1 1 gTM^1 United States Department of Commerce

1 XI1^31 National Institute ot Standards and Technology

NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 816

Report ol

76th National Confer*

on Weights and Meas

4 r

Report of the

76th National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1991

Sponsored by the National Institute

of Standards and Technology,

Attended by Officials from the

Various States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives from U.S. Government,

Industry, and Consumer Organizations

Philadelphia, PA July 14-19, 1991

Report Editors: Carroll S. Brickenkamp

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 816, 371 pages (Sept. 1991)

Ann H. Turner

National Institute of Standards and Technology

John W. Lyons, Director

U.S. Department of Commerce

Robert A. Mosbacher, Secretary

Issued September 1991

CODEN:NSPUE2

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1991

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

Washington, DC 20402-9325
Abstract

The 76th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held at the Four

Seasons Hotel in Philadelphia, PA during the week of July 14 through 19, 1991. The theme of the meeting was

"Weights and Measures for the Twenty-first Century".

In his address to the delegates, Chairman David Smith of North Carolina mentioned the progress made in fuel quality inspection programs; the new joint Federal Grain Inspection Service and NCWM joint program; the National Type Evaluation Program; and the needs for State metrology.

Special meetings included those of the Metrologists, the Associate Membership Committee, the Retired Officials Committee, the Scale Manufacturers' Association, the American Petroleum Institute, the Industry Committee

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

of State Departments of Agriculture Weights and Measures Division, and the National Council on State Metrication. Reports by the standing and annual committees of the Conference comprise the major portion of this publication, along with the addresses delivered by Conference officials and other authorities from government

and industry. Key words: motor fuel dispensers; legal metrology; railroad track scales; safety; specifications and tolerances;

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

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 26-27766.

Note: 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.

2
Contents

Page

Abstract 2

Past Chairmen of the Conference 5

State Representatives 6 Organization Chart 8

General Session Welcoming Address 11 Leon Wigrizer, Commissioner of the Department of Licenses and Inspection, City of Philadelphia, PA

President's Address 12 Raymond Kammer, Deputy Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Chairman's Address 17

N. David Smith, Director, Standards Division, North Carolina

National Type Approval and the NCWM/SMA Program for Adoption of Uniform Regulation

for National Type Evaluation 21

Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Association

National Council on State Metrication Meeting 25 Honor Awards Presentations 26

Certificates of Appreciation 27

President's Award 28

President's Certificate Award 29 Standing Committee Reports Report of the Executive Committee 31 Appendix A - 58 Appendix B - 59 Appendix C - 62 Appendix D - 66 Appendix E - 71 Appendix F - 97 Appendix G - 100 Appendix H - 104 Appendix I - 109 Appendix J - 168 Appendix K - 187 Report of the Laws and Regulations Committee 190 Appendix A - 227 Appendix B - 229 Appendix C - 231

3
Contents (Continued)

Page

Report of the Specifications and Tolerances Committee 239 Appendix A 294 Appendix B 304 Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs 311 Appendix A - 321 Appendix B - 322 Appendix C - 325 Appendix D - 332 Report of the Committee on Liaison 333 Metrology Report 344 Annual Committee Reports Report of the Resolutions Committee 354 Report of the Nominating Committee 356 Report of the Auditing Committee 357

Treasurer's Report 358 New Chairman's Address 360

Registration List 364

4
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 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 Nagele, MI

73rd 1988 Darrell A. Guensler, CA

74th 1989 John J. Bartfai, NY

75th 1990 Fred A. Gerk

76th 1991 N. David Smith

5
State Representatives

The following designated State representatives were present and voted on reports presented by the Conference

standing and annual committees: STATE REPRESENTATIVE ALTERNATE

Alabama Don E. Stagg Charles A. Burns, Jr. Alaska Aves D. Thompson None

American Samoa None None

Arizona Raymond Helmick None

Arkansas Sam F. Hindsman Mike Hile

California Darrell A. Guensler Barbara Bloch Colorado None

Connecticut Allan M. Nelson Raymond Kalentkowski Delaware William Lagamann None

District of Columbia None None

i lUi lUd ivi<iawcii ±i„ vji <xy JdLK JC11I1CS None None Guam None None

Hawaii James E. Maka None

Idaho Glen Jex None None

Indiana Sharon S. Rhoades None

Iowa Jerry L. Bane None

Kansas L/e v em n. rmiiips None

Kentucky Victor Page None

Louisiana Melvin L. Lyons, Jr. None

Maine None None

Maryland Louis Straub None

Massachusetts Charles H. Carroll None

Michigan Harold Zorlen Edward C. Heffron Minnesota Michael F. Blacik Mark V. Buccelli Mississippi None None

Missouri Lester H. Barrows Robert D. Wittenberger Montana None None

Nebraska Steven A. Malone Michael Diesley Nevada None None New Hampshire Michael F. Grenier None New Jersey Carl P. Conrad, Jr. None New Mexico Fred A. Gerk Gary D. West New York None None

6
STATE REPRESENTATIVE ALTERNATE

North Carolina N. David Smith Ronald Murdock

North Dakota Curtis Roberts None

Ohio James C. Truex None

WMdUUIIid PharW V^lXai ICS DVJ . Carter V^al LCI Oregon Kendrick J. Simila George Shefcheck

Pennsylvania Ronald R. Roof Dean F. Ely

Puerto Rico Jose A. Torres-Ferrer None

Rhode Island Lynda L. Maurer None

South Carolina Carol P. Fulmer John V. Pugh

South Dakota James A. Melgaard Jim Peskey Tennessee Cathryn Pittman None

Texas Edwin J. Price James H. Eskew

Utah Robert A. Smoot None

Vermont Bruce A. Martell None

Virginia Wes Diggs None

Virgin Islands Joycelyn Encarnacion Archie Corbitt Washington James Cammel None

West Virginia Stephen L. Casto None

Wisconsin Alan J. Porter James H. Akey

Wyoming Victor Gerber None

7
Organization Chart of the 76th

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Operating Committees

Auditing Committee

Chairman: E. Murphy, PA (1) Members: S. Casto, WV (2) E. Hanish, IN (3)

Resolutions Committee

Chairman: D. By, PA (1) Members: M. Grenier, NH (3) G.Jex, ID (3) M. Phillips, IN (3) C. Pittman,TN(2)

E. Price, TX (3) A. Thompson, AK (2)

Sergeants-At-Arms

J. Noone, PA

R. Roof, PA

Credentials Committee

Chairman: Members:

D.Wallace, CO (1)

J. Silvestro, NJ (2) G. Tommasi, CT (3)

Nominating Committee

Chairman: Members:

F.Gerk, NM

C. Conrad, NJ

L.F. Eason, NC

C. Gardner, NY

S. Malone, NE

A. Rogers, VA

D. Soberg, Wl

Budget Review Committee

Chairman: N. David Smith, NC

Members: F. Gerk, NM (2) D.Guensler,CA(1)

R.Wells, Sensitive Meas.(1)

C. Gardner, NY e

A. Tholen,NIST e

Standing CommitteesSpecifications & Tolerances Committee

Chairman: J. Truex, OH (1

)

Members: C.Carroll, MA (3) R. Helmick, AZ (2) J. Jeffries, FL (4) R. Suiter, NE (5) Tech Advisor: H. Oppermann, NIST

Education, Administration, &

Consumer Affairs Committee

Chairman: S. Malone, NE (1) Members: M. Coile, GA (5) M. Gray, FL (2) J. Harnett, CA (4) R. Kalentkowski, CT (3) Tech Advisor: J. Koenig, NIST

Laws and Regulations

Committee

Chairman: A. Nelson, CT (2) Members: B. Bloch, CA (4) F. Clem, OH (3) S. Rhoades, IN (5)

L. Straub,MD(1) Tech Advisor: C. Brickenkamp, NIST

Liaison Committee

Chairman: K.Thuner,CA(1) Members C. Davis, ME (5) R. Davis, James River Corp. (2)

J. Lacy, P&S, USDA (4) A. Thompson, AK (3) Tech Advisor: K. Newell, NIST

Executive Committee and NTEP Board of Governors

Chairman:6

N. David Smith, NC

Chairman-Elect:6 S.Colbrook, IL

Past-Chairman: 6 F.Gerk, NM

TrAficnror* & C. Gardner, Jr., NY

One Year: T. Geiler, MA

E. Heffron, Ml Two Year: K. Butcher, MD

K. Simila, OR

Three Year: R. Andersen, NY

P. Nichols, CA

President: n- e J. Lyons, NIST

Executive Secretary:"'6

A. Tholen, NIST

Conference Coordinator

A. Turner, NIST

Other Elected Officers

Vice-Chairmen:

K. Butcher, MD

M. Deisley, NE

G.Jex, ID

L. Maurer, Rl

Appointed Officials

Chaplain: D. By, PA

Parliamentarian: K. Simila, OR

Assistant Treasurer: G. Hanson, CA

OIML Representatives PS7/RS5: R. Helmick, AZ

PS 5D/RS10: K. Butcher, MD

PS7/RS4: J. Truex, OH

Subcommittee on Member Expenses

Chairman: k. Simila, OR

Members: T. Geiler, MA

E. Heffron, Ml

8
Associate Membership

Committee

Chairman: D. Brydon, Int. Dairy Foods Assn.

Vice Chairman: C. Kloos, Beatrice/Hunt Wesson

Secretary/ Treasurer: T. Stabler, Toledo Scale Corp. Members: W. Brawn, Procter & Gamble

D. Quinn, Fairbanks Scales

H. Lodge, Dunbar Manuf.

J. Schnitzler, Accurate Metering

E. A. Thompson, Am. Petr. Inst. J. Ed. Thompson, Kraft, Inc. R. Wells, Sensitive Meas.

R. Whipple, Gilbarco, Inc.

Belt Conveyor Scales Sector

P. Perino, Chairman

Revere Transducers, Inc.

Public Members

F. Gerk, NM

R. Helmick, AZ

H. Oppermann, NIST

J. Rabb, AL

R. Miller, CO

0. WarnlofNIST

Private Sector

J. Berger, Technetics Ind., Inc. G. Burger, Consultant M. Casanova, Ramsey Tech., Inc. D. Cockrell, Weighing & Control Sys., Inc. R. Desollar, Central II. Public Ser.

S. Gibson , ABC Scale

J. Giannina, Port of Corpus Christi T. Healy, Thayer Scale Division

N. Johnson, Merrick Corp.

T. Johnson, Sensortronics G. Kachel, Riede Systems, Inc. K. Knapp, Milltronics

F. Joe Loyd, CSX Transportation

J. MacFa/lane, Auto Weight Co.

N. Ortyl, III, Dresser Industries

J. Robinson, Assoc. of American Railroads

J. Oliver, Virginia Power W. Thurman, Southern Co. Services, Inc. D. Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Assoc.

Technical Committee on

National Type Evaluation

J. Elengo, Jr., Chairman

Revere Transducers, Inc.

Weighing Sector

Chairman: j. Elengo, Jr., Revere

Transducers, Inc.

