(.10)]

= 345 g [.90]

= 310.5 g Rounded to the nearest scale division = 310 g

Attachment for Agenda Item 12 

4. Additional Marking Requirements – W/LREs 

Code References: S.6., Table S.6.3.a., and Table S.6.3.b. 

W/LREs and indicators that are; (1) in the same housing, or (2) permanently hard wired together, or (3) sealed with a 

physical seal or an electronic link, shall have markings that comply with Section 1, Markings - Applicable to 

Indicating, W/LREs and Complete Scales. This does not apply to indicating elements that have no input or effect on 

W/LRE calibrations or configurations. 

W/LREs that are not permanently attached to the indicator may be interfaced with many different indicators. 

Consequently, these W/LREs must be marked with information that clearly identifies the manufacturer, the model, 

and the capacity of the W/LRE. 

Since the United States permits indicating and W/LREs to be evaluated separately with different indicating and 

W/LREs to be assembled at the time of scale installation, additional marking requirements were adopted in 1987. To 

facilitate the proper installation of equipment and to permit verification by the enforcement official, a W/LRE not 

permanently attached to an indicating element must be marked with: 

1. its accuracy class, 

2. the maximum number of scale divisions, nmax, and 

3. minimum verification scale division, emin, for which the W/LRE complies with the applicable requirements. 

W/LREs not permanently attached to an indicating element shall be clearly and permanently marked with: 

4.1. The nominal capacity of the W/LRE. Yes  No  N/A 

4.2. Its accuracy class. Indicate class: ________________________________ Yes  No  N/A 

4.3. The maximum number of scale divisions for which it complies with requirements. 

The preferred abbreviation or symbol is nmax. 

Yes  No  N/A 

4.4. The minimum verification scale division for which it complies with requirements. 

The preferred abbreviation or symbol is emin. 

Yes  No  N/A 

NTEP - D40 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

4.4. The minimum verification scale division for which it complies with requirements. 

The preferred abbreviation or symbol is emin. 

Yes  No  N/A 

4.5. The W/LRE shall be marked with the operating temperature range if the temperature 

range is other than 14 °F to 104 °F (–10 °C to 40 °C). 

Yes  No  N/A 

NTEP - D41 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

76. List of Acceptable Abbreviations/Symbols 

Device Application Term Acceptable Not Acceptable 

General: 

Values Defined: 

*Exceptions to Gen’l 

Tables 

Of W&M, HB44:

maximum number of 

scale 

divisions 

nmax N

Weighing and 

Indicating Elements:

Section Capacity Sec C or Sec Cap SC

W/LREs minimum value of 

verification scale division 

emin E

maximum number of 

scale 

divisions 

nmax N

single or multiple cell 

applications 

S = Single; 

M = Multiple 

Load Cells 

load cell verification 

interval 

vmin V

Attachment for Agenda Item 13 

8.2. Additional criteria for vehicle scales, railway track scale, combination vehicle/railway track scale, and 

other platform scales greater that 200 000 lb. 

A CC will apply to all models having: 

e. spans between sections of not more than 20 % greater than the equipment evaluated; (for vehicle scale no 

greater than the device evaluated) 

Notes for e: 

1. On a combination Vehicle /Railway Track Scale, a test of the CLC for the vehicle portion of the scale is not 

required provided the scale has been evaluated as a Railway Track Scale.

2. The device must be evaluated using the smallest emin value that will be listed on the certificate. This may 

require the use of a multiple range weight indicator for combination vehicle/railway track scales.

3. The CLC for the vehicle scale portion of the device must not exceed the maximum test weight used for the 

section test section capacity of the railway track scale. The CLC listed on the CC shall be no greater than 

what would be permitted in Section 8. d.).

NTEP - D42 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix A. Recommendations

Attachment for Agenda Item 14 

E. Modification of Type (DES-12-13) 

9. Adding a rotary dump feature/option/modification to a railway track scale requires an evaluation to be listed 

on a new or existing CC.

69a. Additional Tests for Railway Track Scales with a “Rotary Dump” Feature: 

Repeatability Test

In addition to the tests in Section 69, an additional “return to zero” and “section” test using the available test 

weight(s) shall be conducted on railway track scales with a rotary dump feature.

69a.1 After the strain-load test(s) have been completed according to Section 69.7:

1. With the zero-tracking mechanism disabled, zero the indicator.

2. Move a loaded car on to the scale and record the gross weight.

3. Dump the loaded car using all the installed equipment that is used in the 

dumping process including retarders, vibrators, car ejector, etc., and record 

the tare weight.

4. Then move the empty car off the scale.

The indications shall return to zero within applicable tolerances.

Yes  No  NA 

69a.2 To verify repeatability of the scale accuracy,

1. Rezero the scale if necessary;

2. Perform a complete section test in both directions using the same maximum 

test weight(s) used in paragraph 69.5.

The results of the section test after dumping a loaded car shall repeat the indications 

of the initial test within acceptance tolerances.

Yes  No  NA 

Attachment for Agenda Item 16 

46.1.1. A separate continuous display of tare. 

46.1.2. The device has selectable GROSS, TARE, and NET weight display modes with proper descriptors for this 

information. 

46.1.3. The device has selectable GROSS and NET weight display modes with proper descriptors for this 

information. 

46.1.4. The display indicates only the net weight and a NET legend or annunciator appears when a tare weight is 

entered. Gross weight is displayed when the tare weight entry is zero and the NET legend or annunciator is 

off. 

46.1.5. A lighted legend or annunciator of TARE ENTERED or words that clearly state similar statement is used to 

indicate that a tare value has been entered and the display indicated net weight.

46.2. An entry of “zero” tare should not activate the TARE ENTERED annunciator orcause the display to 

automatically switch the NET display mode. (Scales equipped with a continuous tare display or tare 

display mode will indicate zero when the tare weight entry is zero; however, the entry of zero tare must not 

cause the display to automatically switch to the net mode.) 

NTEP - D43 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix B. Meeting Attendees

Appendix B 

2006 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Attendees 

First Name Last 

Name Organization E-mail Address 

William Bates USDA, GIPSA, FMD, PPB william.e.bates@usda.gov 

Steven Beitzel Systems Associates, Inc sjbeitzel@systemassoc.com 

Andrea Buie Maryland Department of Agriculture buieap@mda.state.md.us 

Luciano Burtini Measurement Canada burtini.luciano@ic.gc.ca 

Steven Cook NIST, Weights & Measures Division steven.cook@nist.gov 

Scott Davidson Mettler Toledo scott.davidson@mt.com 

Terry Davis Kansas Department of Agriculture/W&M Division tdavis@kda.state.ks.us 

Robert K. Feezor Norfolk Southern Corporation rkfeezor@mindspring.com 

William Fishman New York Bureau of Weights & Measures Bill.fishman@agmkt.state.ny.us 

Darrell Flocken Mettler-Toledo, Inc. darrell.flocken@mt.com 

William G. GeMeiner Union Pacific Railroad wgemeiner@up.com 

Paul Hadyka USDA, GIPSA, FGIS paul.hadyka@usda.gov 

Scott Henry NCR Corporation scott.henry@ncr.com 

Richard Harshman NIST, Weights and Measures Division richard.harshman@nist.gov 

Ken Jones California Division of Measurement Standards kjones@cdfa.ca.gov 

Takashi Kawazoe New Brunswick International, Inc. TKService@nbidigi.com 

Stephen Langford Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co. slangford@cardet.com 

Jean Lemay Measurement Canada lemay@ic.gc.ca 

Paul Lewis Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc. paulew@rlws.com 

Todd Lucas Ohio Department of Agriculture lucas@mail.agri.state.oh.us 

L. Edward Luthy Brechbuhler Scales Inc eluthy@bscales.com 

Nigel Mills Hobart Corporation nigel.mills@hobartcorp.com 

Don Onwiler Nebraska Division of Weights & Measures donwiler@agr.ne.gov 

Stephen Patoray NCWM spatoray@mgmtsol.com 

Kenneth Ramsburg Maryland Department of Agriculture 

Byron School USDA, GIPSA, FMD, PPB Byron.C.School@usda.gov 

Louis Straub Fairbanks Scales, Inc. strauble@yahoo.com 

Otto Warnlof warnlof@aol.com 

John Wong Teraoka Weigh-Systems P/L john@teraoka.com.sg 

Jesus Zapien A&D Engineering, Inc. jzapien@andweighing.com 

NTEP - D44 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix B. Meeting Attendees

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

NTEP - D45 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix C. Attachments

Appendix C 

Attachments 

Attachment for Agenda Item 5

NCWM Form 15 

Proposal to a Standing Committee 

Committee: Specifications and Tolerances

Date: October 16, 2006 Regional Association: SWMA 

Name/Address of Contact Persons: 

Steven Cook 

Weighing Sector NIST Technical Advisor 

NIST Weights and Measures Division 

Attention: Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

Phone: (301) 975-4004 Fax: (301) 975-8091 

e-mail: steven.cook@nist.gov 

Regional Actions: (votes for and against) 

Please Attach Additional Pages and Information as Needed 

Proposal: Amend Handbook 44 – Appendix D Definitions as follows: 

Amend the following definition for tare mechanism: 

Tare Mechanism. A mechanism (including a tare bar) designed for determining or balancing out the weight of 

packaging material, containers, vehicles, or other materials that are not intended to be included in net weight 

determinations and setting the indication to zero when the tare object is on the load-receiving element:

- by reducing the weighing range for net loads [e.g. subtractive tare (e.g., 15 kg Gross – 5 kg Tare = 10 kg 

maximum net weight)], or

- without altering the weighing range for net load on mechanical scales [additive tare mechanism (e.g., tare bar 

on a mechanical scale with a beam indicator)].

The tare mechanism may function as:

- a non-automatic mechanism (load balanced by an operator),

- a semi-automatic mechanism (load balanced automatically following a single manual command),

- an automatic mechanism where the load balanced automatically without the intervention of an operator. An 

automatic tare mechanism is only suitable for indirect sales to the customer (e.g. prepackaging scales).

Add the following new definitions: 

Gross Weight Value. Indication or recorded representation of the weight of a load on a weighing device, with 

no tare mechanism in operation.

Net Weight. See the current edition of NIST Handbook 130 Uniform Weights and Measures Law Section 1.10.

Net Weight Value. Indication or recorded representation of the weight of a load placed on a weighing device 

after the operation of a tare mechanism.

Tare. The weight of packaging material, containers, vehicles, or other materials that are not intended to be part 

of the commodity included in net weight determinations.

Tare Weight Value. The weight value of a load determined by a tare mechanism.

NTEP - D46 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix C. Attachments

Problem/Justification: 

The Scales Code in Handbook 44 has very few requirements for the operation, indications, and recorded 

representations, specifically for tare. These requirements include paragraphs S.2.1.6. Combined Zero-Tare (0/T) 

Key, S.2.3. Tare., S.2.3.1. Monorail Scales Equipped with Digital Indications, and T.N.2.1. General (Tolerances). 

NTEP has further developed type evaluation criteria for tare based on the reference Handbook 44 paragraphs, 

General Code paragraph G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud, and other General Code paragraphs for indicating and 

recording elements and recorded representations. It has increasingly become difficult to support the NTEP 

evaluation criteria citing paragraph G-S.2. since it is general in nature and subject to multiple interpretations. 

Additionally, the general nature of G-S.2. makes it difficult for weights and measures officials, device 

manufacturers, and device owners and operators to be aware of the tare requirements that have been agreed upon by 

the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector. (Note: The Weighing Sector is 

comprised of weight and measures officials, device manufacturers, and NIST, USDA, and Measurement Canada). 

Background: In 2006, the NTETC Weighing Sector formed a small Work Group (WG) to review “Tare” operation 

and requirements, and make recommendations on how tare is applied to single range, multiple range, and multiinterval scale operation. The WG was also asked to develop a recommendation(s) for changes to Publication 14 and 

Handbook 44 and provide the Weighing Sector guidance on checklist requirements. 

The WG, having met on five occasions through conference calls, developed a list of action items including proposed 

changes to NIST Handbook 44. The Weighing Sector, at its 2006 meeting, reviewed the list of action items and 

agreed the WG should submit their proposals to amend Handbook 44 Appendix D by amending the term “tare 

mechanism” and adding new tare definitions to ensure a uniform understating of the terminology used in 

Handbook 44. 

Additionally, the “tare” WG is currently developing proposed recommendations to amend the Handbook 44 tare 

requirements that will increase the accuracy of net weight determinations, clearly state what is permitted for 

indication and recorded representations of net and tare weights, and identify tare weights that are determined at the 

time objects are weighed or tare weights that are determined prior to the time the objects are weighed (e.g., 

semiautomatic and stored tares). Adoption of the above proposal to amend Appendix D will facilitate developing 

specific language for Handbook 44 specifications, test notes, and tolerances for different types of tare (e.g., tare, 

preset tare, percentage tare, etc.). 

Other Contacts: (Provide position statements, comments, etc. from names and addresses of individuals, firms, 

manufacturers, and/or trade associations included in developing the proposal.) 

Other Reasons For: (If none, please indicate none have emerged.) 

None have emerged 

Other Reasons Against: 

None have emerged 

Additional Considerations: (provide cost estimates and state the anticipated benefits for all parties or indicate how 

the proposal may affect other requirements, programs, etc.) 

Attachments: (list the accompanying documents, data, 

studies etc.) 

A listing and original source material for the proposed 

changes to Appendix D from the NTETC Weighing Sector 

Tare WG. 

Suggested Action: (Be specific on what action the 

committee should take on the item.) 