Public Members

R. Andersen, NY

T. Butcher, NIST

C. Conrad, Jr., NJ

C. Cotsoradis, MD

D. Guensler, CA

J. Lacy, USDA-P&S

D. Mahoney, USDA-FGIS

H. Oppermann, NIST

J. Truex, OH

0. Wamlof, NIST

K. Yee, NIST

Private Sector

M. Adams, Fairbanks Scales

J. Antkowiak, Hottinger Baldwin Msmts.

J. Giannina, Port of Corpus Christi W. Goodpaster, Cardinal Scale Co. K Haker, BLH Electronics

T. Johnson, Sensortronics

H. Lockery, Lockery Assoc.

J. MacDonald, Howe Richardson

R. McCarty, NCR Corp. G.Lameris, PMI Food Equipment

J. Robinson, Assoc. of Am. Railroads

T. Stabler, Toledo Scale Corp.

D. Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Assoc.

Legend

n - Non-Voting Members

e - Ex-Officio Members

Task Force on Safety

Chairman: C. Gardner, Jr., NY

Members: L.F. Eason, NC

J. Harnett, CA

E. A. Thompson,

American Petr. InsL

D. Soberg, Wl

Numbers in parentheses refer to years

remaining to serve on committees.

State and Local Government officials are

identified by their state abbreviations. USDA - U.S. Department of Agriculture P&S - Packers & Stockyard Administration FGIS - Federal Grain Inspection Service OIML - International Organization of Legal Metrology NIST - National Institute of Standards and Technology

Revised -August 1991

Task Force on Planning

for the 21st Century

Chairman: D. Guensler, CA

Members: T.Geiler, MA

M. Heslin, CT

C. Kloos, Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson

B. Martell, VT

Measuring Sector

Chairman: N. Alston, Daniel Row Products,

Inc.

Public Members

R. Andersen, NY

T. Butcher, NIST

D. Guensler, CA

J. Jeffries, FL

S. Malone, NE

D. Morgan, Canada

R. Murdock, NC

H. Oppermann, NIST

J. Truex, OH

0. Warnlof, NIST

Private Sector

N. Alston, Daniel Row Products, Inc. F. M. Belue, Belue Assoc.

R. Fonger, Bennett Pump

M. Hankel, Liquid Controls

F. Holland, Schlumberger Technologies

G. Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc. C. Kunkel, EMARKCorp.

G. Marshall, Shell Oil Co.

R. McCarty, NCR, Corp.

T. McDonald, Mobil Oil Corp.

L. Murray, Dresser Ind., Inc. R. Shields, Southwest Pump

J. Skuce, Smith Meter, Inc. D. Smith, William M. Wilson's Sons

R. Tucker, Tokheim Corp.

9

Welcoming Address

Leon G. Wigrizer, Commissioner Department of Licenses & Inspections

Philadelphia, PA

Good Afternoon. I want to thank you for inviting me to be here today at our opening meeting. On behalf of

the citizens of our city I want to welcome all of you to Philadelphia. I hope you have a wonderful time while you are here. This is a grand place to be - and we have many historical and cultural places that you can enjoy. As I'm sure you know, you are staying in one of the cultural centers of the country with the world famous

Philadelphia Art Museum, the Rodin Museum, Franklin Institute and more places of interest within easy walking

distance. We hope you take time to visit all around this city and enjoy Independence Historical Park and the Liberty Bell. As Commissioner of Licenses and Inspections, my responsibilities are varied. The department oversees the inspection of all commercial and residential structures within the city. We license all business activity within the

city from bingo games to the largest manufacturing and service operations. The department is responsible for removing hazardous material and asbestos as well as demolishing dangerous buildings. We also clean and seal 2500 buildings and vacant lots each year to protect our residents. The Bureau of Weights and Measures is one of the units in the Department of Licenses and Inspections. The

importance of its activities are weighed (pun intended) by the many benefits it provides to our consumers and

citizens.

In Philadelphia, as in your own communities, every consumer benefits daily from the various activities of the bureau. The motorist gets a fairer deal at the gas pump; the grocery shopper benefits from supermarket scale and packaged goods inspections; and homeowners and tenants save on fuel bills. As Commissioner of Licenses and Inspections, (the Mayor appointed me less than two months ago) I am

probably one of the newest, if not the newest weights and measures official in this room. Each day I learn more

about the many life-safety and protective activities of our inspectors. And, each day, I am truly impressed with

their dedication and their expertise. No unit in our department can be more proud of its accomplishments and

the benefits to our community than the Bureau of Weights and Measures. Weights and measures inspections

are a vital part of our national responsibility to provide the best products and services to all of our citizens. Congratulations to all of you on a job well done. Now, I would like to introduce your keynote speaker. Mayor W. Wilson Goode has been in office for almost eight years. Before that he was the managing director

of this city for four years. Prior to that time he spend many years as a community activist working for the good

of Philadelphians. Mayor Goode has worked hard all his career to make Philadelphia a world class city for all of its citizens. Among this many accomplishments - and there are many including the wonderful skyscrapers you

see around you and the wonderful Vine Street Expressway that you may have used to get here - is his personal

dedication to redirect the city government to the highest possible level of integrity. Mayor Goode established

the first Office of Inspector General and issued a directive of integrity standards for city employees that can be

a model for other cities. His personal efforts to aid our city and its honest hard working employees will not be

forgotten. It is an honor to present the Honorable W. Wilson Goode, Mayor of this historic city.

("There will be no report of the Mayor's talk. He spoke from notes that are no longer available and were

extemporaneous.)

11
President's Address

Sharpening Our Focus for the Future

Ray Kammer

Deputy Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology John Lyons sincerely regrets not being able to address you today. He is meeting with Congressman Neal Smith,

(D, IA), Chairman of the House Appropriations Committee. However, I am very pleased to be here today, my

second opportunity to participate in your Annual Meeting.

Last year, Dr. Lyons reviewed the parallel histories of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). His theme was that both

organizations were important to the progress of our nation 85 years ago, and that they are important to our

national economic success in the future. As John Lyons mentioned last year, Congress gave NIST a major new role to play, based on its world-class

science and effective technology transfer mechanisms, to assist U.S. industry to compete in the global marketplace. The broad assignments to NIST result from our successes in the past in: • building on our technical strengths; • cooperating effectively with both the public and private sectors; • identifying and focussing on emerging technologies; and • emphasizing industrial processing, concurrent engineering, and ever-improving quality. The Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) has, as an important office within NIST, built its reputation by

emphasizing these same objectives in the commercial marketplace in close coordination with the National Conference on Weights and Measures. Again, the results have been successful based on: • building on the technical strengths of NIST as well as the Conference membership; • cooperating effectively with Federal and State weights and measures regulators, the device manufacturing and servicing, and the commodity, packaging and consumer retail industries; • changing NIST Handbook 44 to recognize new technologies and new applications to existing technologies; and

• considering manufacturing and service sector process quality with post - National Type Evaluation Program regulation of the production quality of devices, and quality of weights and measures

enforcement and citizen service programs.

I believe that the weights and measures community, like NIST, has been successful in meeting the challenges in the recent past, and that both organizations are positioned to deal extremely effectively with the future. We at NIST, including the OWM, have been working to sharpen our focus for the future. This Conference, through

its Task Force on Planning for the 21st Century is sharpening its focus on the future. I encourage you to carry these efforts forward. As you in the Conference progress with your planning and program development, I hope you will pay special attention to a few issues important to NIST and the Nation. These issues directly relate to our futures together and impact our ability as a nation to remain competitive and progressive. These issues are: • the use of Metric (SI) System; • enhancement of international trade; and • application of Total Quality Management.

12
Use of the Metric System

The metric system (synonymous for most of us with the International System of Units or "SI") is the authorized system of measurement in the United States. This has been true since the adoption by the Congress of the Act

of July 28, 1866 - "An act to authorize the use of the Metric System of Weights and Measures". Use of the metric system in the world has grown steadily. Today, it is the preferred system in most countries. Use in the United States has lagged. As you know, the United States Congress adopted new legislation to encourage the Nation to increase its use of the metric system. In the late 1970s, the Congress passed the Metric Conversion

Act. This Act established the Metric Board and a Metric Information Office in the Department of Commerce.

This Conference was a very strong proponent of the legislation and supported the Metric Board, even having

a member of the Conference as a member of the Board. More recently, Congress passed the "Omnibus Trade

and Competitiveness Act of 1988" (the Act that changed our name from National Bureau of Standards to NIST);

this Act contains very specific language that Federal government procurement be in metric units by 1992. At

the conclusion of the NCWM Annual Meeting, there will be a meeting of the National Council on State Metrication. I encourage that group to address the issue of State government adding to the drive towards metric

conversion by joining with the Federal government to purchase in metric.

All agencies of the Federal government are required to complete plans for meeting the requirements of the new

legislation. The plans made by NIST include the use of metric (SI) units in all of our publications. Since the NIST publishes your handbooks, this new Federal policy directly affects the work of this Conference and its constituency. NIST has established a very specific policy in this regard, and will work with the Office of Weights

and Measures in their and your efforts to conform with this metric policy. We have already approved one of your publications, NCWM Publication 5, "NTEP Index of Device Evaluations," for printing under the new policy, and have requested that advance copies of future proposed publications be submitted for review. I know that your Standing Committees have work plans for the following year that include addressing all the issues of how

to meet the NIST publication policy in the light of the consensus standards process that you operate. I assure you that we understand some of the problems and limitations that face you in conforming to this policy, since there are whole categories of weights and measures commercial devices that have no metric counterparts.

Enhancement of International Trade

Moving to the second policy issue, Enhancement of International Trade, I call your attention to very important

political and economic changes underway in Europe. Often referred to simply as "EC-92" activities, the nations

in the European Community are in the midst of a process started in 1985 intended to harmonize and facilitate the flow of goods, money, and people to create the world's largest unified market. This 1992 plan -- named after the scheduled target year for its completion -- covers a multitude of regulatory activities to remove existing

physical, technical and fiscal trade barriers among the 12 EC nations to improve European competitiveness in the global marketplace. A central concern to the United States has been standards, testing, and certification issues and how they will affect market access for U.S. producers. The intent is to create a single European market of 325 million people with a harmonized set of business and

technical rules. Attaining this goal requires a major standards development program and a single, harmonized

conformity-assessment procedure to replace multiple national requirements for product certification. These

issues have been, and continue to be, a top priority of the U.S. Department of Commerce. This June, Secretary

of Commerce Mosbacher and his EC Commission counterpart, Vice President Bangemann, discussed

standardization and conformity-assessment policy in the United States and Europe. It was their third meeting

in the past two years. They agreed that international standardization and openness of conformity assessment were indispensable means of eliminating or avoiding the creation of technical barriers to trade.