 Recommend NCWM 5Adoption  Withdraw 

 Developing Item 

 Informational Item 

 Other (Please describe) 

NTEP - D47 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix C. Attachments

NCWM Form 15 

Proposal to a Standing Committee 

Committee: Specifications and Tolerances

Date: October 16, 2006 Regional Association: SWMA 

Name/Address of Contact Persons: 

Steven Cook 

NIST Weights and Measures Division 

Attention: Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

Phone: (301) 975-4004 Fax: (301) 975-8091 

e-mail: steven.cook@nist.gov 

Regional Actions: (votes for and against) 

Please Attach Additional Pages and Information as Needed 

Proposal: Amend paragraph S.1.1. (b) as follows:

S.1.1.1. Digital Indicating Elements. 

(a) A digital zero indication shall represent a balance condition that is within ± 1⁄2 the value of the scale division. 

(b) A digital indicating device shall either automatically maintain a "center-of-zero" condition to ± 1⁄4 scale 

division or less, or have an auxiliary or supplemental "center-of-zero" indicator that defines a zero balance 

condition to ± 1⁄4 of a scale division or less. The auxiliary or supplemental “center-of-zero” indicator may be 

operable with a zero net weight indication.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1993] 

(Amended 1992 and 200X) 

Problem/Justification: 

The Scales Code in Handbook 44 has very few requirements for the operation, indications, and recorded 

representations, specifically for the use and performance of tare mechanisms used in weighing devices. These 

requirements include paragraphs S.2.1.6. Combined Zero-Tare (0/T) Key, S.2.3. Tare., S.2.3.1. Monorail Scales 

Equipped with Digital Indications, and T.N.2.1. General (Tolerances). NTEP has further developed type evaluation 

criteria for tare based on the reference Handbook 44 General Code paragraph G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud and other 

General Code paragraphs for indicating and recording elements and recorded representations. It has increasingly 

become difficult to support the NTEP evaluation criteria citing paragraph G-S.2. since it is general in nature and 

subject to multiple interpretations. Additionally, the general nature of G-S.2. makes it difficult for weights and 

measures officials, device manufacturers, and device owners and operators to be aware of the tare requirements that 

have been agreed upon by the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector that are 

published in NCWM Publication 14. (Note: The Weighing Sector is comprised of weight and measures officials, 

device manufacturers, and NIST, USDA, and Measurement Canada). 

An example of an NTEP interpretation is that a device may display a “center-of-zero” indication with a load on the 

scale provided that the load on the scale has been balanced off by the tare mechanism and the resultant zero net 

indication is within ± 1⁄4 scale division. 

Background: In 2006, the NTETC Weighing Sector formed a small Work Group (WG) to review “Tare” operation 

and requirements and make recommendations on how tare is applied to single range, multiple range, and multiinterval scale operation. The WG was also asked to develop a recommendation(s) for changes to Publication 14 and 

Handbook 44 and provide the Weighing Sector guidance on checklist requirements. 

The WG, having met on five occasions through conference calls, developed a list of action items including proposed 

changes to NIST Handbook 44. The Weighing Sector, at its 2006 meeting, reviewed the list of action items and 

agreed with the WG should submit its proposals to amend Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph S.1.1.1.(b) Digital 

Indicating Elements to clarify that an auxiliary or supplemental “center-of-zero" indicator is permitted with a load 

on the scale provided the object used for tare has been balanced off by the tare mechanism and the resultant zero net 

indication is within ± 1⁄4 scale division. 

NTEP - D48 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix C. Attachments

Additionally, the “tare” WG is currently developing proposed recommendations to amend the Handbook 44 tare 

requirements that will increase the accuracy of net weight determinations, clearly state what is permitted for 

indicated and recorded representations of net and tare weights, and identify tare weights that are determined at the 

time objects are weighed or tare weights that are determined prior to the time the objects are weighed (e.g., 

semiautomatic and stored tares). Adoption of the above proposal to amend Appendix D will facilitate developing 

specific language for Handbook 44 specifications, test notes, and tolerances for different types of tare (e.g., tare, 

preset tare, percentage tare, etc.). 

Other Contacts: (Provide position statements, comments, etc. from names and addresses of individuals, firms, 

manufacturers, and/or trade associations included in developing the proposal.) 

Other Reasons For: (If none, please indicate none have emerged.) 

Other Reasons Against: None have emerged 

Additional Considerations: (provide cost estimates and state the anticipated benefits for all parties or indicate how 

the proposal may affect other requirements, programs, etc.) 

Attachments: (list the accompanying documents, data, 

studies etc.) 

Suggested Action: (Be specific on what action the 

committee should take on the item.) 

 Recommend NCWM 5 Adoption  Withdraw 

 Developing Item 

 Informational Item 

 Other (Please describe) 

NTEP - D49 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix C. Attachments

NCWM Form 15 

Proposal to a Standing Committee 

Committee: Specifications and Tolerances

Date: October 16, 2006 Regional Association: SWMA 

Name/Address of Contact Persons: 

Steven Cook 

NIST Weights and Measures Division 

Attention: Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

Phone: (301) 975-4004 Fax: (301) 975-8091 

e-mail: steven.cook@nist.gov 

Regional Actions: (votes for and against) 

Please Attach Additional Pages and Information as Needed 

Proposal: Add a new note to Scales Code paragraph S.1.2.1. as follows: 

S.1.2.1. Weight Units. - Except for postal scales, a digital-indicating scale shall indicate weight values using only a 

single unit of measure. Weight values shall be presented in a decimal format with the value of the scale division 

expressed as 1, 2, or 5, or a decimal multiple or submultiples of 1, 2, or 5. 

Note: The requirement that the value of the scale division be expressed as 1, 2, or 5, or a decimal multiple or 

submultiples of 1, 2, or 5 does not apply to net weights that are calculated from gross and tare weight indications 

where the scale value of the gross weight is different than the scale value of the tare weight(s) on multi-interval or 

multiple range scales. For example, a scale indicating in 2 kg divisions in the lower range or segment and 5 kg 

divisions in the higher range or segment may result in net values ending in three (3) or eight (8) or a scale indicating 

in 20 lb divisions in the lower range and 50 lb divisions in the higher range or segment may result in net values in 30 

or 80.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1989]

(Added 1987) (Amended 200X) 

Amend Scales Code paragraph T.N.2.1. as follows: 

T.N.2.1. General. – The tolerance values are positive (+) and negative (–) with the weighing device adjusted to zero 

at no load. When tare is used, the tolerance values are applied from the tare zero reference (zero net indication); the 

tolerance values apply to the net weight indication for every possible tare load using certified test loads only. 

(Amended 200X)

Add a new note to the AWS Code paragraph S.1.2.1. as follows: 

S.1.2. Value of Division Units. – The value of a division d expressed in a unit of weight shall be equal to: 

(a) 1, 2, or 5; or 

(b) a decimal submultiple of 1, 2, or 5. 

Note: The requirement that the value of the scale division be expressed as 1, 2, or 5, or a decimal multiple or 

submultiples of 1, 2, or 5 does not apply to net weights that are calculated from gross and tare weight indications 

where the scale value of the gross weight is different than the scale value of the tare weight(s) on multi-interval or 

multiple range scales. For example, a scale indicating in 2 g divisions in the lower range or segment and 5 g 

divisions in the higher range or segment may result in net values ending in three (3) or eight (8).

(Amended 200X)

Amend Scales Code paragraph T.N.2.1. as follows: 

T.2.1. General. – The tolerance values are positive (+) and negative (–) with the weighing device adjusted to zero at 

NTEP - D50 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix C. Attachments

no load. When tare is used, the tolerance values are applied from the tare zero reference (zero net indication); the 

tolerance values apply to the net weight indication for every possible tare load using certified test loads only. 

(Amended 200X)

Problem/Justification: 

In 2006, the NTETC Weighing Sector formed a small WG to review “Tare” operation and requirements in general 

and make recommendations on how tare is applied to single range, multiple range, and multi-interval scale 

operation. The WG was asked to develop a recommendation(s) for changes to Publication 14, Handbook 44, and 

Handbook 130 (if necessary) and provide the Weighing Sector guidance on checklist requirements. 

The Tare WG discussed the problems of rounding tare on multi-interval and multiple range scales when the net 

weight was in a different weighing range than the tare weight. Whenever gross and tare weights fall in different 

weighing segments on a multi-interval scale or in different weighing ranges on multiple range scales the scale 

divisions for the gross and tare weights differ. The net weight must be in mathematical agreement with the gross 

and tare weights that are indicated and recorded, (i.e., gross – tare = net). 

This becomes a problem when tare vales are rounded to the net weight scale division that is larger than the scale 

division of the tare value. For example, a 0.004 lb tare in a weighing range or segment with 0.002 lb intervals in the 

lower weighing range or segment may round to zero when the net weight falls in the upper weighing range with 

0.01 lb intervals (10.05 lb Gross - 0.004 lb Tare = 10.046 lb which rounds to 10.05 lb Net). This results in a 

transaction where an object being sold or purchased on the basis of gross weight or by taking insufficient tare. 

Essentially, the rounding of tare in either direction from a smaller scale division to a larger scale division 

provides a less accurate net weight. 

This proposed note to paragraph S.1.2.1. allows the display and printing of net weight values in divisions other than 

the scale division used in the display of gross weight. 

The proposed amendment to Scales Code paragraph T.N.2.1. and AWS Code paragraph T.2.1. is intended to clarify 

that Table 6 tolerances also apply to net weight indications regardless of the gross load on the scale. During the 

Tare WG discussions, OIML R 76 was consulted for possible areas where Handbook 44 could be aligned with 

international recommendations and noted that Handbook 44 did not specifically state that tolerances also apply to 

net load indications. The current language in Handbook 44 states the tolerances are applied from the tare zero 

reference when tare is used. The group believes that the language in Handbook 44 is equivalent to OIML R 76, but 

that the language in Handbook 44 could easily be restated to clarify that tolerances apply to net weight indications. 

Other Contacts: (Provide position statements, comments, etc. from names and addresses of individuals, firms, 

manufacturers, and/or trade associations included in developing the proposal.) 

Other Reasons For: (If none, please indicate none have emerged.) 

None have emerged 

Other Reasons Against: 

None have emerged 

Additional Considerations: (provide cost estimates and state the anticipated benefits for all parties or indicate how 

the proposal may affect other requirements, programs, etc.) 

Attachments: (list the accompanying documents, data, 

studies etc.) 

Suggested Action: (Be specific on what action the 

committee should take on the item.) 

 Recommend NCWM 5 Adoption  Withdraw 

 Developing Item 

 Informational Item 

 Other (Please describe) 

NTEP - D51 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix C. Attachments

Attachment for Agenda Item 7 

NCWM Form 15 

Proposal to a Standing Committee 

Committee: Specifications and Tolerances

Date: October 16, 2006 Regional Association: SWMA 

Name/Address of Contact Persons: 

NTETC Weighing Sector 

Steven Cook, NIST Technical Advisor 

NIST Weights and Measures Division 

NIST Technical Advisor NTETC Weighing Sector 

Phone: (301) 975-4004 Fax: (301) 975-8091 

e-mail: steven.cook@nist.gov 

Regional Actions: (votes for and against) 

Please Attach Additional Pages and Information as Needed 

Proposal: Amend the AWS Code (AWS) Table S.7. Notes for Table S.7.a. Note 5 as follows: 

5. Required only on automatic weighing systems if the temperature range on the NTEP CC is narrower than and 

within other than –10 °C to 40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F). 

 (Amended 2007) 

Problem/Justification: An NTEP participating laboratory received an application for an automatic weighing 

system with a marked temperature range larger than the –10 °C to 40 °C temperature range in Handbook 44 AWS 

Table S.7. Note 5. The participating laboratory performed the tests over the larger temperature range. However, 

they became concerned that manufacturers would infer that AWSs with the larger temperature ranges would be a 

higher quality device and subsequently a marketing issue. The laboratory was also concerned that testing at higher 

and higher temperature ranges would be a health and safety concern for the evaluators and that the larger 

temperature ranges would exceed the testing capabilities of the NTEP laboratories. It was also noted that the 

marking requirements in Scales Code Table S.6.3.b. Notes for Table S.6.3.a. Note 5 states that the temperature range 

only had to be marked if the scale had a temperature range that was narrower than an within –10 °C to 40 °C. 

This issue was discussed by the NTETC Weighing Sector during their 2005 and 2006 Annual Meetings. The Sector 

reviewed the 1991 and 1999 S&T Committee discussions regarding temperature range marking requirements and 

agreed to align the AWS Code with the Scales Code marking requirements for temperature range. The NIST 

Technical Advisor also recommended that similar amendments be made to other Section 2 (Weighing) Codes; 

however, the Sector stated that the other codes need additional evaluation and should be submitted to the S&T 

through the normal process. 

Other Contacts: (Provide position statements, comments, etc. from names and addresses of individuals, firms, 

manufacturers, and/or trade associations included in developing the proposal.) 

Other Reasons For: (If none, please indicate none have emerged.) 

None have emerged 

Other Reasons Against: 

None have emerged 

Additional Considerations: (provide cost estimates and state the anticipated benefits for all parties or indicate how 

the proposal may affect other requirements, programs, etc.) 

Attachments: (list the accompanying documents, data, 

studies etc.) 

Additional background information from the 1991 and 

1999 S&T Committee Reports on the markings for 

temperature ranges in the Scales Code. 

Suggested Action: (Be specific on what action the 

committee should take on the item.) 

 Recommend NCWM 5 Adoption  Withdraw 

 Developing Item 

 Informational Item 

 Other (Please describe) 

NTEP - D52 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC Weighing Sector - Appendix C. Attachments

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

NTEP - D53 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – NTETC Software Sector 

Appendix E 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Software Sector Meeting 

May 7 - 8, 2007, Sacramento, California 

Meeting Summary 

Agenda Items Page 

Carry-over Items:........................................................................................................................................................3

1. Review...............................................................................................................................................................3 

1.a. NTETC Software Sector Mission............................................................................................................3

1.b. NCWM/NTEP Policies – Issuing CCs for Software...............................................................................3

2. Definitions for Software-Based Devices ...........................................................................................................4

3. Software Identification/Markings......................................................................................................................6

4. Identification of Unapproved/Unauthorized Software.......................................................................................6

5. Software Protection/Security.............................................................................................................................9

6. Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration......................................................................................................9

7. Verification in the Field, by the Inspector.......................................................................................................14

8. NTEP Application – [mfg documentation to be submitted] ............................................................................14

New Items:..................................................................................................................................................................14

9. S&T Item 310-1/G-S.2 Facilitation of Fraud...................................................................................................14

10. Next Meeting...................................................................................................................................................15

NTEP - E1 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – NTETC Software Sector 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK

NTEP - E2 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – NTETC Software Sector 

Carry-over Items: 

1. Review 

1.a. NTETC Software Sector Mission 

Source: NCWM Board of Directors

Background: In 2005 the Board of Directors established a National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

(NTETC) Software Sector. A mission statement for the sector was developed at that time. 

Mission of the Software Sector: 

• Develop a clear understanding of the use of software in today’s weighing and measuring instruments. 

• Develop NIST Handbook 44 specifications and requirements, as needed, for software incorporated into 

weighing and measuring devices. This may include tools for field verification, security requirements, 

identification, etc. 

• Develop NCWM Publication 14 checklist criteria, as needed, for the evaluation of software incorporated 

into weighing and measuring devices, including marking, security, metrologically significant functions, etc. 

• Assist in the development of training guidelines for Weights and Measures officials in verifying software as 

compliant to applicable requirements and traceable to an NTEP Certificate. Training aids to educate 

manufacturers, designers, service technicians, and end users may also be considered. 

Discussion: The Chair asked the question: Is the sector comfortable with the Mission Statement? 

The Sector discussed the process of other NTETC sectors, the NCWM structure, and how/why the software sector 

was developed. After lengthy discussion, there was consensus among the Sector members that the Mission 

Statement was correct. However, the sector noted the broad range of items listed in the Statement but agreed the 

steps in the Mission Statement were correct. The steps build on each other in an orderly progression. It was further 

agreed that, whenever possible, items would be addressed in the sequence of the Mission Statement. 

The Chair noted that the scope of this sector is somewhat broader than some other sectors. The work of this sector is 

more closely aligned to that of the Grain Analyzer Sector in that focus is on development of possible language for: 

- NIST Handbook 44, 

- checklist criteria for NCWM Publication 14, and 

- appropriate field guidelines. 

1.b. NCWM/NTEP Policies – Issuing CCs for Software 

Source: NCWM Reports 

Background: Excerpts of reports from the 1995-1998 Executive Committee were provided to NTETC Software 

Sector members at their April 2006 meeting. The chair asked the sector to review the following NTEP policy 

decision adopted by the NCWM in 1998 relative to the issuance of a separate Certificate of Conformance (CC) for 

software: 

The NCWM has struggled with software issues for many years. Prior to 1995, NTEP had evaluated stand-alone 

software (e.g., weigh-in/weigh-out, POS, and batch controller software) and, in some cases, had issued CCs for 

stand-alone software. The Board established a software WG to study the issues and make recommendations. 

Many issues were discussed by the WG, including: first indication of the final quantity, metrologically 

significant software, definitions, software marking, software checklist evaluation, a software EPO for the field 

inspector, user-programmable software, and third-party software. According to NCWM Conference reports, in 

NTEP - E3 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – NTETC Software Sector 

1997 concerns were raised about the direction of the WG. In 1997, after the NCWM Annual Meeting, a new 

Software Work Group was appointed by the NCWM chair. 

During the 1998 NCWM Annual Meeting, the following recommendation was adopted as NTEP policy: 

- “Software, regardless of its form, shall not be subject to evaluation for the purpose of receiving a separate, 

software Certificate of Conformance from the National Type Evaluation Program.” 

- “Remove all of the software categories from the index of NCWM Publication 5, NTEP Index of Device 

Evaluations.” 

- “Reclassify all existing software CCs according to their applicable device categories.” 

The policy is still in effect today. 

Also noteworthy is a statement in Section C of NCWM Publication 14, “Administrative Policy” which states, 

“In general, type evaluations will be conducted on all equipment that affect the measurement process or the 

validity of the transaction (e.g. electronic cash registers interfaced with scales and service station consoles 

interfaced with retail fuel dispensers); and all equipment to the point of the first indicated or recorded 

representation of the final quantity on which the transaction will be based.” 

Discussion: At this point in time, NTEP evaluates a "software-based device" as a functional device. The 

performance of the device is evaluated. 

There was a suggestion from the floor that the 1998 policy be amended so the sector can move toward the other 

steps in the process. Discussion from the floor centered on how to or if there needs to be a change to the device type 

in the “FOR” box of the CC. The consensus of the Sector is that the current NCWM/NTEP policy should be 

changed. 

Recommendation: 

Software Requiring a Separate CC: Software which is implemented as an add-on to other NTEP-certified main 

elements to create a weighing or measuring system and its metrological functions are significant in determining the 

first indication of the final quantity. Such software is considered to be a main element of the system requiring a 

separate CC. 

NOTE: OEM software may be added to an existing CC or have a stand-alone CC with applicable applications (e.g., 

a manufacturer adding a software upgrade to its ECR or point-of-sale system, vehicle scale weigh-in/weigh-out 

software added as a feature to an indicating element, automatic bulk weighing, liquid-measuring device loading 

racks, etc.) and minimum system requirements for “Type P” devices (see proposed software definition below). It 

may be possible for a manufacturer to submit a single application for both hardware and software contained in the 

same device. A single CC would be issued. 

In this instance, OEM refers to a third party. The request to add software could be made by the original CC holder 

on behalf of the third party. Alternatively, a new CC could be created that refers to the original CC and simply lists 

the new portions that were examined. 

The sector recommendation will be submitted to the NTEP Committee. 

2. Definitions for Software-Based Devices 

Source: NTETC Software Sector 

Background: The Sector discussed marking and G-S.1.1. requirements. Initially it was suggested that "not-builtfor-purpose" be removed from the wording in NIST HB 44 G-S.1.1. However, after further discussion, it was 

agreed this may not be the correct or final decision. There is no definition for a not-built-for-purpose device in 

HB 44. The current HB 44 definition for a built-for-purpose device reads: 

NTEP - E4 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – NTETC Software Sector 

Built-for-purpose device. Any main device or element which was manufactured with the intent 

that it be used as, or part of, a weighing or measuring device or system. [1.10] (Added 2003) 

There was also the suggestion to use the definitions from the WELMEC document for Type P and Type U 

instruments. They were modified by the Sector. It was also suggested that a list of examples be provided. 

Draft definitions for consideration: 

Built-for-purpose weighing or measuring instrument (device) (Type P): A weighing or 

measuring instrument (device) designed and built specifically for the task in-hand. Accordingly, 

the embedded software is assumed to be designed for the specific task. It may contain many 

components also used in PCs, e.g, motherboard, memory card, etc. 

A weighing or measuring instrument (device) using a universal Computer (Type U): A 

weighing or measuring instrument (device) that uses a general-purpose computer, usually a PCbased system, for performing legally relevant functions. 

Examples: 

Type U 

Weigh-in/Weigh-out 

Open Architecture 

Discussion: The Sector agreed that the NTEP CC should reflect "software" is a separate main element. If this is 

true, then there needs to be definition. 

The Sector agrees this change in policy and appearance on CCs does not have a major impact on our current type 

evaluation process. 

Measurement Canada sites three main areas of software function: sensing physical phenomena (mass or volume), 

computational, and controlling the system. 

After a lengthy discussion related to the terms "built-for-purpose and "not-built-for-purpose," the Sector agreed the 

terms were not clear and should be replaced with the terminology proposed below. A main reference point that the 

sector used in this discussion was OIML R 76 Non-automatic weighing instruments sub-sections 5.5.1. (Type P) and 

5.5.2. (Type U). 

(New Definition) Electronic devices, software-based. Weighing and measuring devices or systems that use 

metrological software to facilitate compliance with Handbook 44. This includes:

(a) Embedded software devices (Type P). A device or element with software used in a fixed hardware 

and software environment that cannot be modified or uploaded via any interface without breaking a 

security seal or other approved means for providing security, will be called a "P", or 

(b) Programmable or loadable metrological software devices (Type U). A personal computer or other 

device and/or element with PC components with programmable or loadable metrological software, and 

will be called “U”. A “U” is assumed if the conditions for embedded software devices are not met.

Conclusion and Recommendation: The Sector agreed to submit the above-proposed definition to the NCWM 

S&T Committee for consideration. This change would clarify and define what currently is done in NTEP and would 

represent it properly in NIST HB 44 to assist the inspector. 

NTEP - E5 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – NTETC Software Sector 

3. Software Identification/Markings 

Source: NTETC Software Sector

Background: At the last meeting, there was discussion on specific sections of the WELMEC document that deal 

with TYPE P and TYPE U requirements. The comments and recommendations under consideration follow: 

Discussion: There was lengthy discussion on the value and merits of markings. This included the possible 

differences in some types of devices and marking requirements. After hearing several proposals, the sector agreed 

to the following recommendation. 

Technical changes represented below: 

1. CC No. must be continuously displayed or marked, 

2. Version must be software generated, not hard marked, 

3. Version required for embedded (Type P), 

4. Print option created 

5. Command or operator action option created, 

6. Type P must display or hard mark Make, Model, S.N. 

Recommendation: 

TYPE U shall meet one of the methods: 

Method NTEP CC No. Make/Model Software Version/Revision 

Hard-Marked X1,2 X Not Acceptable 

Continuously Displayed X2 X X 

Via Menu (display) or Print Option Not Acceptable X X 1

 Only if no means of displaying this information is available 

2

 Information on how to obtain the remaining items (Make/Model, Version/Revision) shall be included on the CC.

TYPE P shall meet one of the methods: 

Method NTEP CC No. Make/Model/Serial No. Software Version/Revision 

Hard-Marked X X Not Acceptable 

Continuously Displayed X X X 

By command or operator action Not Acceptable Not Acceptable X 

Note: Information on how to obtain the remaining items (Make/Model, Version/Revision) shall be included on the CC.

The “Via Menu (display) or Print” option may be supplemental for devices that use the hard-marked or continuously 

displayed identification method for the NTEP CC Make/Model, Serial No. information. 

The Sector will forward these items, when completed, to the Regional S&T committees for consideration. 

4. Identification of Unapproved/Unauthorized Software 

Source: NTETC Software Sector 

Background: During the last meeting, much discussion was generated. Many comments were addressed. 

Segregation of parameters is currently allowed (see table of sealable parameters). 

Presently there are two methods of sealing a device: physical seal and audit trail. The sector debated if some other 

category was necessary. 

NTEP - E6 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – NTETC Software Sector 

Currently, industry reports they protect third-party software, but it is not via audit trail. There is an issue of audit 

trail capabilities; if the software is not running in a normal mode or there is no a software service, the changes could 

be made and not tracked by audit trail. 

There is no way to tell someone how to do sealing; you can say what needs to be accomplished. 

Examples of methods of sealing: 

 • authentication 

• access control 

• X509 Certificates 

• PCATS certifies vendors 

• Version Number 

• application (checksum) 

There is a “challenge response” with different certifications. Challenge responses validate who the user is, sets 

limits, or verifies data received. 

The Sector was in general agreement that HB 44 does not need to be changed. 

The Sector agreed that Weights and Measures needs to know that software is not being manipulated, 

X509 is a standard for a public key infrastructure (PKI). This is a system where a third party holds the key to 

decode an encrypted program to ensure against fraud. 

Scale System Controller 

The scale system controller has approval certifications for the United States and the European Union. In this case, a 

commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) PC is used in conjunction with a scale system (terminal and weigh platform). The 

scale system provides the PC with approved gross weight and accepts commands to zero the weight indication. The 

PC application program performs the following functions: 

• stores and recalls weights; 

• computes net weight using a stored weight or manually entered weight; 

• provides the user display of net weight; 

• may compute price based on the net weight and a selected commodity code; and 

• may print a weigh ticket. 

Some features of the Scale System Controller are: 

1. Protection of configuration and price parameters: Metrologically significant parameters are maintained 

within the scale terminal where they are controlled. Other parameters are stored in a password-protected 

database. The user controls password protection access and distribution. 

2. Separation of software: Separation of metrological and application software as described in the 

WELMEC documents is maintained. 

3. Protection of software: Metrologically significant software is supplied only as binary code. Each such 

module is protected by a CRC32 checksum. The expected checksums, revision levels, and dates are kept in 

an encrypted configuration file. If run-time values differ from expected values, the system will not operate. 

The configuration information can be recalled by an inspector using the Help/About menu in the 

application program. 

4. Protection of active data: Data from the scale terminal is wholly owned by the scale server metrological 

interface. No other agent can acquire that data when the scale server is running, and the application 

program will not accept data except from the scale server. 

NTEP - E7 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – NTETC Software Sector 

Transactional information is stored in an encrypted Alibi Memory log. No access is permitted to this data 

except via the supplied application program. Data can be exported via the application program for external 

use, but no user modifications are permitted to the original transaction data. 

5. Protection of operating system user interface: There are no special restrictions to the operating system. 

The application program runs as any other on the PC and can be started, stopped, or minimized. 

In Europe, there are things like safety, highest-level security, etc. First modification there would be a limit 

to the risk classes developed by WELMEC. 