In this regard, one of the major voluntary European regional standards bodies, CEN - the European Committee

for Standardization - has recently announced that it will give preference to the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) standards in such areas as legal metrology, environmental measurements, and medical

13
devices, among others. This is in accord with the EC's stated policy of adopting international standards as European standards where such international standards are available. It is very important that we at NIST, and

you in the Conference, follow developments in the EC, especially with respect to their actions regarding adoption

of OIML recommendations. The commitment of the Conference to consider international standards to enhance international trade is evident from the changes made in its Handbooks and in its operation. The Scales Code in NIST Handbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices," was

extensively revised in 1986. These revisions were based on the OIML International Recommendations 3 and 28. This change had a major impact on the United States because it often required scale and load cell manufacturers

to change the design of their products to comply with the new requirements. It required a great commitment

from weights and measures officials because they had to change their philosophical approach to many devices and train their staff and field units to understand the content and application of the new code.

I know that the Conference reliance on OIML recommendations to develop U.S. requirements is increasing. When the U.S. and Canada, and I'll talk more about this later, met to develop the Mass Flow Meters Code, the OIML draft recommendation was the fundamental document used to develop the code. The OIML

International Recommendation for belt-conveyor scales was referenced continually in the development of the type evaluation criteria and procedures for the United States. Conversely, the U.S. delegation has achieved some

of its greatest success just recently when OIML accepted many significant revisions to Recommendations 60 and

76 as proposed by the U.S. delegation. Fortunately, OIML International Recommendation 87 "Net Content in Packages" was patterned after the existing requirements in NIST Handbook 130, "Uniform Laws and

Regulations," and the United States has proven to be the leader in this area of legal metrology. We plan to continue to lead in this regard. Now that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has adopted NIST Handbook 133, "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods;" we expect to provide a united front (Federal and State regulators and the packaging industry) in future international negotiations. On another front, current activities related to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) could have

significant impact on the work of the Conference. On February 5, 1991, the Presidents of the United States and Mexico and the Prime Minister of Canada announced their intentions to begin negotiations on a North American Free Trade Agreement. Successful negotiation of such an agreement will create the world's largest free trade area, larger than the EC, comprising over 360 million consumers and producers with a combined

annual output of $6 trillion.

Trilateral trade and investment negotiations started this summer, with the goal of reaching a free trade agreement in the next year or two. The current goal is that NAFTA will be submitted to each country's

legislature for approval before June 1993, so that NAFTA can go into effect soon thereafter. One of NAFTA's key negotiating elements will be the development of trilateral trade rules for standards-related

activities conducted by government agencies and private sector bodies. One of the models which the negotiators

will draw upon is the existing bilateral agreement between the United States and Canada - the U.S.-Canada Free Trade Agreement (CFTA) which we entered into in 1989. Under this agreement with Canada, and through the efforts of the private sector, significant progress has already been achieved in harmonizing standards. For example, 12 Canadian and U.S. standards have been combined

to form one single binational heating and air conditioning standard. The big winners are manufacturers, who now can produce to a single standard; and consumers, who will have wider product selection at lower cost.

I know that the Conference has undertaken a major project to pursue the harmonization of weights and measures requirements with Canada to facilitate trade among our countries. Representatives from the Canadian

Legal Metrology Branch (LMB) are collaborators on the NCWM Laws and Regulations Committee and the

Specifications and Tolerances Committee. The LMB is also represented on the three Sectors of the NCWM

14
Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation. Their contributions have led to the development and

resolution of issues much more quickly and with higher quality than could have been achieved by relying only on the resources within the United States. Examples of progress are the development of the audit trail concept

for Handbook 44, the type evaluation of weighing and measuring systems incorporating computers, development

of the Mass Flow Meters Code, and the type evaluation of belt-conveyor scales to name a few. The partnership with Canada has been one of the most rapidly rewarding efforts the Conference has undertaken. The OIML has a major initiative to promote the acceptance of an OIML mark on devices evaluated to OIML

criteria and the OIML certification of type evaluation laboratories in different countries. This initiative is under

study by the NCWM Executive Committee. Serious consideration of the OIML plan is needed to identify whether or not the Conference should endorse the plan and initiate changes to align itself more closely with the OIML proposal. Application of Total Quality Management

NIST has the responsibility for managing the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award. The award was

established by the Congress in 1987 to promote quality awareness, to recognize quality achievements of U.S. companies, and to publicize successful quality strategies. The interest in the award by the private sector has been unexpectedly high. More recently, interest has developed concerning the applicability of the principles and

criteria underlying the Baldrige Award to non-profit and public sector organizations. This possibility is of

interest to the NCWM Task Force on the 21st Century. The members of the Task Force met with the director of Quality Programs at NIST, in January. I understand that the Task Force is planning to explore the

applicability of quality management to State weights and measures programs and to the operation of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. Additionally, OWM is into the early stages of its participation

in a NIST-wide planning exercise that includes incorporation of quality management features into its program. With the possible involvement of the State programs, the Conference, and OWM, Tina Butcher of OWM has been assigned to the NIST Office of Quality Programs to learn the details of the award procedures including the

application of its criteria. We expect that Tina will be able to guide OWM and the Conference in applying the

principles she is now learning to your programs. The proper use of the Baldrige Award principles should be

valuable in improving the quality of weights and measures programs, both those of the public and private sectors.

I am sure that this effort will reinforce the work of your Task Force on the 21st Century and your standing committees in the years ahead. We are also confident that efforts in this area will be applicable to your state programs. The potential for upgrading of service operations is significant. We urge you to participate in this effort with your Executive Committee and Task Force. We also encourage device and component manufacturers to apply these concepts

to your organizations; you see, the reputation of United States manufacturing quality rests in your hands. The

Conference stands ready to assist you. Planning for the Future When we talk about planning for the future, we are, in fact, planning to deal with change. I thought I would get

the Conference off to a good start in this regard by announcing changes in the Office of Weights and Measures.

Al Tholen, your current Executive Secretary, has accepted the position as Acting Chief of the National Voluntary

Laboratory Accreditation Program, another office under Dr. Stanley Warshaw, Director of the Office of Standards Services. We owe a great deal to the leadership of Al Tholen. It has been during Al's guidance that the Conference is now a membership organization, that there is now a National Type Evaluation Program, and

a National Training Program. Today the Conference is more than an annual meeting; it has year-round

operations and year-round standards development. Congratulations, Al, and thank you from all of us.

Dr. Carroll Brickenkamp has been named Acting Chief of the Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) to replace Al. As President of the National Conference, Dr. Lyons will appoint her to replace Al as Executive

15
Secretary. I know that you share our pride in Carroll's competence and in her long-standing commitment to

quality public service and to weights and measures. It has been through her leadership and teamwork that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has adopted NIST Handbooks 133 and 44. Congratulations, Carroll. We also want to announce the arrival of Dick Whipple to the Office of Weights and Measures as a new Weights and Measures Coordinator. His activities will span both device technology and National Training Program

assignments. Formerly with Gilbarco and before that, Fairbanks, Dick brings a unique package of skills and

experience to the OWM that will serve the Conference well. He's here at the Annual Meeting in his new

capacity. On July 29, another new Weights and Measures Coordinator will be joining NIST - Ken Butcher, presently Chief

of Maryland Weights and Measures. He will be working in the NIST Standards Management Program in the arena of the International Organization for Legal Metrology and also assisting the Office of Weights and Measures in the device, commodity, and training area. Because of the closeness of his entry date and because

of Al Tholen's immediate departure after the Annual Meeting, Ken also joins us at this Annual Meeting not

representing Maryland, but in his new capacity, so that when he formally joins the office, he can "hit the ground

running."

In summary, I commend this Conference for the progress it has made, and its commitment to sharpen its focus on the future. I encourage you to continue to build on: your technical strengths; • your unique ability to manage the cooperation of public and private sectors; • your attention to emerging marketplace technologies; and • your increasing focus on the marketplace processes As you develop your plans, be sure to give attention to: • the use of metric (SI) units; • the impact of your program on enhancing trade; and • applying quality management principles in your programs THE FUTURE IS IN OUR HANDS

16
Chairman's Address

N. David Smith

Director, Standards Division

Raleigh, North Carolina For two years it has been my pleasure to represent the National Conference. During this time, I have shared

the podium with many distinguished people and this meeting is no exception. Mayor Goode, Mr. Wigrizer, and

Mr. Ray Kammer are three men who can surely help my image. For taking the time to be with us today, I have

a special Southern treat for each of you gentlemen. As many of you know, I have taken great delight in spreading the joys of eating grits. With the able assistance of my son, Eric, I want to present you with a gift of

this treat. The correct Southern spelling of this word is "griyuts". Eating grits can make you famous. You will recall that a Yankee by the name of Ulysses S. Grant once went South on some business, liked grits, and he

later became President. Mayor Goode and Mr. Wigrizer I want you to know that you have an excellent weights and measures staff. This

staff is headed by a dedicated individual, Mr. Emmett Murphy. Emmett has been of great assistance to us as we planned this meeting. Thank you for allowing him to depart from his many responsibilities to give us a helping hand. When you elected me chairman last year, I was given much advice. One comment seemed to come up more

often than others. People told me to follow Fred Gerk's example. I must admit that such advice is sound, for Fred is an honest person. How can you question Fred's honesty, when he lists, for income tax purposes, half

of his State salary as unearned income? Fred also feels that the IRS should reward his honesty by taking him

off their mailing list. At this time, the chairman usually reports on what happened during his term. Not wanting to break with

tradition, I quickly did a little research. Here are a few of the happenings during my term as chairman of the National Conference. Margaret Thatcher resigned as prime minister of Great Britain. The United States became involved in a shooting war in the Middle East. Magic Johnson discovered that Michael Jordan does, in fact, eat Wheaties. Al Tholen had a heart attack. Al Tholen quit his job at the Office of Weights and Measures.

All is not lost, since you have the benefit of great conference leaders who preceded me. These people have

pointed the conference in the right direction and we have many reasons to be proud. Sometimes we tend to forget what we have accomplished, and get impatient for new developments. Let's review

our major accomplishments during the past four or five years.

I recall many discussions during the development of Handbook 133, in which many people questioned

the wisdom of promoting a net contents standard that no one seemed to endorse. Eventually, the Conference adopted Handbook 133 and began to sell it to other agencies. I am not sure that we

appreciate the significance of Handbook 133 being adopted by USDA and endorsed by FDA and FTC. Handbook 133, a document we developed and continue to work on, is now the premier net contents

17
standard in the United States. This is a major accomplishment for the National Conference. When I first became involved in weights and measures, only a handful of States had fuel testing programs. Through the foresight of Sam Hindsman, the conference began to examine fuel quality inspection programs and how they might fit within the National Conference. Just in the past couple of

years, New Mexico, Tennessee, Illinois, New York and Michigan have committed resources to improve

the quality of fuels sold in their State. Other States, Connecticut, Kentucky, and West Virginia, have

either just passed authorizing legislation or appear on the verge of doing so. Virtually every one of the

fuel quality programs has been placed in weights and measures programs. This is another major

accomplishment for the National Conference. For years we have been complaining about the lack of standardization in grain moisture measurement. The ball is now in our court. The Conference Executive Committee and the Federal Grain Inspection

Service have recently agreed to a joint program, which will eventually place the testing of moisture meters under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP). Further, we have agreed to venture into unfamiliar waters and include Near Infrared spectroscopy (NIR) devices in the program. This new

responsibility exposes the National Conference to a new segment of trade and is a major expansion of NTEP. This is another feather in our cap.