6. P5: Protection against accidental or unintentional changes: Legally relevant software and 

measurement data shall be protected against accidental or unintentional changes. 

7. Specifying Notes: Possible reasons for accidental changes and faults are: unpredictable physical 

influences, effects caused by user functions and residual defects of the software even though state-of-the-art 

development techniques have been applied. 

This requirement includes: 

a) Physical influences: Stored measurement data shall be protected against corruption or deletion 

when a fault occurs or, alternatively, the fault shall be detectable. 

b) User functions: Confirmation shall be demanded before deleting or changing data. 

c) Software defects: Appropriate measures, e.g., plausibility checks, shall be taken to protect data 

from unintentional changes that could occur through incorrect program design or programming 

errors. 

8. Required Documentation: The documentation should show the measures that have been taken to protect 

the software and data against unintentional changes. 

9. Validation Guidance: Typical Examples 

Checks based on documentation: 

 Check that a checksum of the program code and the relevant parameters is generated and verified 

automatically. 

 Check that overwriting of data cannot occur before the end of the data storage period that is foreseen 

and documented by the manufacturer. 

 Check that a warning is issued to the user if he is about to delete measurement data files. 

Functional checks: 

 Check by practical spot checks that a warning is given before deleting measurement data if deleting is 

possible at all. 

10. Example of an Acceptable Solution:

 The accidental modification of software and measurement data may be checked by calculating a 

checksum over the relevant parts, comparing it with the nominal value and stopping if anything has 

been modified. 

 Measurement data are not deleted without prior authorization, e.g. a dialogue statement or window 

asking for confirmation of deletion. 

 For fault detection, see also Extension I. 

Discussion: At this point around the room, there was a great deal of discussion. It was pointed out that it would be 

difficult, if not impossible, for the NTEP-evaluated software to identify if unauthorized software was "added" to the 

device. It is not possible to identify all unapproved software (e.g., add-on software, pirated software). 

There was general agreement this may be a field enforcement issue and that it was not appropriate to continue 

discussion on this item at this time. 

NTEP - E8 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – NTETC Software Sector 

Recommendation: The sector recommended moving this item under agenda item 7, as a sub-item, for discussion at 

a future meeting. 

5. Software Protection/Security 

Source: NTETC Software Sector 

Background:

Discussion: The discussion from the last meeting on this issue is mingled in item 4. Appropriate sections need to 

be pulled out by the Sector. 

The Sector reviewed the applicable items, line by line in the MID Software Work Package 2 and the OIML 

TC9/SC1 R 76-1 Draft Recommendation to determine items appropriate for the evaluation checklist. 

Recommendation: Jim Pettinato from FMC Technologies, agreed to pull together additional information regarding 

the checklists that we have just developed for this section. 

6. Software Maintenance and Reconfiguration 

Source: NTETC Software Sector 

Background: After discussion during the October 2006 meeting, it appeared these issues may go beyond the scope 

of current NTEP procedures, and possibly NTEP resources. The question was asked, does the Sector need to 

address this issue? There was a split vote, no consensus, so it remains on the agenda. 

OIML D-SW 5.2.6. was discussed. Comments included: 

Only versions of legally relevant software that conform with the approved type are allowed for use (see OIML 

D-SW 5.2.5). Applicability of the following requirements depends on the kind of instrument and is to be worked 

out in the relevant OIML Recommendation. 

It may differ also on the kind of instrument under consideration. The following options OIML D-SW 5.2.6.1 and 

5.2.6.2 are equivalent alternatives. This issue concerns verification in the field. Refer to OIML D-SW chapter 7 for 

additional constraints. 

Discussion points and questions: 

• This appears to be covered by Cat 3 and enforcement. 

• This may appear to be covered by other sections or security. 

• This section should not include eproms. 

• Is there a security key? 

• Does it download correctly? 

• OIML says that the audit trail needs to be updated. 

The following flow chart, developed to assist the manufacturer/designer, was discussed in depth.

NTEP - E9 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – NTETC Software Sector 

Conclusion: More study and understanding of these complex issues are necessary and more discussion will need to 

take place during the next meeting. Sector members are encouraged to submit specific proposals for consideration. 

Discussion: Traced update provides the ability to update the software either remotely or with equipment that is not 

part of the device, i.e., Category 3 Method of Sealing; it is in line with current technology. It is a feature that 

currently is being requested. 

Recommendation: After lengthy discussion on this item, the Sector came to general consensus that the information 

in the recommendation below should be considered for developing type evaluation checklists and field test 

procedures. It was pointed out that these issues are relevant to agenda item 8, NTEP Application. 

Traced means audit trail record - requires Category 3 audit trail. 

NTEP - E10 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – NTETC Software Sector 

Verified means evaluator verified - requires breaking a seal and placing back into service by registered agent or 

Weights and Measures official. D-SW requires an agent to be present to verify the update. It was noted that in 

some jurisdictions, this role may be performed by a registered service agent. 

There was discussion on procedures for verifying the versions of software and it was discussed that these procedures 

should be part of the NTEP CC. 

The sector will continue to develop this area. 

This section was taken from Document OIML D-SW 1 WD: 

5.2.5 Conformity of production-line devices with the approved type 

Requirement: 

The manufacturer shall produce devices and the legally relevant (is this term correct?? sap) software that 

conform to the approved type and the documentation submitted. There are different levels of conformity 

demands: 

(a) identity of the legally relevant functions described in the documentation (6.1) of each device with those 

of the type (the executable code may differ), 

(b) identity of parts of the legally relevant source code, and the rest of the legally relevant software 

complying with (a), 

(c) identity of the whole legally relevant source code, and 

(d) identity of the whole executable code. 

The degree of conformity suitable has to be defined for each kind of instrument or area of application by the 

responsible technical committee. The technical committees could define a subset from these conformity 

degrees for a particular kind of instrument and let the approving body decide the degree of conformity to be 

applied. 

Except for (d) there may be a software part with no conformity requirements if it is separated from the legally 

relevant part according to 5.2.1.2. 

Means described in 5.1.1 and 5.2.1 shall be provided to make the conformity evident. 

5.2.6. Maintenance and re-configuration 

Requirement: Only versions of legally relevant software that conform with the approved type are allowed for 

use (see 5.2.5). Applicability of the following requirements depends on the instrument and is to be worked out 

in the relevant OIML Recommendation. It may differ also on the kind of instrument under consideration. The 

following options, 5.2.6.1 and 5.2.6.2, are equivalent alternatives. This issue concerns verification in the field. 

Refer to chapter 7 for additional constraints. 

5.2.6.1 Verified update 

The software to be updated can be loaded locally, i.e., directly on the measuring device or 

remotely via a network. Loading and installation may be two different steps (as shown in 

Fig. 5-1) or combined into one, depending on the needs of the technical solution. After update of 

the legally relevant software of a measuring instrument (exchange with another approved version 

or re-installation), the measuring instrument is not allowed to be used for legal purposes before a 

(subsequent) verification of the instrument as described in chapter 7 has been performed and the 

securing means has been renewed (if not otherwise stated in the relevant OIML Recommendation 

or in the approval certificate). A person responsible for verification must be at place. 

NTEP - E11 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – NTETC Software Sector 

5.2.6.2 Traced update 

The software is implemented into the instrument according to the requirements for traced update 

(5.2.6.2.1 to 5.2.6.2.6) if it is in compliance with the relevant OIML Recommendation. Traced 

update is the procedure of changing software in a verified instrument or device after which the 

subsequent verification by a responsible person at place is not necessary. The software to be 

updated can be loaded locally, i.e., directly on the measuring device or remotely via a network. 

The software update is recorded in an audit trail (see 5.2.6.2.5). The procedure of a traced update 

comprises several steps: loading, integrity checking, checking of the origin (authentication), 

installation, logging and activation. 

 

5.2.6.2.1 Traced update of software shall be automatic. On completion of the update procedure 

the software protection environment shall be at the same level as required by the type 

approval.

5.2.6.2.2 The target measuring instrument (device, sub-assembly) shall have a fixed legally 

relevant software that cannot be updated and that contains all of the checking functions 

necessary for fulfilling traced update requirements. 

5.2.6.2.3 Technical means shall be employed to guarantee the authenticity of the loaded 

software, i.e., that it originates from the owner of the type approval certificate. This 

can be accomplished, for example, by cryptographic means like signing. The signature 

is checked during loading. If the loaded software fails this test, the instrument shall 

discard it and use the previous version of the software or become inoperative. 

5.2.6.2.4 Technical means shall be employed to guarantee the integrity of the loaded software, 

i.e., ensuring that it has not been inadmissibly changed before loading. This can be 

accomplished by adding a checksum or hash code of the loaded software and verifying 

it during the loading procedure. If the loaded software fails this test, the instrument 

shall discard it and use the previous version of the software or become inoperative.

5.2.6.2.5 The manufacturer shall ensure It shall be guaranteed by appropriate technical 

means, e.g., an audit trail that traced updates of legally relevant software are adequately 

traceable within the instrument for subsequent verification and surveillance or 

inspection. This requirement enables inspection authorities, which are responsible for 

the metrological surveillance of legally controlled instruments, to back-trace traced 

updates of legally relevant software over an adequate period of time (that depends on 

national legislation). 

The audit trail shall contain the following information: notification

success/miscarriage of the update procedure, software identification of the installed 

version, time stamp of the event, identification of the downloading party. An entry is 

generated for each update attempt regardless of the success. 

The traceability means and records are part of the legally relevant software and should 

be protected as such. The software used for displaying the audit trail belongs to the 

fixed legally relevant software. Note: This needs to be discussed further due to some 

manufacturer concerns about where the software that displays the audit trail 

information is located and who has access if this feature is provided. 

5.2.6.2.6 It shall be guaranteed by technical means that software may only be updated with the 

explicit consent of the user or owner of the measuring instrument.Relevance of this 

requirement depends on national legislation.

5.2.6.2.7 If the requirements 5.2.6.2.1 to 5.2.6.2.6 cannot be fulfilled, it is still possible to update 

the legally non-relevant software part. In this case the following requirements shall be 

met: 

NTEP - E12 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – NTETC Software Sector 

• There is a distinct separation between the legally relevant and non-relevant 

software according to 5.2.1.2. 

• The whole legally relevant software part of the WELMEC software section cannot 

be updated without breaking a seal. 

• It is stated in the type approval certificate that updating of the legally non-relevant 

part is acceptable. 

Request for 

update? 

Verified Update 

Normal operating 

mode 

Loading of updated 

files (Note 2) 

Installation and 

activiation of updated 

files (Note 2) 

Apply verification 

mark 

Restart 

Verification 

successful? 

(Subsequrent) 

verification by a 

person at place 

YES 

YES 

NO

NO

(Note 3)

Request for 

update? 

Traced Update 

Normal operating 

mode 

Loading of updated 

files (Note 1) 

Is integrity 

valid? 

Is 

authenticity 

valid? 

Installation and 

activiation of updated 

files (Note 1) 

Discard loaded files, 

keep old version 

active 

Record 

information about 

update to audit 

Restart 

YES 

YES

YES

NO 

NO 

NO 

NTEP - E13 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – NTETC Software Sector 

Figure 5-1: Software Update Procedures 

Notes to Figure 5-1: 

1) A Traced update is separated into two steps: “loading” and “installing/activating.” This implies that the 

software is temporarily stored after loading without being activated because it must be possible to discard 

the loaded software and fall back to the old version if the checks fail or become inoperative.

2) In case of Verified update, the software may also be loaded and temporarily stored before installation but, 

depending on the technical solution, loading and installation may also be accomplished in one step. 

3) Here only failing of the verification because of the software update is considered. Failing because of other 

reasons doesn’t require re-loading and re-installing of the software, symbolised by the NO-branch. 

7. Verification in the Field, by the Inspector 

Source: NTETC Software Sector 

Recommendation: Cover this at a later time. 

8. NTEP Application – [mfg documentation to be submitted] 

Source: NTETC Software Sector 

Recommendation: Cover this at a later time. 

New Items: 

9. S&T Item 310-1/G-S.2 Facilitation of Fraud 

Source: NCWM S&T Committee 

The S&T Committee has Item 310-1 on its agenda as a voting item. They have requested a position, pro or con, 

from the NTETC Software Sector. The following is Item 310-1 as it appears in NCWM Pub 16. 

Recommendation: Amend Handbook 44, Section 1.10. General Code paragraph G-S.2. as follows: 

G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud - All equipment, and all mechanisms, and devices attached thereto or used in 

connection therewith, without limitation, shall be so designed, constructed, assembled, and installed for use 

such that they do not facilitate the perpetration of fraud. 

(Amended 2007)

Background/Discussion: This proposal modifies the language in paragraph G-S.2. to clarify that the prohibition 

against facilitating fraud applies to the electronically programmed and coded components of weighing and 

measuring devices to address electronic manipulation or alteration. Some argue the existing language in 

Section 1.10. General Code. Paragraph G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud is intended to address only hardware 

components of weighing and measuring devices. That is, “equipment, mechanisms, and devices” and the mechanics 

of how they are “constructed, assembled, and installed” appear to deal with tangible components. Fraud issues in 

the past ten years involved: (1) altering, manipulating, or interfering with software interfaced or installed in 

equipment; (2) microprocessor issues such as additional pulser units hidden in gas pumps and taximeters; and 

(3) software programs permitting manipulation of motor truck scale data used to generate weighmaster certificates. 

The CWMA, the SWMA, and the WWMA recommended this item move forward for a vote. 

The NEWMA recommended this item be referred to the NTETC Software Sector for review and input. 