Lastly, and I apologize for using an overused term, I want to discuss the "mother" of National Conference accomplishments. Something significant happened in this country that not many people are aware of and as a result of this happening, even international trade has been affected. This program was started without the usual Congressional hearings. There were no bruising budget battles. No high

paid lobbyists came calling, wanting to twist arms at every corner. Quietly, weights and measures

officials and industry representatives have put in place this country's only weights and measures device approval program. Of course, I am referring to the National Type Evaluation Program. How important

is NTEP? Consider that some South American companies routinely specify NTEP acceptance in then- bid specifications. Consider that NTEP has become the de-facto law of the land in this country. Consider that NTEP acceptance opens doors, as companies move to take advantage of trade opportunities in Eastern Europe and the Far East. NTEP, in my opinion, is our crowning accomplishment. While we have accomplished much, I don't want anyone to suggest that we should sit back and take it easy. There is much that remains to be done even while our resources are being strained to the limit. Probably every weights and measures official in this room has been broadsided by the budget process this year. In spite of economists saying that the recession is over, I remain fearful for weights and measures programs. During the

year, I have been asked on numerous occasions to write to agency administrators and legislative leaders about

the importance of weights and measures and the possible consequences of severe program cutback,

consolidation, or elimination. I have had limited success, for it is very difficult to compete with infant mortality, education, environment, and health. Yet, we must keep trying. In 1983, an outmanned N.C. State University

basketball team won the NCAA championship. Throughout their march to the title, they faced seemingly

impossible odds. The coach, Jim Valvano, when asked what his game strategy was, replied "survive and advance

to the next game". We must survive and advance to the next budget year. If you are having budget problems,

I urge to contact the Conference Chairman and the Office of Weights and Measures for assistance. Perhaps a

well placed letter to the appropriate person is what is needed for your program to survive. Speaking of budget sacrifices, I want to thank those of you who are attending this meeting at your own expense. Your dedication is duly observed and appreciated. Mr. Kammer, there are a few items I want to bring to your attention. Since I have only three days remaining

as chairman, I figure there is not enough time for you to order that I be replaced. Al Tholen has gone on to another job so he can't be held responsible and Carroll Brickenkamp has not been in her new job long enough

18
for me to have discussed this issue with her. So, you will have to hear me out.

In 1965, Public Law 89-164 authorized the expenditure of 1.8 million dollars to equip the State Metrology

Laboratory Program. That investment can be used today to meet the challenges of the Omnibus Trade and

Competitiveness Act. The State laboratories are already in place providing technology transfer to a very broad

industrial base. The North Carolina laboratory alone performs tests for over 450 North Carolina companies. The challenge is to improve the services provided by the State laboratories to meet the expanding level of

industrial needs. The equipment and standards issued in 1965 have aged and are no longer state of the art. Round robin measurements between laboratories have documented that many of the mass and volume standards have changed

significantly. New assistance from NIST is needed if the State metrology laboratories are to remain a viable link

in our national measurement system and if we are to meet the challenges of the future.

First, there needs to be an increased NIST emphasis on providing better basic mass and volume measurement

services. Since the State laboratories are part of the NIST national measurement system, we feel that the

laboratories should be given a price break on recalibration of standards. Turnaround times at NIST should be

reduced from the current time of up to three months. NIST needs to purchase new equipment to reduce measurement uncertainties for mass calibrations above the one kilogram level so that the States are not limited by initial excessive uncertainties. Volume uncertainties also need to be examined very closely and reduced.

Second, the NIST Mass Measurement Assurance Program, the Mass MAP, needs to be expanded to include the

State laboratories that have the measurement need and the required capabilities. This program will allow these

laboratories to provide mass calibration using the same methodology as NIST. Inclusion of the State

laboratories in the Mass MAP will ultimately relieve some of the NIST mass workload as State laboratories are brought on line.

I urge you to look into these issues. Since you probably need additional detail, I will provide that to you in a

letter. Thank you for patiently listening to my plea for assistance.

If you were in attendance at the conclusion of last year's annual meeting, you will recall that I introduced my

son, Eric, and used him as a prop to talk about the future of weights and measures. Eric is back and we are one year closer to the 21st century. Our Task Force on the 21st Century, otherwise known as the Blue Sky Task

Force, has covered considerable ground in examining the future of weights and measures. No doubt, when the

task force completes its work there will be many who will question the recommendations. I asked the task force

to give us a plan for the future. It is important for us to have a sense of direction or we may fall victim to Yogi

Berra's observation, "If you don't know where you are going, you could wind up someplace else". We need only examine what is already known to us to realize that the future can't be business as usual. With landfills rapidly filling up and the siting process to locate new ones becoming nearly impossible, many people are saying that packaging must change to eliminate as much packaging material as possible and to promote recycling. Such measures are bound to change how we view the traditional package and

perhaps what we have always considered to be appropriate packaging materials and methods. During the Northeastern Weights and Measures Conference in May, a packaging equipment

representative stated that his company could guarantee no underfills and severely limit overfills. Suppose such equipment becomes commonplace. This should cause a major change in how we check

packages for net contents compliance. Perhaps our emphasis should shift to the process and away from

the end result. With shrinking weights and measures budgets, can we continue to insist on annual device inspection even though some types of devices have a very low rejection rate? What would be the rejection rate

19
if these devices were inspected on a longer interval? If we don't examine our device inspection criteria and make the necessary adjustments, I am convinced that our budget review people will seize this issue as a justification to weaken weights and measures enforcement. More and more jurisdictions are funding weights and measures programs through alternative means (we

call this "creative financing"). Why can't we, the administrators of weights and measures programs, have some say in this? After all, who knows more about weights and measures programs than we do? Maybe it is time for us to seize the moment and put forth our recommendations on funding. The entire world seems to be caught up in the drive to improve quality. Private enterprise shouldn't have a lock on the quality issue. Even though we are a governmental unit, we are expected to deliver a product. We are judged on how well we make that delivery. Can we apply established quality principles to weights and measures and to our programs? I think it can and should be done. With the Malcolm Baldrige National Quality Award program being managed by NIST, we have access to people

who can steer us in the right direction.

All of us know how rapidly technology and markets change. Before the ink is dry on an NTEP

Certificate of Conformance, someone has developed a superior product. Companies are forever giving us different ways and means of buying things. Kentucky Fried Chicken now has mobile restaurants.

(I call them mobile finger lickers.) Supermarkets are experimenting with self-checkout. Households

are being charged for the amount of garbage they produce. We must stay at least even with the changes. We need to think like Wayne Gretsky, possibly the greatest hockey player of all time. Mr.

Gretsky said, "I skate to where the puck is going to be, not where it has been". Even our crowning accomplishment, NTEP, needs attention. In my opinion, NTEP is at a crossroads. We must either cap the program at its current level or provide the means for its continued growth. Such a dynamic program cannot continue its rate of growth with volunteers and part-time workers. As we say back home, it's time to fish or cut bait.

I, for one, look forward to the discussions once the task force finishes its work. Don't expect a sudden change

in how we do business, but do expect to discuss and debate what weights and measures should be as we

approach the 21st century. Winston Churchill is quoted as saying, "There is nothing wrong in change if it is in the right direction. To improve is to change, so to be perfect is to have changed often". On the other hand, Woodrow Wilson said, "If you want to make enemies, try to change something". Eric, you have much to look forward to and fortunately, under Sid and then Allan, the National Conference is in good hands. Many of you think that the grits stories are just about over. Well, don't act too hastily. Grits are a product of corn and please remember that Sid Colbrook is from Illinois, the second leading corn producing State. Thank you for putting up with this country boy.

20
National Type Approval

and

NCWM/SMA Program for Adoption of Uniform Regulation for National T^pe Evaluation

Daryl Tonini

Scale Manufacturers Association

[This presentation was given during the S&T hearings on Monday, July 15, 1991 at the 76th NCWM]

The National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) was created in collaboration between the National Conference on Weights and Measures and the National Bureau of Standards in the early 1980's. The program was set up

as a "voluntary" program to give jurisdictions having equipment "type approval" laws or regulations a means

whereby new equipment could be evaluated for conformance with NIST Handbook 44. Such evaluations, in earlier periods, were often conducted on a jurisdiction by jurisdiction basis. However, with

the advent of the electronics era along with influence factor based tolerance requirements (Handbook 44 T.N.8, Influence Factors), such evaluations became much more involved and expensive if conducted on an individual

jurisdiction basis. The National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP), based on series of specially equipped labs and trained personnel, was conceived to give a consistent, one-stop evaluation that was cost-effective for all parties concerned. How the NTEP system works

To request an NTEP evaluation, a manufacturer submits a request for a new (often a prototype, or pre- production) device to the Office of Weights and Measures (N1ST-OWM). OWM "logs" the request into the system and assigns it to one of the approved laboratories - California, Ohio, New York, North Carolina, Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS), or NIST Office of Weights and Measures, in the case of load cells, to the NIST

Force Group.

Using standardized check lists, the device is evaluated and a report forwarded to NIST-OWM. Based on the

report, OWM will make the determination to issue a Certificate of Conformance (CC) or to advise the manufacturer that the device does not conform to Handbook 44. Based on the CC, the manufacturer then places the device into production and it then finds its way into the marketplace. An initial verification test is performed by the jurisdiction. As part of this test, an NTEP

jurisdiction determines whether the device has a CC and, if it does, whether the device conforms to the

certificate. The device is then evaluated for field performance, such as tolerances, user requirements, etc., and may be approved for use.

It should be noted, that the type evaluation process does not preempt the jurisdiction's approval prerogatives;

it assists and supports the process, but does not replace any legal or regulatory requirements regarding actual approval of a device. The Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation (URNTE) provides the jurisdiction the authority to require that devices have a CC.

21
With regard to the joint program we are reporting on today, interest in adoption of NTEP has quite a long

history. When the program was first established, Dr. Ambler, the Director of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS), challenged the NCWM and weights and measures jurisdictions to adopt NTEP concurrent with his commitment to see that the program would enjoy the benefit of the technical facilities and expertise at NBS

(now NIST). As a result, OWM provided the NCWM Executive Committee periodic reports on the adoption of NTEP.

Following the report at the 75th NCWM, the SMA undertook a study to determine what the Association could do to assist the Conference in encouraging universal adoption of the URNTE.

It should be noted here that, although URNTE adoption by weights and measures jurisdictions was voluntary,

for manufacturers, it was, in effect, a mandatory program. Based on interviews and contacts with weights and measures officials it was determined that an industry initiative would be well received and could be productive in providing resources to jurisdictions desiring to adopt the URNTE.

A program was approved and funded by the SMA Board of Directors in November 1990. It was presented to the NCWM leadership and to OWM in December 1990.

It was agreed to proceed and the joint program was initiated before year end. The program was presented to the NCWM Executive Committee in January 1991 and has been proceeding actively since that time. The objectives of the joint effort are to: encourage state jurisdictions to adopt the URNTE and to implement NTEP administratively; and

train and inform the weights and measures community, i.e., officials, manufacturers, dealers and service personnel, regarding NTEP technical requirements.

In addition, the SMA and the NCWM/OWM have offered their expertise and a technical resource to the

jurisdictions by assisting as advocates at legislative or regulatory hearings to adopt the URNTE.

Although nearly all jurisdictions will accept a Certificate of Conformance, acceptance of the CC falls short of

requiring a CC for all new equipment coming into service. Therefore, the emphasis of the joint program is on

adoption of the URNTE and not a policy of mere acceptance of CCs. At this time we are pleased to report the status of various aspects of the joint program.

In the ongoing direct contact phase, we are continuing to work with non-URNTE jurisdictions to assist them when a decision is made to proceed with the adoption process. As of this meeting, we have made panel presentations at the Central and Northeast Weights and Measures Annual Meetings and are on the program for the Western and Southern Association meetings this fall. The

panel will include a weights and measures official, a user, and a manufacturer. Thus, a broad view of NTEP is presented. The panel has also appeared at the National Industrial Scale Association meeting this spring and at the

International Society for Weighing and Measurement meeting in San Antonio in June. One of the identified needs of the NTEP program is better understanding and training of all parties involved

in the process. The Institute for Weighing and Measurement (IWM) has been active in delivering training on

22
the subject. Tom Stabler reports that the IWM program has reached in excess of 2,000 participants thus far in the effort. The members of SMA have made a commitment to include an NTEP information block in then- technical training programs.

State jurisdictions who have adopted some form of the URNTE are as shown in the figure below. Jurisdictions who are classified as URNTE are shaded. Oregon adopted in the fall of 1990 and Nebraska is scheduled to adopt in 1991. In addition, we have been informed at this meeting that New Mexico is taking steps to adopt and

Michigan has received approval to proceed with implementation. Maryland is in the process of becoming an

authorized laboratory and, presumably, a URNTE jurisdiction.

All parties in the weights and measures process have their own perspective regarding adoption of NTEP/URNTE.

For the weights and measures official, the process frees up resources (people and laboratory facilities) to address

other priority needs in the jurisdiction. It also appears to provide greater uniformity and better quality of equipment presented for approval. It also removes concerns over maintaining specialized staff and expensive

laboratory equipment to insure state by state determination of T.N.8 conformance. On the other side of the

equation, adoption and implementation represent a significant investment in administering and managing a CC

system. For users involved with more than one jurisdiction, the CC process provides a uniform passport between

jurisdictions. Equipment bought and placed in service in one jurisdiction with a CC is acceptable in another

23
NTEP jurisdiction provided local inspection requirement are satisfied. In addition, the CC can be viewed as a type of "Good Housekeeping Seal of Approval" for certified weighing operations. For manufacturers, the CC system provides a means to insure that commercial equipment that is sold in a

specific jurisdiction meets a common technical standard. Goals of the program for 1991-1992 are as follows:

1. Continue contacts with non-URNTE jurisdictions, seeking specific commitments and

providing regulatory/legislative hearing testimony as invited.

2. Provide an administrative network of support to new URNTE jurisdictions. A good

base of administrative procedure information has been accumulated and is available to assist new URNTE jurisdictions with implementation of NTEP.

3. Continue the IWM and industry programs to train more of those actively involved in weights and measures equipment applications.

24
National Council on State Metrication Meeting

The National Council on State Metrication held a meeting on Friday, July 19. Because of the juxtaposition of

this meeting with the Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, 35 States, U.S.

Territories, and the District of Columbia were represented, more than double the number ever attending any

other National Council meeting. Reports on the status of certain Federal agencies' efforts to convert to metric were given:

Paul Lynch, Office of Acquisition Policy, Government Services Administration Byron Nupp, Policy and Economics Division, U.S. Department of Transportation

Andrew Certo, Standardization Program Division, Department of Defense Loren Casement, U.S. Department of Commerce

The keynote speaker was Allison Kaufman from the U.S. Department of Commerce.

The Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act of 1988 mandates that the Federal government use (to the extent economically feasible) the metric system of measurement in procurement, grants, and other business-related

activities. Other business-related activities include all use of measurement units in agency programs and

functions related to trade, industry, and commerce. [Editor's Note: President Bush issued Executive order 12770 on July 25, 1991 implementing this portion of the Act.] A draft charter of the National Council on State Metrication was discussed. A resolution to encourage States

to require metric in their business was also discussed.

25
Honor Awards Presentations

Raymond Kammer, Deputy Director of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, presented Honor

Awards to members of the Conference who, by attending the 76th Annual Meeting this year, reached one of the attendance categories for which recognition is given - attendance for 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, or 35 years.

10 YEARS

Robert Land, City of Anderson, Indiana

Stanley Warshaw, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Charles Carroll, State of Massachusetts Robert Wittenberger, State of Missouri Richard Whipple, National Institute of Standards and Technology James Truex, State of Ohio

Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Association

15 YEARS

Chip Kloos, Beatrice/Hunt Wesson Foods

John Elengo, Jr., Revere Transducers, Inc. Fred Gerk, State of New Mexico Henry Oppermann, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Albert Tholen, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Raymond Lloyd, Scale Manufacturers Association Edward Heffron, State of Michigan W. Terry James, Cardinal/Detecto Scale Manufacturing Co.

Carl Conrad, State of New Jersey William Braun, Consultant

20 YEARS

Patrick Nichols, Alameda County, CA

David Edgerly, National Institute of Standards and Technology James Akey, State of Wisconsin

26
Certificates of Appreciation

N. David Smith, Conference Chairman, presented Certificates of Appreciation to members of standing committees and annual committees who had completed their tenure on the following committees:

Specifications and Tolerances Committee James Truex, State of Ohio

Laws and Regulations Committee Louis Straub, State of Maryland

Liaison Committee Kathleen Thuner, San Diego County, CA

Education Committee Steve Malone, State of Nebraska

Executive Committee Thomas Geiler, Town of Barnstable, MA

Edward Heffron, State of Michigan

Budget Review Committee Raymond Well, Sensitive Measurement

Darrell Guensler, State of California

Associate Membership Committee Dawn Brydon, International Dairy Foods Association

Auditing Committee Emmett Murphy, City of Philadelphia, PA

Resolutions Committee Dean Ely, State of Pennsylvania

Credentials Committee

Task Force on Safety

David Wallace, State of Colorado

Charles Gardner, Chairman, Suffolk County, NY

L. F. Eason, State of North Carolina James Harnett, Orange County, CA

EA. Hap Thompson, American Petroleum Institute Donald Soberg, State of Wisconsin Tina Butcher, National Institute of Standards and Technology

27
President's Award

This special award is a banner or streamer presented to the State Director of each State having 100% of all weights and measures officials in the State as members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures

for the membership year July 1, 1990 - June 30, 1991.

First Year Award Banners

State of Colorado

State of Indiana

State of Nevada

State of Oklahoma Streamers for Second Year 100% Membership

State of Montana

State of Oregon

State of Utah

State of Washington

State of Wyoming Streamers for Third Year 100% Membership

State of Arizona

State of Hawaii

State of Michigan

State of New Hampshire Streamers for Fourth Year 100% Membership

State of New Mexico

State of Vermont Streamers for Fifth Year 100% Membership

State of Alaska

State of Delaware

State of Idaho

State of Kansas

State of South Dakota

Streamers for Sixth Year 100% Membership

State of Arkansas

State of Nebraska

28
President's Certificate Award

This award is given to States with 100% of their State office staff as members for the 1990-91 year: First Year Awards

State of Missiouri

State of Rhode Island Second Year Awards

State of Maine

State of New York

State of Virginia

State of Wisconsin

29

Executive Committee

Final Report of the Executive Committee

N. David Smith, Chairman

Director, Standards Division North Carolina

Reference Key Number

100 Introduction

This is the Final Report of the Executive Committee for the 76th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on

Weights and Measures (NCWM). This Report is based on the Interim Report offered in the Conference "Program

and Committee Reports" (NCWM Publication 16), the Addendum Sheets issued at the Annual Meeting, and actions taken by the membership at the Voting Session.

Items are grouped into two parts: Part I - Executive Committee business; and Part II - National Type Evaluation Program, Board of Governors' business. Table A identifies all of the items contained in the Report by the Reference Key Number, Item Title, and page number. Table B lists the Appendices to the Report. Table C reports the voting

results. Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

Part I - Executive Committee

101-1 I Publications, Update 34

101-2 W Publications, Two-year Printing Cycle 35

101-3 I Membership, Status Report 36

101-4 V Organization, Chairman of the Board of Governors 37

101-5 I Organization, Appointments and Assignments 37

101-6A I Organization, Role of Metrologists 39

101-6B V Adoption of NIST Handbook 105-1, 1990 Edition 40

101-7 I Finances, Treasurer's Report 40

101-8 V Finances, Expenses of Committee Members 41

101-9 I Finances, Associate Membership Fees 41

101-10 I Finances, NTEP Operation and Funding 42

101-11 V Finances, Budget Review; New Chart of Accounts 42

101-12 V Meetings, Annual & Interim, Work Schedule 43

101-13 I Meeting, Annual, 76th 44

101-14 I Meeting, Annual, 77th 45

101- 15A I Meetings, Annual 78th 45

101-15B I Meetings, Interim 1992 45

101-16 I National Training Program (NTP) 45

101-17 I Program, Coordination With Canada 46

101-18 I Program, Task Force on Safety 46

101-19 I Program, International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) 47

101-20 I Program, Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) 47

101-21 I Program, National Uniformity 48

31
Executive Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

101-22 I Program, Task Force on Planning for the 21st Century 49

Part II - Board of Governors

102- 1 I Publications, Status Report 50

102-2 I Program, Acceptance of the NTEP Regulation by the States 51

102-3 I Program, OIML Certification Plan 53

102-4 I Program, USDA Certification Plan 53

102-5 I Program, Participating Laboratories/Evaluation Report 55

102-6 I Policy, Type Evaluation Criteria for Computers 56

102-7 I Policy, Load Cell Testing 57

102-8 I Policy, Belt-Conveyor Scales, Test Procedures 57

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

Appendix A Composition of Membership 101-3 58 Appendix B NCWM Policy - Expenses of Members 101-8 59 Appendix C Proposed Chart of Accounts 101-11 62 Appendix D Proposed Operating Budget, FY 1991-1992 101-11 66 Appendix E Report of the Task Force on Safety 101-18 71 Appendix F Report on Activities of OIML 101-19 97 Appendix G Reprint of Pages 4-6, NIST Handbook 130 101-21 102 Appendix H Report of the Task Force on the 21st Century 101-22 104 Appendix I NTEP Weighing Sector Technical Committee Reports 102-1 109 Appendix J OIML Certification Plan 102-3 168 Appendix K USDA Certification Plan 102-4 187