At the 2007 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee considered the WWMA proposal and an alternate proposal 

developed by the SMA. The Committee acknowledged that neither proposal was reviewed by the NTETC Software 

Sector. The Committee agreed that updating the requirement could be accomplished by adding general terms to 

NTEP - E14 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – NTETC Software Sector 

address the types of electronic and software-based technology being fraudulently used today. The WWMA 

proposed language naming specific software applications that should not facilitate fraud. Whereas, the SMA 

alternate proposal included broader language that is intended to prohibit fraudulent use of software, wireless 

connections, and all future technology “without limitation.” The Committee agreed that the SMA proposal 

encompasses all possible equipment configurations and more appropriately addresses the problem at hand. 

Therefore, the Committee agreed to present the SMA proposal for a vote at the 2007 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

The Sector reviewed Item 310-1 as requested by the NCWM S&T Committee. 

Discussion: There was lengthy discussion of this item by the Sector.

Sector Position: The consensus of the Sector was to support the Central (CWMA) recommendation as a voting 

item and delete words “and all” since it was associated with the “attached thereto and ...” language. The term 

“design” adds value. “Software” adds clarification. 

G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud - All equipment, and all mechanisms, software and devices attached thereto or 

used in connection therewith, without limitation, shall be so designed, constructed, assembled, and installed 

for use such that they do not facilitate the perpetration of fraud. 

10. Next Meeting 

The NCWM Board agreed to fund a May 2007 meeting of the NTETC Software Sector. This is the third meeting of 

the sector in a 13-month span. The meeting is being scheduled leading in to a meeting of NTEP laboratory 

representatives. The scheduling was intentional, as the decision has been made that it is the “best fit,” in an attempt 

to have as much NTEP lab(s) representation as possible. Piggybacking meetings also saves travel costs. Therefore, 

the next planned meeting of the Software Sector will be for the spring of 2008 adjacent to the NTEP lab meeting. 

Discussion: Some members of the sector have expressed concern that waiting a year to meet again may be too long. 

The possibility of meeting electronically was suggested, allowing for electronic ballots, etc. The other alternative is 

to ask the BOD to have an additional meeting in the fall. 

Conclusion: It was the consensus of the sector to request that another meeting of the Software Sector be held in the 

fall. This may be in conjunction with one of the Sector Meetings, or as a separate meeting, possibly in Ohio. 

Shortly after the meeting, a request was submitted to the NCWM Board for consideration of funding this meeting. 

NTEP - E15 
NTEP Committee 2007 Final Report 

Appendix E – NTETC Software Sector 

THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 

NTEP - E16 
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Attendee List 

Mahesh Albuquerque 

Division of Oil and Public Safety 

633 17th Street, Suite 500 

Denver, CO 80202 

Ph: (303) 318-8533 

Fax: (303) 318-8488 

E-mail: 

mahesh.albuquerque@state.co.us

Edmund Baniak 

American Petroleum Institute 

1220 L Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

Ph: (202) 682-8135 

Fax: (202) 962-4797 

E-mail: baniake@api.org

Joe Benavides 

Texas Dept. of Agriculture 

1700 North Congress Avenue 

Stephen F. Austin Building, 

11th Floor 

Austin, TX 78701 

Ph: (512) 463-7401 

Fax: (512) 463-8225 

E-mail: 

Jim Allred 

Idaho National Laboratory 

P.O. Box 1625 - MS 4137 

Idaho Falls, ID 83415-4137 

Ph: (208) 526-2017 

Fax: (208) 526-5462 

E-mail: jim.allred@inl.gov

Dennis Beattie 

Measurement Canada 

4th Floor 400 St. Mary Avenue 

Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 4K5 

Canada 

Ph: (204) 983-8910 

Fax: (204) 983-5511 

E-mail: beattie.dennis@ic.gc.ca

Stephen Benjamin 

North Carolina Dept. of Agriculture 

1050 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050 

Ph: (919) 733-3313 

Fax: (919) 715-0524 

E-mail: 

steve.benjamin@ncmail.net

Ross Andersen 

New York Bureau of Weights & 

Measures 

10B Airline Drive 

Albany, NY 12235 

Ph: (518) 457-3146 

Fax: (518) 457-5693 

E-mail: 

ross.andersen@agmkt.state.ny.us

Steven Beitzel 

Systems Associates, Inc. 

1932 Industrial Drive 

Libertyville, IL 60048 

Ph: (847) 367-6650 

Fax: (847) 367-6960 

E-mail: 

sjbeitzel@systemsassoc.com

Daniel Bernaciak 

Stanislaus County Dept. of 

Agriculture 

Weights & Measures 

3800 Cornucopia Way, Suite B 

Modesto, CA 95358 

Ph: (209) 525-4730 

Fax: (209) 525-4790 

E-mail: 

danielb@mail.co.stanislaus.ca.us

Robert Atkins 

County of San Diego 

Dept. of Agriculture Weights & 

Measures 

5555 Overland Avenue, Suite 3101 

San Diego, CA 92123 

Ph: (626) 575-5451 

Fax: (626)350-3243 

E-mail: bob.atkins@sdcounty.ca.gov

F. Michael Belue 

Belue Associates 

Court View Towers, Suite 111A 

201 North Pine 

Florence, AL 35630 

Ph: (256) 768-9917 

Fax: (256) 768-9912 

E-mail: Bassoc@aol.com

Linda Bernetich 

National Conference on Weights & 

Measures 

15245 Shady Grove Road, 

Suite 130 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Ph: (240)632-9454 

Fax: (301)990-9771 

E-mail: lbernetich@mgmtsol.com

ATTEND - 1 
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Attendee List 

Robert Bailey 

Virginia Product & Industry Standards 

P.O. Box 1163 

Richmond, VA 23218 

Ph: (804) 786-2476 

Fax: (804) 786-1571 

E-mail: 

Robert.Bailey@vdacs.virginia.gov

Lawrence Belusz 

Perry Johnson Registrars, Inc. 

26555 Evergreen, Suite 1340 

Southfield, MI 48076 

Ph: (800) 800-7910 

Fax: (248) 358-0882 

E-mail: lbelusz@pjr.com

Doug Biette 

Sartorius North America 

6542 Fig Street 

Arvada, CO 80004 

Ph: (303) 403-4690 

Fax: (303) 423-4540 

E-mail: doug.biette@sartorius.com

Tom Bloemer 

Kentucky Dept. of Agriculture 

107 Corporate Drive 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Ph: (502) 573-0282 

Fax: (502) 573-0303 

E-mail: tom.bloemer@ky.gov

Rex Brown 

Petroleum Equipment Institution 

P.O. Box 2380 

Tulsa, OK 74101 

Ph: (918) 494-9696 

Fax: (918) 491-9895 

E-mail: jrbrown@pei.org

Jerry Butler 

North Carolina Dept. of 

Agriculture 

1050 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050 

Ph: (919) 733-3313 

Fax: (919) 715-0524 

E-mail: jerry.butler@ncmail.net

Christopher Bradley 

Seraphin Test Measure 

P.O. Box 227 

30 Indel Avenue 

Rancocas, NJ 08073 

Ph: (609) 267-0922 

Fax: (609) 261-2546 

E-mail: cparker@pemfab.com

Norman Brucker 

Precision Measurement Standards, 

Inc. 

1665 Bonaire Path 

Rosemount, MN 55068 

Ph: (651) 423-3241 

Fax: (651) 322-7938 

E-mail: sharnoma@fontiernet.net

Marc Buttler 

Emerson Process Management – 

Micro Motion 

7070 Winchester Circle 

Boulder, CO 80301 

Ph: (303)530-8562 

Fax: (303)530-8459 

E-mail: 

marc.buttler@emersonprocess.com

Jonelle Brent 

Illinois Dept. of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 19281 

Springfield, IL 62794-9281 

Ph: (217) 785-8301, 

Fax: (217 )524-7801 

E-mail: jbrent@agr.state.il.us

Mark Buccelli 

State of Minnesota, Dept. of 

Commerce 

Weights & Measures Division 

South Cross Commerce Center III, 

14035 

South Cross Drive, Suite 150 

Burnsville, MN 55306 

Ph: (651) 215-5840 

Fax: (952) 435-4040 

E-mail: mark.buccelli@state.mn.us

Joe Buxton 

Daniel Measurement & Control, 

Inc. 

1161 Sarahlyn Lane, Suite B 

Statesboro, GA 30461 

Ph: (912) 489-2383 

Fax: (912) 489-2390 

E-mail: 

joe.buxton@emersonprocess.com

ATTEND - 2 
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Attendee List 

Michael Bridges 

Alabama Weights &Measures 

1024 Tram Road 

Marbury, AL 36051 

Ph: (334) 569-3946 

Fax: (334) 240-7175 

E-mail: 

marlema.surles@hei.alabama.gov

Ken Butcher 

NIST, Weights & Measures 

Division 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-4859 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: kenneth.butcher@nist.gov

Judy Cardin 

Wisconsin Dept. of Agriculture & 

Consumer Protection 

P.O. Box 8911 

2811 Agriculture Drive 

Madison, WI 53708-8911 

Ph: (608) 224-4945 

Fax: (608) 224 4939 

E-mail: 

judy.cardin@datcp.state.wi.us

Mark Brown 

Sutter Co Weights & Measures 

142 Garden Highway 

Yuba City, CA 95991 

Ph: (530) 822-7500 

Fax: (530) 822-7510 

E-mail: mbrown@co.sutter.ca.us

Tina Butcher 

NIST, Weights & Measures 

Division 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-2196 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: tina.butcher@nist.gov

Loretta Carey 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

5100 Paint Branch Parkway 

College Park, MD 20740 

Ph: (301) 436-1799 

Fax: (301)436-2639 

E-mail: loretta.carey@fda.hhs.gov

Stacy Carlsen 

Marin County Weights & Measures 

1682 Novato Boulevard, Ste 150-A 

Novato, CA 94947-7021 

Ph: (415) 499-6700 

Fax: (415) 499-7543 

E-mail: scarlsen@co.marin.ca.us

Phillip Chase 

AssetSmart 

2800 28th Street, Suite 109 

Santa Monica, CA 90405 

Ph: (310) 450-2566 

Fax: (310) 450-1311 

E-mail: pc@assetsmart.com

Richard Clark 

Utah Dept. of Agriculture & Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

Ph: (801) 538-7158 

Fax: (801) 538-4949 

E-mail: richardwclark@utah.gov

Charles Carroll 

Massachusetts Division of Standards 

One Ashburton Place, Room 1115 

Boston, MA 02108 

Ph: (617) 727-3480, ext. 21131 

Fax: (617) 727-5705 

E-mail: Charles.Carroll@state.ma.us

Tim Chesser 

Arkansas Bureau of Standards 

4608 West 61st Street 

Little Rock, AR 72209 

Ph: (501) 570-1159 

Fax: (501) 562-7605 

E-mail: tim.chesser@aspb.ar.gov

Michael Cleary 

California Dept. of Food and 

Agriculture 

1220 N. Street, Room 315 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

Ph: (916) 651-1183 

Fax: (916) 229-3026 

E-mail: mcleary@cdfa.ca.gov

Cullen Casey 

Walz Scale 

656 High Point Lane 

East Peoria, IL 61611 

Ph: (309) 694-3200 

Fax: (309) 694-3285 

E-mail: ccasey@walzscale.com

Alan Christian 

USDA GIPSA R&SP 

1400 Independence Avenue, SW, 

Stop 3641 

Washington, DC 20250-3641 

Ph: (202) 720-7051 

Fax: (202) 205-9237 

E-mail: alan.r.christian@usda.gov

Thomas Coleman 

NIST, Weights & Measures 

Division 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-4868 

Fax: (301 )975-8091 

E-mail: t.coleman@nist.gov

ATTEND - 3 
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Attendee List 

James Cassidy 

Cambridge Weights & Measures 

831 Massachusetts Avenue 

Cambridge, MA 02139 

Ph: (617) 349-6133 

Fax: (617) 349-6134 

E-mail: jcassidy@CambridgeMA.gov

McCrae Christiansen 

Utah Dept. of Agriculture & Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

Ph: (801) 538-7158 

Fax: (801) 538-4949 

E-mail:

Belinda Collins 

National Institute of Standards and 

Technology 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2000 

Gaitherburg, MD 20899-2000 

Ph: (301) 975-4500 

Fax: (301) 975-2183 

E-mail: belinda.collins@nist.gov

Yi-Yi Chang 

Thelen Reid Brown Raysman & Steiner 

LLP 

101 Second Street, Ste 1800 

San Francisco, CA 94105 

Ph: (415) 369-7732 

Fax: (415) 369-8932 

E-mail: ychang@thelen.com

Raymond Cioffi 

Vermont Agency of Agriculture, 

Food & Markets 

103 South Main Street 

Waterbury, VT 05671-0101 

Ph: (802) 244-4510 

Fax: (802) 241-3008 

E-mail: raycioffi1@yahoo.com

Steven Cook 

NIST, Weights & Measures 

Division 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-4003 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: steven.cook@nist.gov

Clark Cooney 

Oregon Dept. of Agriculture 

635 Capitol Street, NE 

Salem, OR 97301-2532 

Ph: (503) 986-4677 

Fax: (503) 986-4784 

E-mail: ccooney@oda.state.or.us

Phil Crowther 

Utah Dept. of Agriculture & Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

Ph: (801) 538-7158 

Fax: (801) 538-4949 

E-mail:

Jim Delperdang 

Ventura County Weights & 

Measures 

800 South Victoria Avenue, 

Suite 1750 

Ventura, CA 93009 

Ph: (805) 654-2446 

Fax: (805) 654-5177 

E-mail: 

jim.delperdang@ventura.org

Rodney Cooper 

Actaris Neptune 

1310 Emerald Road 

Greenwood, SC 29646 

Ph: (864) 942-2226 

Fax: (864) 223-0341 

E-mail: 

rcooper@greenwood.actaris.com

Richard Davis 

Georgia-Pacific 

1915 Marathon Avenue 

Neenah, WI 54957-0899 

Ph: (920) 729-8174 

Fax: (920) 729-8089 

E-mail: richard.davis@gapac.com

Mark S. Demings 

Utah Dept. of Agriculture & Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

Ph: (801) 538-7158 

Fax: (801) 538-4949 

E-mail: bgurney@utah.gov

ATTEND - 4 
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Attendee List 

Chuck Corr 

Archer Daniels Midland 

1251 Beaver Channel Parkway 

Clinton, IA 52732 

PH: (563) 244-5208 

Fax: 

E-mail: corr@admworld.com

James Dawson 

Shell Oil Products US 

P.O. Box 691153 

Houston, TX 77269 

Ph: (713) 241-0502 

Fax: 

E-mail: jim.dawson@shell.com

Vicky Dempsey 

Montgomery County Weights & 

Measures 

451 West Third Street 

P.O. Box 972 

Dayton, OH 45422-1027 

Ph: (937) 225-6309 

Fax: (937) 224-3927 

E-mail: dempseyv@mcohio.org

Richard Cote 

New Hampshire Dept. of Agriculture 

Markets & Food 

P.O. Box 2042 

Concord, NH 03302-2042 

Ph : (603) 271-3700 

Fax: (603)271-1109 

E-mail: rcote@agr.state.nh.us

Doug Deiman 

Alaska Div of Measurement 

Standards/CVE 

11900 Industry Way 

Bldg. M, Suite 2 

Anchorage, AK 99515 

Ph : (907) 365-1210 

Fax: (907) 365-1220 

E-mail: 

doug.deiman@dot.state.ak.us

Phillip DePriest 

Marathon Petroleum Company LLC 

539 South Main Street 

Findlay, OH 45840 

Ph: (419) 421-4637 

Fax: (419) 429-5370 

E-mail: phdepriest@marathon.com

Mark Coyne 

Brockton Weights & Measures 

45 School Street, City Hall 

Brockton, MA 02301-9927 

Ph: (508) 580-7120 

Fax: (508) 580-7173 

E-mail: measures@verizon.net

Kenneth Deitzler 

Bureau of Ride & Measurement 

Standards 

2301 North Cameron Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 

Ph: (717) 787-9089 

Fax: (717) 783-4158 

E-mail: kdeitzler@state.pa.us

Sarah Dodge 

NATSO, Inc. 

1737 King Street, Suite 200 

Alexandria, VA 22314 

Ph: (703) 739-8566 

Fax: (703) 684-4525 

E-mail: sdodge@natso.com

Harold Eaton 

Boston ISD Weights & Measures 

1010 Massachusetts Avenue 

Boston, MA 02118-2606 

Ph: (617) 635-5328 

Fax: (617) 635-5383 

E-mail: 

robert.mcgrath@cityofboston.gov

Darrell Flocken 

Mettler-Toledo, Inc. 

1150 Dearborn Drive 

Worthington, OH 43085 

Ph: (614) 438-4393 

Fax: (614) 438-4355 

E-mail: darrell.flocken@mt.com

Michael Gaspers 

Farmland Foods, Inc. 

800 Industrial Drive 

P.O. Box 490 

Denison, IA 51442 

Ph: (712) 263-7384 

Fax: (712) 263-7354 

E-mail: mpgaspers@farmland.com

ATTEND - 5 
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Attendee List 

Dennis Ehrhart 

Arizona Dept. of Weights 

& Measures 

4425 West Olive Avenue, Suite 134 

Glendale, AZ 85302 

Ph: (623) 463-9937 

Fax: (602) 255-1950 

E-mail: dehrhart@azdwm.gov

Kurt Floren 

Los Angeles County Weights & 

Measures 

12300 Lower Azusa Road 

Arcadia, CA 91006 

Ph: (626) 575-5451 

Fax: (626) 575-5451 

E-mail: kurtf@acwm.co.la.ca.us

Regine Gaucher 

OIML-BIML 

11 Rue Turgot 

Paris, 75009 

France 

Ph: 33 1 48 78 12 82 

Fax: 33 1 42 82 27 

E-mail: regine.gaucher@oiml.org

Chuck Ehrlich 

NIST, Weights & Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-4834 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: charles.ehrlich@nist.gov

Michelle Foncannon 

NIST, Weights &Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Ph: (301) 975-3289 

Fax: 

E-mail: 

michelle.foncannon@nist.gov

Thomas Geiler 

Town of Barnstable 

200 Main Street 

Hyannis, MA 02601 

Ph: (508) 862-4670 

Fax: (508) 778-2412 

E-mail: 

Tom.Geiler@town.barnstable.ma.us

Lewis Ekstrom 

Utah Dept. of Agriculture & Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

Ph: (801) 538-7158 

Fax: (801) 538-4949 

E-mail: bgurney@utah.gov

Maurice Forkert 

Tuthill Transfer Systems 

8825 Aviation Drive 

Fort Wayne, IN 46809 

Ph: (260) 747-7529 

Fax: (260) 747-7064 

E-mail: Mforkert@tuthill.com

Victor Gerber 

Wyoming Dept. of Agriculture 

2219 Carey Avenue 

Cheyenne, WY 82002-0100 

Ph: (307) 777-6586 

Fax: (307) 777-6593 

E-mail: vgerbe@state.wy.us

Steve Everly 

Kansas City Star 

Kansas City, MO 64108 

Ph: (816) 868-5275 

Fax: 

E-mail: severly@kcstar.com

Carol Fulmer 

South Carolina Dept. of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 11280 

Columbia, SC 29211 

Ph: (803) 737-9690 

Fax: (803) 737-9703 

E-mail: cfulmer@scda.sc.gov

Steve Giguere 

Maine Quality Assurance & 

Regulations 

28 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333 

Ph: (207) 287-4456 

Fax: (207) 287-5576 

E-mail: steve.giguere@maine.gov

Greg Gittins 

Utah Dept. of Agriculture & Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

Ph: (801) 538-7154 

Fax: (801) 538-4949 

E-mail: bgurney@utah.gov

Christopher Guay 

Procter & Gamble Co. 

8579 Charleston Woods Drive 

Mason, OH 45040 

Ph: (513) 983-0530 

Fax: (513) 983-8984 

E-mail: guay.cb@pg.com

Jonathan Handy 

Colorado Dept. of Agriculture 

3125 Wyandot Street 

Denver, CO 80211 

Ph: (303) 477-4220 

Fax: (303) 477-4248 

E-mail: 

Jonathan.Handy@ag.state.co.us

ATTEND - 6 
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Attendee List 

Jason Glass 

Kentucky Dept. of Agriculture 

107 Corporate Drive 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

Ph: (502) 573-0282 

Fax: (502) 573-0303 

E-mail: jason.glass@ky.gov

Brett Gurney 

Utah Dept. of Agriculture & Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

Ph : (801) 538-7158 

Fax: (801) 538-4949 

E-mail: bgurney@utah.gov

Mitzi J. Hansen 

Utah Dept. of Agriculture & Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

Ph: (801) 538-7158 

Fax: (801) 538-4949 

E-mail: mhansen@utah.gov

Paul Glowacki 

Murray Equipment, Inc. 

2515 Charleston Place 

Fort Wayne, IN 46808 

Ph: (260) 484-0382 

Fax: (260) 484-9230 

E-mail: 

pglowacki@murrayequipment.com

Terry Gurrister 

Utah Dept. of Agriculture & Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

Ph (801) 538-7158 

Fax: (801) 538-4949 

E-mail: tgurrister@utah.gov

Dennis Harrison 

West Virginia Weights & Measures, 

Division of Labor 

570 McCorkle Avenue West 

St. Albans, WV 25177 

Ph: (304) 722-0602 

Fax: (304) 722-0605 

E-mail: 

dharrison@labor.state.wv.us

Joe Gomez 

New Mexico Dept. of Agriculture 

MSC 3170, P.O. Box 30005 

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005 

Ph: (505) 646-1616 

Fax: (505) 646-2361 

E-mail: jgomez@nmda.nmsu.edu

James Hale 

Southern Company Services, Inc. 

366 Three Oaks Subdivision Road 

Langley, KY 41645 

Ph: (606) 285-3635 

Fax: (606) 285-3635 

E-mail: jahale@southernco.com

John Hart 

Great Lakes Cheese 

780 West 1400 South 

Fillmore, UT 84631 

Ph: (435) 743-5000 

Fax: 

E-mail: 

hart@greatlakescheese.com

Steven Grabski 

Division of Measurement Standards 

2150 Frazer Avenue 

Sparks, NV 89431 

Ph: (775) 688-1166 

Fax: (775)688-2533 

E-mail: sgrabski@agri.state.nv.us

Monica Hammon 

DHL Express, Inc 

116 Hawthorne Drive 

Washington Court House, OH 

43160 

Ph: 

Fax: 

E-mail: 

monica.hammond@dhl.com

Ryanne Hartman 

Michigan Dept. of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895 

Ph: (517) 655-8202 

Fax: (517) 655-8303 

E-mail: hartmanry@michigan.gov

Gary Hartt 

Utah Dept. of Agriculture & Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

Ph: (801) 538-7158 

Fax: (801) 538-4949 

E-mail: ghartt@utah.gov

Thomas Herrington 

Nestle USA - Prepared Foods 

Division 

5750 Harper Road 

Solon, OH 44139-1880 

Ph: (440) 264-6467 

Fax: (440) 248-1709 

E-mail: 

Thomas.Herrington@us.nestle.com

Brad Hoffman 

Tanknology 

8501 N. MOPAC 

Suite 400 

Austin, TX 78759 

Ph: (512) 380-7154 

Fax: 

E-mail: bhoffman@tanknology

ATTEND - 7 
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Attendee List 

Ronald Hasemeyer 

Alameda County Dept. of Agriculture 

Weights & Measures 

333 5th Street 

Oakland, CA 94607 

Ph: (510) 268-7343 

Fax: (501) 444-3879 

E-mail: ron.hasemeyer@acgov.org

James Hewston 

Scale Source 

1621 South 35 Street 

Council Bluff’s, IA 51501 

Ph: (402) 455-2143 

Fax: (402) 455-2146 

E-mail: 

jhewston@scalessource.com

Kristen Hossler 

National Conference on Weights & 

Measures 

15245 Shady Grove Road, 

Suite 130 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Ph: (240) 632-9454 

Fax: (301) 990-9771 

E-mail: khossler@mgmtsol.com

Ronald Hayes 

Missouri Dept. of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 630 

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0630 

Ph: (573) 751-2922 

Fax: (573) 751-8307 

E-mail: Ron.Hayes@mda.mo.gov

Tyler Hicks 

Oklahoma Dept. of Agriculture, 

Food & Forestry 

2800 N. Lincoln Boulevard 

Oklahoma City, OK 73152 

Ph: (405) 522-1897 

Fax: (405) 522-4584 

E-mail: thicks@oda.state.ok.us

Wes Huibregtse 

Great Lakes Cheese 

2602 County Road PP 

Plymouth, WI 53073 

Ph: (920) 892-6643 

Fax: (920) 893-1151 

E-mail: 

huibregt@greatlakescheese.com

Scott Henry 

NCR Corporation 

2651 Satellite Boulevard 

Duluth, GA 30096 

Ph: (770) 623-7543 

Fax: (404) 479-1170 

E-mail: scott.henry@ncr.com

Paul Hoar 

AgriFuels LLC 

73 Dayton Road 

South Glastonbury, CT 06073 

Ph: (860) 633-9811 

Fax: (866) 466-2764 

E-mail: paulhoar@agrifuels.com

Jeff Humphreys 

Los Angeles County Weights & 

Measures 

11012 Garfield Avenue 

South Gate, CA 90280 

Ph: (562) 940-8922 

Fax: (562) 861-0278 

E-mail: jeffh@acwm.co.la.ca.us

Marilyn Herman 

Herman and Associates 

3730 Military Road NW 

Washington, DC 20015 

Ph: (202) 362-9520 

Fax: (202) 362-9523 

E-mail: mherman697@aol.com

Carol Hockert 

NIST, Weights & Measures 

Division 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-5507 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: carol.hockert@nist.gov

Doug Hutchinson 

Measurement Canada 

232 Yorktech Drive 

Markham, Ontario L6G 1A6 

Canada 

Ph: (905) 943-8732 

Fax: (905) 943-8738 

E-mail: hutchinson.doug@ic.gc.ca

Gene Inglesby 

Western Petroleum Marketers 

Association of America (PMAA) 

P.O. Box 571500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84157 

Ph: (703) 351-8000 

Fax: (703) 351-9160 

E-mail: genei@wpma.com

Raymond Johnson 

New Mexico Dept. of Agriculture 

MSC 3170, PO Box 30005 

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005 

Ph: (505) 646-1616 

Fax: (505) 646-2361 

E-mail: rjohnson@nmda.nmsu.edu

Dmitri Karimov 

Liquid Controls 

105 Albrecht Drive 

Lake Bluff, IL 60044 

Ph: (847) 283-8317 

Fax: 

E-mail: dkarimov@idexcorp.com

ATTEND - 8 
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Attendee List 

Grace L. Jan, CMP

National Conference on Weights & 

Measures 

15245 Shady Grove Road, Suite 130 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Ph: (240) 632-9454 

Fax: (301) 990-9771 

E-mail: gjan@mgmtsol.com

Alan Johnston

Measurement Canada 

151Tunney’s Pasture Driveway 

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C9 

Canada 

Ph: (613) 952-0655 

Fax: (613) 957-1265 

E-mail: johnston.alan@ic.gc.ca

Yefim Katselnik

Dresser Wayne 

3814 Jarrett Way 

Austin, TX 78728 

Ph: (512) 388-8763 

Fax: (512) 388-8456 

E-mail: phil.katselnik@wayne.com

Randy Jennings 

Tennessee Dept. of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 40627 Melrose Station 

Nashville, TN 37204 

Ph: (615) 837-5147 

Fax: (615) 837-5335 

E-mail: randy.jennings@state.tn.us

Zina Juroch 

Pier 1 Imports 

100 Pier 1 Place 

Fort Worth, TX 76102 

Ph: (817) 252-8348 

Fax: (817)252-6220 

E-mail: zmjuroch@pier1.com

Kerry Kaullen 

Missouri Dept. of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 630 

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0630 

Ph: (573) 751-4278 

Fax: (573) 751-0281 

E-mail: 

kerry.brettschneider@mda.mo.gov

Dennis Johannes 

California Division of Measurement 

Standards 

6790 Florin Perkins Road, 

Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

Ph: (916) 229-3000 

Fax: (916) 229-3026 

E-mail: DJohannes@cdfa.ca.gov

Robert Kaehler 

AssetSmart 

2800 28th Street 

Santa Monica, CA 90405 

Ph: (310) 450-2566 

Fax: (310) 450-1311 

E-mail: 

robert.kaehler@assetsmart.com

Michael Keilty 

Endress & Hauser Flowtec AG 

2350 Endress Place 

Greenwood, IN 46143 

Ph: (317) 535-2745 

Fax: (317) 535-1341 

E-mail: 

michael.keilty@us.endress.com

Gordon Johnson 

Gilbarco, Inc. 