32
Executive Committee

Order of Presentation

The Report was presented to the membership for voting as follows:

1. A separate vote was taken on the following items:

101-4 V Organization, Chairman of the Board of Governors

101-6B V Adoption of NIST Handbook 105-1, 1990 Edition

101-8 V Finances, Expenses of Committee Members

101-11 V Finances, Budget Review; New Chart of Accounts

101-12 V Meetings, Annual & Interim, Work Schedule

2. A vote was taken on the entire Report with editorial privileges accorded to the Executive Secretary.

Table C

Voting Results

Reference House of State House of Delegates Results Key No. Representatives Yes No Yes No

101-4 41 0 44 0 Passed

101-6B 41 0 43 0 Passed

101-8 40 0 46 0 Passed

101-11 39 0 46 0 Passed

101-12 39 0 47 0 Passed

100 (Report in

its entirety) 41 0 47 0 Passed

33
Executive Committee

Details of All Items

Part I - Executive Committee

101-1 I Publications, Update

Distribution of Publications. Following the 75th Annual Meeting, the NCWM initiated a new policy for the sale and

distribution of weights and measures documents (reference NCWM Publication #3, Policy 1.4.9. Publications, Weights and Measures, Distribution Policy). The policy was aimed at: (1) generating income through the sale of documents

to non-members (rather than providing documents at no cost upon request), and (2) reducing the total number of copies printed for members by asking them to select only those documents that they actually use. Although sales to non-members have, in fact, been insignificant, about 100-150 new members have joined and received NCWM documents at reduced or no cost. However, members should be reminded to select publications when they renew their memberships this year. (1) NCWM membership services personnel noticed that a very high percentage

of members failed to indicate any specific publications that they wished to receive. The services personnel then entered all publications into the computer; this will not be continued. (2) Many members who are known to attend

the Interim and Annual Meetings did not select either the NCWM Interim Agenda or the Announcement Book,

publications vital for ongoing participation in the process of standards development. Again, services personnel entered computer data to send Interim Agenda (NCWM Publication 15) and Announcement Books (NCWM Publication 16). This coming membership year (July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992), members will automatically receive NCWM Publication

15, the Interim Meeting Agenda, and Publication 16, the Announcement Book and Committee Reports for the 77th Annual Meeting. They will not automatically receive NIST Handbooks 44, 130, and 133, NCWM Publication 2, the Weights and Measures Directory, nor the Report of the 76th Annual Meeting unless specifically requested by marking

the appropriate boxes on the back of their membership renewal forms. These forms were mailed to 1990-91 members

in May. There is no extra charge for these publications, which all members may be receive. Any member concerned

that he/she may not have marked the back of the form may check off publication selections and return the back sheet

of the W&M Today Newsletter sent out immediately after the Annual Meeting. Members' selection of publications has resulted in a slight reduction in the number of copies printed. With the planned modifications in membership services data input described above, the total is expected to drop significantly

in the coming year. The membership applications and renewals sent in May highlighted the changes in policy and membership services.

Training Modules. The development of the National Training Program (NTP) was expected to generate income to the NCWM through the sale of copies of the training modules. Based on the success of other organizations, such as the Instrument Society of America (ISA), that have developed large sales of their training materials, income from sales was expected to help fund the updating or development of additional modules.

Sales of NCWM training modules have not been large. When a new module is published, each State is given one free copy. Rather than buy "sets" of Inspector Manuals for use in training sessions (as is done by ISA), States request and

receive wavers on the copyright, then reproduce the copies needed. Other revenue means must therefore, be

generated to support the NTP. NIST training administrator Joan Mindte sent a flyer to the entire 15,000-name NCWM mailing list announcing the

availability of two new modules, 19 (Loading Rack) and 24 (Commodity Inspection); the republication and updating

of two existing modules, 8 (Retail Motor Fuel) and 10 (Package Inspection); and the availability of all the modules.

This generated nearly $5,000 income from the sale of modules. With additional updating and module generation in the coming year, it is anticipated that a small amount of income will be generated, but enough to support module

development (nearly $40,000 in 1990 dollars) is not expected.

34
Executive Committee

Use of Metric (SI) Units in Publications. Metric (SI) units are used in all weights and measures publications, and

the Conference is on record as a proponent of the use of the metric system. Nonetheless, Congressman Tim

Valentine (D, NC) wrote to Dr. Lyons, Director of NIST and NCWM President, suggesting that the use of metric

units in NIST Handbook 44 is inadequate. A special session was arranged at the Interim Meeting to exchange

information with Ms. Cristine Wegman of Congressman Valentine's (NC) office. NCWM's longstanding support for the metric system was pointed out at this meeting. It was the opinion of many that Handbook 44 and (indirectly) NIST and the NCWM were being unfairly criticized. NCWM's support for the U.S. Metric Board was recounted. The issue was raised that the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA) requires

quantity declarations in inch-pound units, and that Congressional action is required to permit labeling in metric only. Several speakers from the private sector reported on company problems with attempts to label their products in metric. For example, Shell Oil Company related its efforts to convert to gasoline sales by the liter; they had to convert back to sales by the gallon due to loss of sales. The weights and measures representatives at this meeting conveyed agreement with the commitment of Congressmen Brown (CA) and Valentine on this issue, they felt that a commitment by a majority of the Congress would be

necessary before significant progress could be made. (Congressman Brown has been a longstanding proponent of metric conversion and has submitted legislation to make the FPLA require metric labeling.)

In letters responding to Congressman Valentine, NCWM's commitment to metric usage was reconfirmed. In line with

this reconfirmation, the Executive Committee has requested that the members of the NCWM Committees be

especially aware of the need to use the SI system to the fullest degree possible as they recommend changes to the NIST and NCWM publications. Recent actions taken by Congress and NIST directly affect the NIST publications used by the weights and measures

community. Of special importance is the NIST policy requiring the use of SI units (with the corresponding values

in non-SI units optionally following in parentheses) in all NIST publications. If this policy is considered inappropriate

for use of the publications in State regulation and/or by manufacturers, sellers, and users of devices, provision is made

for exceptions requiring the approval of the NIST Director. The policy statement is as follows:

"In accordance with the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 as amended by Section 5164 of the Omnibus Trade and

Competitiveness Act of 1988 and as required by related provisions of the Code of Federal Regulations, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will use the modern metric system of measurement units (International System of Units; abbreviation: SI) in all publications. When the field of application or the special needs of users of NIST Publications require the use of non-SI units, the values of quantities will be first stated

in SI units and the corresponding values expressed in non-SI units will follow in parentheses. Exceptions to this policy require the approval of the Director." Two actions have been taken regarding the use of metric units in NCWM documents published by NIST: (1) the OWM staff developed tables outlining proposed changes to Handbooks 44, 130, and 133 for consideration by the

1 responsible NCWM standing committees; and (2) Mr. Albert Tholen (Chief, OWM) briefed Dr. John Lyons (Director,

1 NIST) on the current status of the publications and the proposed changes.

Dr. Lyons has approved the printing of NCWM Publication #5, "Index of Device Evaluations, Third Edition". He

requested that OWM provide him with advance copies of documents to be published so that he can have the opportunity to judge the progress being made towards fully meeting NIST metric policy in publications.

101-2 W Publications, Two-year Printing Cycle

' This item was withdrawn due to the lack of support by the Regional Associations, the Scale Manufacturers

Association, and the Gas Pump Manufacturers Association. The Western Weights and Measures Association is on

record opposing a two-year printing cycle; the Central Weights and Measures Association is on record supporting it provided that (1) voting on a committee's recommendations also occurs on an every-other-year basis and (2) a mechanism is established for handling emergency issues. The Central's reasoning for part (1) is that, if voting on

35
Executive Committee

items were conducted every year, voters would need two documents in the "off year - the handbook and the prior

year's proceedings - in order to know what had already been approved, but not yet added to the published handbook. See NIST Special Publication 793 "Report of the 75th National Conference on Weights and Measures", Items 101-2, 101-2A, and 101-2B for the background on this issue. 101-3 Membership, Status Report

A review of the membership program included: (1) the current membership, (2) its composition, and (3) plans for future recruitment. As can be seen in the figure below, membership has been rising. See Appendix A for the composition of membership and the NCWM mailing list. Membership grew from 1988 to 1989 by 52%, from 1989 to 1990 by 21%; in spite of a poor national economy, the ij II membership grew from 1990 to 1991 by 8%. The growth in membership is attributed to: (1) an intensive mailing | i campaign targeting local businesses (identified by the States), and (2) renewed efforts by the States to enroll their

staffs. Despite this increase, less than half of the weights and measures officials in the country are NCWM members;

a much smaller percentage of the potential private sector mailing list are members. However, the NCWM

membership continues to be split almost 50% each, public and private sectors. Increases are expected in the future

as a result of incorporating State lists of registered repair firms into the NCWM mailing list, continuing promotional

efforts, and broadening of the NCWM program (NTEP expansion to include grain measuring devices, wider

j acceptance of NTEP generally, and increasing international activities (Canada, Mexico, EC92)). NCWM Membership Growth

3600

3400

3200

3000

2800

E 2600

©

2400

2200

E 2000 z

1800

1600

1400

1200

1000

3229 29 B3

V////,

mm

16 >6 fHf

ml87-88 88-89 89-90 Membership Year

90-91

36
Executive Committee

The following recommendations were made to encourage membership growth:

1. The Executive Secretary should continue to contact States and local jurisdictions to obtain mailing lists. (As of January 30, all States had been contacted.)

2. The NCWM should experiment with mailings originated by the State offices in lieu of mailings from OWM to determine if this approach is more effective.

3. Request the Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association (GPMA) and the Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA)

to ask their members to compile mailing lists of potential NCWM members.

4. Arrange for NCWM institutional articles and advertisements in publications (e.g., Petroleum Marketeer. Weighing

and Measurement).

101-4 V Organization, Chairman of the Board of Governors

(This item was adopted.) Background: Due to the complexity of some of the issues that need to be resolved by the NTEP Board of Governors,

the current policy of assigning the NCWM Chairman-Elect to sit as Chairman of the Board of Governors was

questioned. The Chairman-Elect may have had no previous experience in any aspect of the NTEP, such as service on the Board of Governors, the NTEP Technical Committee, or the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances.

Chairing the Board could therefore impose a heavy obligation on the Chairman-Elect to study past actions and

develop an expertise on the workings of the NTEP.

The Executive Committee discussed and unanimously passed a proposal to change the Bylaws of the NCWM so that

the Past Chairman of the Conference serves as the Chairman of the Board of Governors. The recommendation was

broadened to include the duty already assigned to the Past Chairman as Chairman of the Nominating Committee.

(See Constitution, Section 2.B.l.a..) The Executive Committee agreed that this change should become effective immediately upon the close of the 1991 annual meeting of the NCWM.

Committee Recommendation: Delete Bylaws Article IV, Section 2D which states that the Chairman-Elect will "serve as Chairman of the Executive Committee when it sits as the Board of Governors for the National Type

Evaluation Program". Add a new Section to Article IV of the Bylaws as follows: SECTION 9 - PAST CHAIRMAN

The most recent still-active Past Chairman will serve as: (1) Chairman of the Executive Committee when

it sits as the Board of Governors for the National Type Evaluation Program and also as (2) Chairman of

the Nominating Committee. 101-5 I Organization, Appointments and Assignments

At the Interim Meeting, NCWM Chairman Smith reported on his appointments and on the status of the NCWM

organization. (See the Proceedings of the 75th Annual Meeting for the appointments made by Chairman Smith at the time of his taking office.)

Executive Committee

Mr. Ken Butcher, MD to complete the two years remaining on the term of Mr. Lacy DeGrange who retired.

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee - Weighing Sector - Private Subsector Mr. Gary Lameris, PMI Food Equipment Co. replacing William Paull.

37
Executive Committee

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee - Weighing Sector - Public Subsector Mr. Constantine Cotsoradis, MD

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee - Measuring Sector - Public Subsector Mr. Jack Jeffries, FL

Mr. Steve Malone, NE

Mr. Ron Murdock, NC

QIML Pilot Secretariat 7 Mr, Jim Truex, OH

Task Force on Planning for the 21st Century Mr. Darrell Guensler, CA, Chairman

Mr. Thomas Geiler, MA

Ms. Mary Heslin, CT

Mr. Chip Kloos, Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson

Mr. Bruce Martell, VT

Task Force on Safety Reappointed Mr. Charles Gardner, NY, Chairman

Mr. L.F. Eason, NC

Mr. Jim Harnett, CA

Mr. Don Soberg, WI

Mr. Hap Thompson, American Petroleum Institute

Associate Membership Committee

Ms. Dawn Brydon, International Dairy Foods Association, Chairman

Mr. Chip Kloos, Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson, Vice Chairman

Mr. Tom Stabler, Toledo Scale Corp. Secretary/Treasurer Mr. Harvey Lodge, Dunbar Man. Co. Mr. Bill Braun, Procter and Gamble

Mr. David Quinn, Fairbanks Scales Mr. Jim Schnitzler, Accurate Metering Systems Mr. Ed Thompson, Kraft Inc. Mr. Ray Wells, Sensitive Measurements Inc. Mr. Dick Whipple, Gilbarco Mr. Hap Thompson, American Petroleum Institute Chairman Smith made the following appointments since the Interim Meeting: Mr. James Harnett, CA, was appointed to serve on the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumei

Affairs (the Education Committee) for Charles Greene, NM, who has retired. Mr. Dean F. Ely, PA, was appointed to serve as Chaplain for the 76th Annual Meeting.

S Mr. Norman A. Alston, Daniel Flow Products, Inc., was appointed Chairman of the Measuring Sector of the Technica Committee on National Type Evaluation.

38
Executive Committee

Mr. Curtiss R. Kunkel, EMARK Corporation, Mr. Glen R. Marshall, Shell Oil Company, and

Mr. Gordon W. Johnson, Gilbarco Inc., were appointed to the Measuring Sector of the Technical Committee on

National Type Evaluation. Mr. Thomas J. Healy, Thayer Scale Division, was appointed to the Belt-Conveyor Scales Sector of the Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation. Appointments made at the 76th Annual Meeting by 1991-1992 NCWM Chairman Sid Colbrook are listed in Chairman

Colbrook's address (New Chairman's Message) following the committee reports in this publication. 101-6A I Organization, Role of Metrologists

At the Interim Meeting, Mr. Ross Andersen reported on the activities of the Metrologists' Group, referencing a report prepared by L.F. Eason, Chairman of the Group. The Group accomplished much that it had planned to do in July, 1990. It explored several alternatives for improving its effectiveness in the NCWM, as well as completing work in the

technical area related to mass and volume measurement.

Organization. The metrologists originally proposed a formal organizational structure that would, in their opinion, allow them to provide the best support for the Conference. They recommended the recognition of a NCWM

Technical Committee on Metrology composed of a representative from each Regional Measurement Assurance Program (RMAP) region, an industry representative, and the NIST technical advisor. Chairmanship of this Technical Committee would rotate among regions. The Metrologists' Group has been informally organized this way since 1988. Meeting Format. In the opinion of the Metrologists' Group, the NCWM Metrologist Workshop format at the annual meeting does not allow enough time to accomplish their goals. Alternatives to the present format include holding

a separate annual national metrology conference sponsored by NCWM or extending the metrology meeting schedule

to the two days before or after the NCWM Annual Meeting. A national conference would provide many advantages,

including adequate time for a comprehensive agenda featuring speakers and tutorials. The original proposal included

several questions for the Executive Committee to answer:

1. Can the Executive Committee and the NCWM support the proposed metrologist organization? Can it support

a separate or extended meeting?

2. How and to what extent can the NCWM "sponsor" and include such an organization of metrologists within the current NCWM structure?

3. Can a way be found under this proposal to assure the continued, direct participation of the metrologists (appointment to committees and task forces, election to office, etc.) within NCWM?

4. What type of liaison will be possible and how can a meaningful, active link between the NCWM and the metrologists be maintained?

5. Can a separate metrology conference be attached to the Annual Meeting of the NCWM?

Tasks Accomplished. The Executive Committee appreciates the work accomplished by the Metrologists' Group in the past year. These tasks (see the July 1991 Metrology Report in this publication for details) have contributed to the progress of the NCWM and the OWM.

The Executive Committee discussed several alternatives to the annual workshops including: (1) strengthening the five RMAP's by funneling the results of those meetings through a metrologists' standing committee reporting to the Executive Committee at the Interim and Annual Meetings of the NCWM; (2) enforcing requirements for States to send metrologists to the RMAPs; (3) extending the work week of the metrologists at the Annual Meeting to include Thursday afternoon and Friday in order to provide the time needed for their program since some members of the Executive Committee felt that jurisdictions would have difficulty supporting another annual meeting (in addition to the NCWM Annual Meeting, the Intermediate Seminars, and the RMAPs) if held separately. Recommendation of the Executive Committee: Based on comments from the Metrologists' Group and a review of

their activities, the Executive Committee recommends that the Metrologists' Group continue to: (1) operate under

its new structure; (2) meet during the week of the Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and

39
I Hi Ulilll .

I || l| rI

l (tfld (3) QGlUlfUM III prOfTftRI M ill tin irpoit to tin I'xrtlilivi ( ommillrr I In I x< < uliv. Committal - ill iinn. i.. upport thi MetrologUl Oroup In then gctlvitli

lit. . i in. 1 1 . 1 ill .nil illy id lny iiny iiilililinii.il .hp. lliiil would (I) liiiniiilly liilc^i ulc I lie Mi dolour,)-,' HrOlip HI M 'npuiuh C0mmitt6< Into tin slim I in i ul tin Nulioiinl ( uiili it iii r, <>i ( ii • .1.1I1I1 .li tin w.nk dI llir

i i. irologi < I •'••ii i "i' <ii' umhri lln ol • Annu il f1, i ting I •"" nl funding ol itati program! plui

i lion on i In • < < >ni ... .I i ii. i . mi iii . ii • iii i ii uli it) 1 1 1

1 mi mi mi iii iii nr. that rouuin idditional fundi

101 <,n v 4doptlon oi ni m Handbook iOB L, 1990 Edition

< i in i id in w.i i adopti )

< hi, n it , mlutlon Adopl NISI Hnndbool tOS I, "Speclfici m and rolorencei for Referonci Standardi

,,i. i Hpld . i in. i u.i \\. i r

iii in. i Mi .i .mi i .|h . iii. 1 1. ..i i ui.i i . ,i. i in. . . i. n Plold Standard Weightii (NISI ( Hail

i i , , m , ,i i

• '•'( i i, , . ,i ii.. i, , .,u i mi in iii in u ni tin Mi • 1 1 ii. i)i i Uroup

km / i i in UK aj, i rasiuroi Report

iii. I

i viewed tin in, .I,. , ii i iiu ..nil. NCWM, including

i id, i iiu ..i id, .mi. ni npi i itlng hudgi I

. It ui.nir ill, Ii . ,1 \. u

* . ii u, . i. ,i n i i. . i. H Hi. i m, . ting ind

i ni. u> i, . u.i, , 1 1,. i nidjji i ludiling proci dun

•l iU! Ul tl»L LUHUll OilClUlilltf LiUllgl 1 1 '" 1 " ' "" ' |»l»>vit!( >l ttll npiluli <l ii I'i'il ill lln i III I ml oprMtlliig Inulgi l 1., iii. i Miuiui (, .iuiiuii. , Miii. Alum ii Mi i inif *.ii iiu i ii dhiiif

i

'h Ucport in i in-, publication for dotalli

I llilllUlllU lllC 1'bCilL YCilt. 11,1 lif»Hll Vi lli In i iu . Illl\ I .UI.I i si. nil . I In . ,u, Ii Inn. HI Mo\l lit I In ll'Vl'IIUl'N III till' ni wm .in received In thi iprtng of eaeh yeaf (iwembnhiiip uiuwni) tin |,. < .,i i.uf. i, . . i|,i . . .minim -. mio

iti, next fllCal yetll ReCaUKI Ol I 111 variability In inionn r.lii'itiii ln> n. ymi l»» llir next, llir ope i tiling Innlgcl

itatui Ii .'ii. n . i. i.i.i, ,i in.i maki comp irlson with pail ni an dlfflt ull * onu qui nllyj thi t raaiurai madi i notion

lo changt I hi fUtcal yem lo cuincldi with I hi oalendet yew. munch iiuumn i iiiiough i)eicinlu,

i u rite motion paued unanimouil) (Nt)TI Chnngi In thi Rical y»

- »i«n -. nui i»,|nu< > ii.uifmc iin im mix iNinp ycui, wimh will

i, in un lul\ I I In,. ni! Ii Inn, 4(1. (Ii. iii w I, , 1 1 \, u i . till I U. , pi'iy Willi in. 1 1 1. if, iii. ill pUrpOtt lOIll) ) I Ii, BXOOUtlVl SikHian » .» u ipii hiiii I,, in (lint, iii. n. w ii . ii \. .ii m ol lanuar) I, 1992 rhorfl will bi <» 1991 <»>

i >. .