7300 West Friendly Avenue 

Greensboro, NC 27420 

Ph: (336) 547-5375 

Fax: (336) 547-5079 

E-mail: 

Gordon.Johnson@gilbarco.com

Jack Kane 

Montana Bureau of Building & 

Measurement Standards 

P.O. Box 200516 

Helena, MT 59620-0516 

Ph: (406) 841-2240 

Fax: (406) 841-2060 

E-mail: jkane@mt.gov

Jaclyn Kerper 

National Conference on Weights & 

Measures 

15245 Shady Grove Road, 

Suite 130 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Ph: (240) 632-9454 

Fax: (301) 990-9771 

E-mail: jkerper@mgmtsol.com

ATTEND - 9 
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Attendee List 

Grant Kimura 

Chevron Corporation 

6001 Bollinger Canyon Road 

Room A-2116 

San Ramon, CA 94582 

Ph: (925) 842-3436 

Fax: 

E-mail: grant.kimura@chevron.com

Leon Lammers 

Avery Weigh-Tronix 

1000 Armstrong Drive 

Fairmont, MN 56031-1439 

Ph: (800) 533-0456 

Fax: (507) 238-8255 

E-mail: llammers@awtxglobal.com

Harvey Lloyd 

Measurement Technology 

International Ltd. 

311 - 33 St. N. 

Lethbridge, Alberta T1H 3Z6 

Canada 

Ph: (403) 320-1830 

Fax: (403) 320-1678 

E-mail: harvey@midwestgroup.com

Ted Kingsbury 

Measurement Canada 

151Tunney’s Pasture Driveway 

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C9 

Canada 

Ph: (613) 941-8919 

Fax: (613) 952-1736 

E-mail: kingsbury.ted@ic.gc.ca

Stephen Langford 

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co. 

203 East Daugherty, P.O. Box 151 

Webb City, MO 64870 

Ph: (417) 673-4631 

Fax: (417) 673-5001 

E-mail: slangford@cardet.com

Todd Lucas 

Ohio Dept. of Agriculture 

8995 East Main Street, Building 5 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 

Ph: (614) 728-6290 

Fax: (614) 728-6424 

E-mail: lucas@mail.agri.state.oh.us

Russel Knight 

Utah Dept. of Agriculture & Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

Ph: (801) 538-7158 

Fax: (801) 538-4949 

E-mail: 

Paul Lewis 

Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Inc. 

230 West Coleman Street 

P.O. Box 272 

Rice Lake, WI 54868-2404 

Ph: (715) 234-3494 x5322 

Fax: (715) 234-6967 

E-mail: plewis@ricelake.com

Girard Lukowiak 

City of East Orange 

143 New Street 

East Orange, NJ 07017 

Ph: (973) 677-8923 

Fax: (973) 266-5402 

E-mail: girardluke@yahoo.com

Dennis Kolsun 

H J Heinz Co 

357 6th Avenue 

Pittsburgh, PA 15222 

Ph: (724) 778-4503 

Fax: (412) 658-1158 

E-mail: dennis.kolsun@hjheinz.com

Richard Lewis 

Georgia Dept. of Agriculture 

Agriculture Bldg. 

19 MLK Drive, Rm 321 

Atlanta, GA 30334 

Ph: (404) 656-3605 

Fax: (404) 656-9648 

E-mail: rlewis@agr.state.ga.us

L. Edward Luthy 

B-Tek Scales, LLC 

1510 Metric Avenue, SW 

Canton, OH 44706 

Ph: (330) 471-8900 

Fax: (330) 471-8909 

E-mail: eluthy@bscales.com

ATTEND - 10
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Attendee List 

Dale Kunze 

Utah Dept. of Agriculture & Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

Ph: (801) 538-7158 

Fax: (801) 538-4949 

E-mail: bgurney@utah.gov

Robert Lilley 

San Luis Obispo County 

Weights & Measures 

2156 Sierra Way, Suite A 

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 

Ph: (805) 781-5924 

Fax: (805) 781-1035 

E-mail: rlilley@co.slo.ca.us

Kristin Macey 

Colorado Dept. of Agriculture 

3125 Wyandot Street 

Denver, CO 80211 

Ph: (303) 477-4220 

Fax: (303) 477-4248 

E-mail: 

kristin.macey@ag.state.co.us

Roger Macey 

California Division of Measurement 

Standards 

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

Ph: (916) 229-3043 

Fax: (916) 229-3026 

E-mail: RMacey@cdfa.ca.gov

Daniel Maslowski 

LTS Sales 

421 W. 12th Street 

Erie, PA 16501 

Ph: (814) 454-1818 

Fax: (814) 454-6363 

E-mail: dmaslowski@ltssales.com

Richard Miller 

FMC Measurement Solutions 

1602 Wagner Avenue 

P.O. Box 10428 

Erie, PA 16514 

Ph: (814) 898-5286 

Fax: (814) 899-3414 

E-mail: rich.miller@fmcti.com

Keith L. Mahan 

Merced County Weights &Measures 

2139 Wardrobe Avenue 

Merced, CA 95340-6495 

Ph: (209) 385-7431 

Fax: (209) 725-3961 

Ph: E-mail: kmahan@co.merced.ca.us

John Maynes 

Petroleum Marketers & 

Convenience 

Store of Iowa 

1303 50th Street 

West Des Moines, IA 50266 

Ph: (515) 224-7545 

Fax: (515) 224-0502 

E-mail: john@pmcofiowa.com

Charlie Mitchell 

Total Petrochemicals, Inc. 

P.O. Box 849 

Port Arthur, TX 77641-0849 

Ph: (409) 963-6885 

Fax: (409) 962-3458 

E-mail: charlie.mitchell@total.com

Steven Malone 

Nebraska Division of Weights Measures 

301 Centennial Mall South 

Box 94757 

Lincoln, NE 68509-4757 

Ph: (402) 471-4292 

Fax: (402) 471-2759 

E-mail: smalone@agr.ne.gov

Thomas McGee 

PMP Corporation 

P.O. Box 422 

25 Security Drive 

Avon, CT 06001-0422 

Ph: (860) 677-9656 

Fax: (860) 674-0196 

E-mail: tmcgee@pmp-corp.com

Kristin Moore 

Renewable Fuels Association 

One Massachusetts Avenue 

Washington, DC 20001 

Ph: (309) 830-6154 

Fax: 

E-mail: kmoore@ethanolrfa.org

Andrea M. Martincic 

Arizona Petroleum Marketers 

Association 

P.O. Box 93426 

Phoenix, AZ 85070 

Ph: (480) 460-9016, 

Fax: 

E-mail: apma@cox.net

James McGetrick 

BP Products 

Mail Code J-8, 150 W. Warrenville 

Road 

Naperville, IL 60563 

Ph: (630) 420-4579 

Fax: (630) 420-4832 

E-mail: james.mcgetrick@bp.com

Lynn Morrissette 

American Meat Institute 

1150 Connecticut Avenue, NW #12 

Washington, DC 20036 

Ph: (202) 587-4200 

Fax: (202) 587-4300 

E-mail: lmorrissette@meatami.com

ATTEND - 11
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Attendee List 

Monte Martinson 

Norac, Inc. 

1290 Osborne Road NE 

Fridley, MN 55432 

Ph: (763) 786-3080 

Fax: (763) 786-3101 

E-mail: steve@norac.ca

Robert McGrath 

Boston ISD Weights & Measures 

1010 Massachusetts Avenue 

Boston, MA 02118-2606 

Ph: (617) 961-3376 

Fax: (617) 635-5383 

E-mail: 

Robert.Mcgrath@CityofBoston.gov

Bob Murnane 

Seraphin Test Measure/Pemberton 

P.O. Box 227 

30 Indel Avenue 

Rancocas, NJ 08073-0227 

Ph: (609) 267-0922 

Fax: (609) 261-2546 

E-mail: rmurnane@pemfab.com

Virgil Musil 

Kroger Co. 

10251 East 51st Avenue, Suite A 

Denver, CO 80239 

Ph: (303) 715-5915 

Fax: (301) 715-5905 

E-mail: virgil.musil@kroger.com

Charlene Numrych 

Liquid Controls LLC 

105 Albrecht Drive 

Lake Bluff, IL 60044 

Ph: (847) 283-8330 

Fax: (847) 295-1170 

E-mail: cnumrych@idexcorp.com

Stephen Pahl 

Texas Dept. of Agriculture 

1700 North Congress Avenue, 

Stephen F. 

Austin Building, 11th Floor 

Austin, TX 78701 

Ph: (512) 463-7483 

Fax: (512) 463-8225 

E-mail: 

stephen.pahl@agr.state.tx.us

Scott Negley 

Dresser Wayne 

3814 Jarrett Way 

Austin TX 78750 

Ph: (512) 970-6274 

Fax: 

E-mail: scott.negley@wayne.com

O.R. "Pete" O'Bryan 

Foster Farms 

P.O. Box 457 

Livingston, CA 95334-9900 

Ph: (209) 765-4978 

Fax: (209) 398-6742 

E-mail: obryanp@fosterfarms.com

Beth W. Palys, CAE 

National Conference on Weights & 

Measures 

15245 Shady Grove Road, 

Suite 130 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Ph: (240) 632-9454 

Fax: (301) 990-9771 

E-mail: bpalys@mgmtsol.com

Don Nerdin 

Utah Dept. of Agriculture & Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

Ph: (801) 538-7158 

Fax: (801) 538-4949 

E-mail: bgurney@utah.gov

Daniel Okon 

United Parcel Service 

55 Glenlake Parkway, NE B1F7 

Atlanta, GA 30328 

Ph: (404) 828.6246 

Fax: (404) 828-7857 

E-mail: dokon@ups.com

Steve Patoray, CAE 

National Conference on Weights & 

Measures 

15245 Shady Grove Road, 

Suite 130 

Rockville, MD 20850 

Ph: (240) 632-9454 

Fax: (301) 990-9771 

E-mail: spatoray@mgmtsol.com

ATTEND - 12
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Attendee List 

Neal Nover 

Nover Engelstein & Assoc., Inc./ 

WinWam Software 

AtriumExec. Sts, 3000 Atrium Way, 

Ste 2203 

Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054-3910 

Ph: (856) 273-6988 

Fax: (856) 271-0559 

E-mail: NealNov@wimwam.com

Don Onwiler 

Nebraska Division of Weights & 

Measures 

301 Centennial Mall South 

Box 94757 

Lincoln, NE 68509 

Ph: (402) 471-4292 

Fax: (402) 471-2759 

E-mail: donwiler@agr.ne.gov

Robert Penn 

State of Alabama Dept. of 

Agriculture and Industries 

236 County Road 6616 

Troy, AL 36081 

Ph: (334) 566-0298 

Fax: 

E-mail: 

Jennifer Nuckolls 

Siemens Energy & Automation, Inc. 

One Internet Plaza 

Johnson City, TN 37602 

Ph: (423) 262-2909 

Fax: (423) 262-2231 

E-mail: 

jennifer.nuckolls@siemens.com

Henry Oppermann 

Weights & Measures Consulting, 

LLC 

3313 Prytania Street 

New Orleans, LA 70115 

Ph: (504) 218-5422 

Fax: (504) 218-5422 

E-mail: wmconsulting@cox.net

David Pfahler 

South Dakota Weights & Measures 

118 West Capitol Avenue 

Pierre, SD 57501-2080 

Ph: (605) 773-4091 

Fax: (605) 773-6631 

E-mail: david.pfahler@state.sd.us

William Pierpont 

Hawaii Measurement Standards 

1851 Auiki Street 

Honolulu, HI 96819-3100 

Ph: (808) 832-0694 

Fax: (808) 832-0683 

E-mail: william.e.pierpont@hawaii.gov

David Rajala 

Veeder-Root Company 

P.O. Box 1673 

Altoona, PA 16603-1673 

Ph: (814) 696-8125 

Fax: (814) 695-7605 

E-mail: drajala@veeder.com

Bill Rigby 

Utah Dept. of Agriculture & Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

Ph: (801) 538-7153 

Fax: (801) 538-4949 

E-mail: brigby@utah.gov

Michael Pinagel 

Michigan Dept. of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895-2451 

Ph: (517) 655-8202 ext. 301 

Fax: (517) 655-8303 

E-mail: PinagelM@michigan.gov

Kenneth R. Ramsburg 

Maryland Dept. of Agriculture 

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Ph: (410) 841-5790 

Fax: (410) 841-2765 

E-mail: 

RamsbuKR@mda.state.md.us

Bill Ripka 

Thermo Electron 

501 90th Avenue NW 

Minneapolis, MN 55433 

Ph: (763) 783-2664 

Fax: (763) 780-1537 

E-mail: bill.ripka@thermo.com

Marvin Pound 

Georgia Dept. of Agriculture 

815 Milledeville Highway 

Devereux, GA 31087 

Ph: (404) 656-3605 

Fax: (404) 656-9648 

E-mail: mpound@agr.state.ga.us

Robert Reinfried 

Scale Manufacturers Association 

6724 Lone Oak Boulevard 

Naples, FL 34109 

Ph: (239) 514-3441 

Fax: (239) 514-3470 

E-mail: 

bob@scalemanufacturers.org

Kirk Robinson 

Washington Dept. of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 42560 

Olympia, WA 98504-2560 

Ph: (360) 902-1856 

Fax: (360) 902-2086 

E-mail: KRobinson@agr.wa.gov

ATTEND - 13
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Attendee List 

Harold Prince 

Maine Dept. of Agriculture 

28 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333 

Ph: (207) 287-3841 

Fax: (207) 287-5576 

E-mail: hal.prince@maine.gov

Robert E. Reynolds 

Downstream Alternatives Inc. 

1657 Commerce Drive, Suite 20B 

South Bend, IN 46628 

Ph: (574) 233-7344 

Fax: 

E-mail: rreynolds-dai@earthlink.net

Mike Rude 

Norac, Inc 

1290 Osborne Road NE 

Fridley, MN 55432 

Ph: (763) 786-3080 

Fax: (763) 786-3101 

E-mail: steve@norac.ca

Julie Quinn 

State of Minnesota, Dept. of Commerce 

Weights & Measures Division 

South Cross Commerce Center III, 

14035 South Cross Drive, Suite 150 

Burnsville, MN 55306 

Ph: (651) 215-5823 

Fax: (952) 435-4040 

E-mail: julie.quinn@state.mn.us

Ralph Richter 

NIST, Weights & Measures 

Division 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-4025 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: ralph.richter@nist.gov

Hiroe Sakai 

Advanced Industrial Science and 

Technology (AIST) 

Tsukuba Central 3-9, 1-1-1 

Umezono 

Tsukuba, 305-8563 

Japan 

Ph: 81-29-861-4149 

Fax: 81-29-861-4202 

E-mail: h.sakai@aist.go.jp

Brett Saum 

San Luis Obispo County Weights & 

Measures 

2156 Sierra Way, Suite A 

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-4556 

Ph: (805) 781-5922 

Fax: (805) 781-1035 

E-mail: BSaum@co.slo.ca.us

Donald Scott 

National Biodiesel Board 

P.O. Box 104898 

Jefferson, MO 65110 

Ph: 800-841-5849 

Fax: 573-635-7913 

E-mail: dscott@biodiesel.com

Terrance Shook 

Lake County Weights & Measures 

105 Main Street 

P.O. Box 490 

Painesville, OH 44077-0490 

Ph: (440) 350-2535 

Fax: (440) 350-2667 

E-mail: 

ezupancic@lakecountyohio.org

Dale Saunders 

Virginia Product & Industry Standards 

P.O. Box 1163, Rm 135 

Richmond, VA 23218 

Ph: (804) 786-2476 

Fax: (804) 786-1571 

E-mail: 

Dale.Saunders@vdacs.virginia.gov

Prentiss E. Searles 

American Petroleum Institution 

1220 L Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20005 

Ph: (202) 682-8227 

Fax: (202) 682-8051 

E-mail: searlesp@api.org

John Siebert 

Owner Operator Independent Driver 

Assoc., Inc 

PO Box 1000 

Grain Valley, MO 64029 

Ph: (816) 229-5791 

Fax: (816) 427-4468 

E-mail: 

ATTEND - 14
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Attendee List 

Alex Schuettenberg 

ConocoPhillips Petroleum 

148 AL, Phillips Research Center 

Bartlesville, OK 74004 

Ph: (918) 661-3563 

Fax: (918) 661-8060 

E-mail: 

alex.schuettenberg@conocophillips.com

Ellen Shapiro 

Alliance of Automobile 

Manufacturers 

1401 Eye St., NW Suite 900 

Washington, DC 20005 

Ph: (202) 326-5533 

Fax: (202) 326-5568 

Michael Sikula 

New York Bureau of Weights & 

Measures 

Building 7A State Campus 

Albany, NY 12235 

Ph: (518) 457-3452 

Fax: (518) 457-2552 

E-mail: 

mike.sikula@agmkt.state.ny.us

Mark Schwartz 

Accu-Sort Systems, Inc. 

511 School House Road 

Telford, PA 18969 

Ph: (215) 721-5053 

Fax: (215) 799-1600 

E-mail: mark.schwartz@accusort.com

Janet Sheiner 

PETCO 

9125 Rehco Road 

San Diego, CA 92121 

Ph: (858) 453-7845 

Fax: (858) 638-2247 

E-mail: janets@petco.com

Steven B. Steinborn 

Hogan & Hartson 

555 13th Street, NW 

Washington, DC 20004 

Ph: (202) 637-5969 

Fax: (202) 637-5910 

E-mail: sbsteinborn@hhlaw.com

Rebecca Schwartz 

Shook, Hardy & Bacon, L.L.P. 

2555 Grand Boulevard 

Kansas City, MO 64108 

Ph: (816) 474-6550 

Fax: (816) 421-2708 

E-mail: rschwartz@shb.com

Agatha Shields 

Franklin County Weights & 

Measures 

373 South High Street, 21st Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215-6310 

Ph: (614) 462-7380 

Fax: (614) 462-3111 

E-mail: 

aashield@franklincountyohio.gov

Louis Straub 

Fairbanks Scales Inc 

3056 Irwin Drive SE 

Southport, NC 28461 

Ph: (910) 253-3250 

Fax: (910) 253-3250 

E-mail: strauble@yahoo.com

Lawrence Stump 

Indiana Weights & Measures 

2525 N. Shadeland Avenue, #03 

Indianapolis, IN 46219-1791 

Ph: (317) 356-7078 

Fax: (317) 351-2877 

E-mail: lstump@isdh.state.in.us

Mark Thompson 

Measurement Technology 

International Ltd. 

311 - 33 St. N. 

Lethbridge, Alberta T1H 3Z6 

Canada 

Ph: (403) 394-0111 

Fax: (403) 394-0112 

E-mail: 

sales@measurementTech.com

Manuel Villicana 

Kern County Dept. of Agriculture 

and Measurement Standards 

3708 Rainier Court 

Bakersfield, CA 93312 

Ph: (661) 868-6300 

Fax: E-mail: villicam@co.kern.ca.us

ATTEND - 15
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Attendee List 

Richard Suiter 

NIST, Weights & Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-4406 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: richard.suiter@nist.gov

Michael Timmons 

City of Medford 

85 George P. Hassett Drive 

Medford, MA 02155 

Ph: (781) 393-2493 

Fax: (781) 393-2415 

E-mail: mwtimmons@medford.org

Gilles Vinet 

Measurement Canada 

151Tunney’s Pasture Driveway 

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0C9 

Canada 

Ph: (613) 952-0657 

Fax: (613) 952-1736 

E-mail: vinet.gilles@ic.gc.ca

John Sullivan 

Mississippi Dept. of Agriculture 

12575 River Road 

Natchez, MS 39120 

Ph: (601) 877-3802 

Fax: (601) 877-3872 

E-mail: johns1@mdac.state.ms.us

James Truex 

Ohio Dept. of Agriculture 

8995 East Main Street 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399 

Ph: (614) 728-6290 

Fax: (614) 728-6424 

E-mail: truex@mail.agri.state.oh.us

Ketan Vithlani 

Comptroller of Maryland Motor 

Fuel Testing Lab 

7275B Waterloo Road 

Jessup, MD 20794 

Ph: (410) 799-7777 

Fax: 

E-mail: 

kvithlani@comp.state.md.us

Michael Thomas 

Hamilton County Weights & Measures 

Hamilton County Judicial Center 

One Hamilton County Square, Suite 181 

Noblesville, IN 46060 

Ph: (317) 403-0639 

Fax: (317) 776-8525 

E-mail: 

Pete Turner 

Anniston Pump Shop, Inc. 

d/b/a APS Petroleum Equipment 

2800 Highway 431 N 

P.O. Box 1198 

Anniston, AL 36202 

Ph: (256) 820-2980 

Fax: (256) 820-2981 

E-mail: pete@apspetro.com

Shelley Walker 

Utah Dept. of Agriculture & Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

Ph: (801) 538-7158 

Fax: (801) 538-4949 

E-mail: bgurney@utah.gov

Dave Thompson 

Measurement Technology International 

Ltd. 

311 - 33 St. N. 

Lethbridge, Alberta T1H 3Z6 

Canada 

Ph: (403) 320-1830 

Fax: (403) 320-1678 

E-mail: dave@measurementtech.com

Tim Tyson 

Kansas Dept. of Agriculture/ 

Weights & Measures Division 

P.O. Box 19282/Forbes Field 

Building 282 

Topeka, KS 66619-0282 

Ph: (785) 862-2415 

Fax: (785) 862-2460 

E-mail: ttyson@kda.state.ks.us

John Walsh 

Framingham Weights & Measures 

150 Concord Street 

Framingham, MA 01702 

Ph: (508) 532-5480 

Fax: (508) 626-8991 

E-mail: jbw@framinghamma.org

ATTEND - 16
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Attendee List 

Dave Wankowski 

Kraft Foods, Inc. 

801 Waukegan Road 

Glenview, IL 60025 

Ph: (847) 646-0098 

Fax: (847) 646-4820 

E-mail: dwankowski@kraft.com

Dylan Wilks 

Wilks Enterprise, Inc. 

345 Riverview Drive 

Boulder Creek, CA 95006 

Ph: (831) 338-7459 

Fax: (831) 338-3393 

E-mail: srintoul@wilksir.com

Russ Wyckof 

Oregon Dept. of Agriculture 

635 Capitol Street, NE 

Salem, OR 97301-2532 

Ph: (503) 986-4767 

Fax: (503) 986-4784 

E-mail: rwyckoff@oda.state.or.us

Lisa Warfield 

NIST, Weights & Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

Ph: (301) 975-3308 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: lisa.warfield@nist.gov

Juana Williams 

NIST, Weights & Measures 

Division 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Ph: (301) 975-3989 

Fax: (301) 975-8091 

E-mail: juana.williams@nist.gov

Walter Young 

Emery Winslow Scale Company 

73 Cogwheel Lane 

Denver, CO 06483-3919 

Ph: (203) 881-9333 

Fax: (203) 881-9477 

E-mail: 

wmyoung@emerywinslow.com

Gord Wedel 

Kraus Global, Inc.

311 - 33 Street. N. 

Winnipeg, Manitoba T1H 3Z6 

Canada 

Ph: (204) 663-3601 

Fax: (204) 663-7112 

E-mail: gwedel@krausglobal.com

Robert Williams 

Tennessee Dept. of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 40627 Melrose Station 

Nashville, TN 37204-0627 

Ph: (615) 837-5109 

Fax: (615) 837-5015 

E-mail: 

robert.g.williams@state.tn.us

George Zelcs 

Korein Tillery 

205 North Michigan Avenue, 

Suite 1950 

Chicago, IL 60601 

Ph: (312 ) 641-9750 

Fax: (312) 641-9751 

E-mail: gzelcs@koreintillery.com

Nathaniel Wieselquist 

Sick, Inc. 

800 Technology Drive, Suite 6 

Stoughton, MA 02072 

Ph: (781) 302-2553 

Fax: 

E-mail: nate.wieselquist@sick.com

Cary Woodward 

Hamilton County Weights & 

Measures 

Hamilton County Judical Center 

One Hamilton County Square, 

Suite 181 

Noblesville, IN 46060 

Ph: (317) 403-0639 

Fax: (317) 776-8525 

E-mail: caw@co.hamilton.in.us

Bryice Wilkes 

US Dept. of Agriculture 

Packers & Stockyard Program 

210 Walnut Street, Suite 317 

Des Moines, IA 50309 

Ph: (515) 323-2548 

Fax: (515) 323-2590 

E-mail: bryice.a.wilke@usda.gov

Richard Wotthlie 

Maryland Dept. of Agriculture 

50 Harry S. Truman Parkway 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Ph: (410) 841-5790 

Fax: (410) 841-2765 

E-mail: 

wotthlrw@mda.state.md.us

ATTEND - 17
NCWM 92nd Annual Meeting 

July 8 - 12, 2007 • Snowbird Resort • Salt Lake City, UT 

Guest Attendees 

Shelly Allred 

Marlene Belue 

Jackie Bernaciak 

Corinna Brown 

Sharon Brucker 

Wendy Bukowski 

Judith Davis 

Mary Dawson 

Cindy Deitzler 

Marianne Delperdang 

Linda Forkert 

Carolyn Hicks 

Beverly Johnson 

Deana Johnson 

Ruby Johnson 

Carol Johnston 

Klara Katselnik 

Judy Kingsbury 

Rose Marie Lammers 

Susie Lilley 

Bev Luthy 

Marcia Malone 

Stehanie McArdle 

Geraldine Mitchell 

Sue Okon 

Peggy Onwiler 

Frances Shook 

Robin Smith 

Deborah Straub 

Carol Suiter 

Margaret Turner 

Ellen Walsh 

Lauren Young 

ATTEND - 18
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK. 

ATTEND - 19