, mi,, . ii. 1991 reporting period to permit thi ohangt In flioal yoai reporting

LhttlUltUl a Rcgi LtaltUU l'CC llJl lllC ItllCl ilU McclUUi. '» mli u .1-. ol mon ,l,..,l\ iiNMuialing income ami coMs

In iii, budge! consideration wai givm i,. , .(.ii-ii ium- i iryintuuiiui i,, im .in, ini.tmi tu the Interim Mooting

UthOUfih QOKtl •< •"> Ifttl >' With lltt '"i' ""' M< I i">i' 1,1 1 i

, ll " '"" Ml « ""f n,,u K< " ,

• "° nuonu- Alu i dill u . ..... ii n> fit, ,1, . ..I, ,1 n.,i i,. . .1 it.li li ,i I, , I Ii, k niiiiitilli . . on. In, I, ,1 lli.il ( I ) lln nuonu- lo lln Nl WM in

1.1. quatt ton III « "i i""fi.nu, |n< in, I,,,,' ii., Ind i im m, , liny, .ni,l ( •) ill, ,i . i ii, ,1 with tin Inti rim Meeting

. .in l>, . .i -.A\ 1. 1, mill, ,i

ChtUUiUlli UlC Auditing l'l v»v.L villi tin booku ol tin N< VVMaii in, Iii, ,1 \<\ ill, Vnihling t ominillrc Ml the Annual

Meeting oaeh yoai Prior to thi Annual Meetings tht rreaiurei providoi tin mombon of tht Auditing Committal

With tht \\ M Ini.ui. i.il

( >. ,li. v ml, ,1 in. in, ... ,1, ., nlnm: il.. .. , .-mil-, m lln Innli'i I. uml pi ,u , ,lni ,

-. (bi BUdltiltg Oil

I v.m.i, ( , mini, il,, COIU'ludOd I'"' tht .m,,m proii'iluil i.N .1,1, ,|ii il, Iml lllitl ill, I "iCCUlivt S,»i,hu\ nlu>nlll

,\|-i.,i, iii. in. n. \. . n.uiii.i. I., il.. n* \\ m lit, ,>|>, i.iiuif! Im, I;', i ,.i iln N< wm vontlnUM to WtW Mid II

i. hln| ^ 'ihi.ihhi ,.. i \, .ii

v.i.i.u.m.iiu. id, ii,.i,iii,i .imi iti, i wniiivt • im u, toiiowing a plan io tuitomati 'i>i bookktaping and

.. (•,-, In,.. tlOIII lit. Ni \\ M in ,,..1. . i., piOVllll in,. i, ,1, I. ul l,i iii. I \, , uli\, i ,muii. ii, , In ni.iii.iirx llir Nv WM

Imsnn sn

li.
Executive Committee

Encumbering Monies for Training Program. The current year's budget contains $10,000 "earmarked" for use by the regional associations in obtaining instruction in training delivery, and $10,000 for use in enhancing the capability of

the National Training Program to update the modules.

Instructional Training. The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association and the Western Weights and Measures

Association have contracted for and received training seminars from the Institute of Weights and Measures. The

other regional associations have not contracted for training trainers yet. The Executive Committee voted to encumber

the balance remaining of the $10,000 at the end of the current fiscal year (currently $5,698.64) for one additional year,

to be used for the originally intended purpose. Module Updating. As of the time of the Interim Meeting, $5,494.86 of the budgeted $10,000 had been spent ($3,540

for purchase of a laserjet printer and $1,954.86 to a contractor for reformatting Module 6). The Executive Committee

voted to encumber the balance remaining of the $10,000 at the end of the fiscal year (currently $4505.14) for one

additional year to be used for the originally intended purpose. 101-8 V Finances, Expenses of Committee Members

(This item was adopted.) Background: As an informal policy, members have been reimbursed for expenses incurred when on travel for the conduct of NCWM business. This expense has been rising as the activities of the NCWM have increased and now

accounts for a large portion of the operating budget. A subcommittee was established by the then Chairman, Fred Gerk, to draft a policy for reimbursing members'

expenses when on Conference business. The following members were appointed to the subcommittee: Ken Simila, OR, Chairman; Ed Heffron, MI; Tom Geiler, MA.

The Subcommittee developed a draft policy which was put to a ballot of the Executive Committee. Following

refinement, the draft policy (see Appendix B) was accepted by the Executive Committee, which then requested the Executive Secretary to put it into operation. Committee Recommendation: Appendix B is recommended for adoption as policy of the Conference. 101-9 I Finances, Associate Membership Fees

In a Memorandum to the Executive Committee dated July 11, 1990, the Associate Membership forwarded a motion

unanimously supported by its members to:

support the National Conference on Weights and Measures more effectively; and

provide a more equitable distribution of sources of funding by the Associate Members for Conference-related programs (e.g., the traditional Conference reception, as well as educational programs, training and publications). The memorandum also stated that: The Associate Membership Committee proposes that associate membership dues be initiated, effective Conference

Year 1990-91, at a level of $15. This incremental differential could be added to Conference dues (currently $35) for

a total of $50, and would be applied to carry out the type of programs outlined above."

This issue was discussed at the Interim Meeting with representatives of the Associate Membership. The following

conclusions were reached:

1. The Executive Committee generally opposes a two-tier dues structure ($35 for active and $50 for associate members).

2, If dues were to be raised, they should be raised for all members based on the need of the NCWM. (It was noted

that the membership fees have not been raised since the initiation of the membership program in 1980.)

41
Executive Committee

3. The cost of the special activities at the Annual Meeting has been escalating for the Associate Membership

Reception and for the functions sponsored by the NCWM and NIST.

4. It was agreed that all special functions need to be scaled back. It was proposed and agreed by all present that the Executive Secretary and the Associate Membership should work to arrange a "joint" activity at the 76th Annual

Meeting in Philadelphia, PA in July 1991. A general plan was discussed that would move the NCWM "outing" from Thursday to Wednesday, preceded by a reception sponsored by the Associate Membership. This plan would

significantly reduce the costs for everyone involved. Moving the "outing" to Wednesday would also make it possible for more Associate Members to attend. Because of prior scheduling and contractual agreements, this year's outing was scheduled on Thursday rather than moved to Wednesday. This year's outing is considerably less expensive than prior years, and the Associate Membership Reception scheduled on Wednesday evening is, in fact, a shared activity (although the bulk of the reception is the gift of the Associate Membership). The Executive Committee will continue to review the issue of

outings and receptions so that they do not financially burden either the individual meeting attendees or the Associate Membership Committee. One possibility is to incorporate the costs of a reception or outing into the registration fee. 101-10 I Finances, NTEP Operation and Funding

The NTEP has neither policy nor budget for meeting unusual expenses incurred in the resolution of appeals, especially those incurring high costs, such as testing load cells. The Executive Secretary drafted and proposed a policy to the Board of Governors in May 1989. (See the Report of the 75th NCWM 1990, pages 52-54.) Although the proposal was adopted by the Board by letter ballot, it was not implemented because neither the Scale Manufacturers

Association nor the Gas Pump Manufacturers Association agreed with the proposal. The Board had requested the two associations to provide their recommendations for resolving this problem. No clear alternatives were forthcoming. The Executive Committee is now considering an NTEP "maintenance fee" to be assessed annually for every valid

certificate of conformance. Failure to pay the fee would result in automatic "expiration" of the certificate; this approach is common to programs similar to the NTEP.

The Executive Committee agreed to: (1) develop a plan encompassing the concept of a "maintenance fee" including

the basis for assessing and the amount of the fee(s); (2) put the subject on the agendas of both NTEP Technical Committees; (3) request information from other organizations (e.g., Factory Mutual, Underwriters Laboratories, National Sanitation Foundation) concerning their funding mechanisms; and (4) tie this item into the discussions of

the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances related to marking of devices and the use of the NTEP logo. The Committee plans to continue development of plans for the future administration of the NTEP program. In its review of the issue, the Committee recognized that this issue must be broadened to include plans for funding other maintenance functions of NTEP. Consequently, the current title is deleted and changed to: Finances, NTEP

Operation and Funding. 101-11 V Finances, Budget Review; New Chart of Accounts

(This item was adopted.) Budget Growth. The growing resources of the NCWM result from increased membership. The Executive Committee

and the Budget Review Committee are becoming more intimately involved in budget development and management. The budget for FY 90-91 was $158,000, a significant increase over the $113,000 for FY 89-90. The draft budget for FY 91-92 is $191,000. The income from membership fees is projected to rise from $67,550 (FY 89-90) to $110,950 (FY 90-91). The National Conference on Weights and Measures is a growing organization. As the membership increases, programs are expanding. The NCWM is now both a standards developing body AND an operating organization, operating both the National Type Evaluation Program and the National Training Program. Both of these programs

have great potential to serve the membership and weights and measures in general. The budget for FY 91-92 was

developed with this trend in mind (i.e., funding of NTEP appeals processes, auditing device production processes,

delivery of formal prescheduled training seminars for 14 to 20 modules, etc).

42
Executive Committee

In order to fund this expansion in mission, new mechanisms must be developed along with new funding sources, such

as training tuition and registration fees directly related to the particular meeting. An example of identifying expenditures with major activities is the budgeting for the Annual Meeting. Previous budgets reported expenses of

the Annual Meeting as those associated only with the hotel: they did not include such other incurred expenses as committee operations and travel/per diem expenses. The 1991-1992 Proposed Chart of Accounts (Appendix C)

portrays ALL costs associated with conducting the Annual Meeting as "Annual Meeting" expenses. The Proposed

Chart of Accounts reflects that the cost of printing NCWM Publication 15, the Interim Meeting Agenda, is part of

the cost of conducting the Interim Meeting, and that the cost of printing NCWM Publication 16, the Annual Meeting

Program and Committee Reports, is part of the cost of conducting the Annual Meeting. New Format. Section IV Accounting of NCWM Policy 1.3.1. Procedures for Establishing the Budget and

Administering Funds of the National Conference on Weights and Measures contains a list of accounts for NCWM

operations. A new accounting format is proposed for three reasons: (1) to provide more detail of both income and

expenses; (2) to regroup income and costs to better reflect the application of these items; and (3) to establish the basis

for computerizing the accounting of the NCWM.

By automating the financial management of the Conference, the Treasurer and the Executive Secretary will be able

to provide the Chairman and the Executive Committee with monthly statements and reports of expenditures. This

will provide the ability to compare operations with the budget and make budgetary decisions rapidly and confidently.

See Appendix C for a description of the proposed Chart of Accounts. The Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 1991-1992 was adopted by the Executive Committee (Appendix D). Committee Recommendation: Replace Section IV Accounting in NCWM Policy 1.3.1. with the Chart of Accounts

in Appendix C. 101-12 V Meetings, Annual & Interim, Work Schedule

(This item was adopted.)

Discussions continued about the format of the Interim and the Annual Meetings. The Committee decided against major changes in the current format. Three issues were discussed: (1) additional technical sessions on major issues;

(2) shortened work week; and (3) executive (closed) sessions.

Technical Sessions. The proposal to add technical sessions was based on two observations: (1) the membership needs

a fuller understanding of some issues before the Conference so that final decisions are better understood and applied

at the State and local level; and (2) many non-committee members in attendance have free time to spend in technical

sessions. Tutorials or other informational sessions would clarify some of the more complex issues under consideration. They could be held concurrent with committee sessions without delaying the business of the Conference. One obstacle

to planning and conducting these additional sessions is the limited availability of OWM staff, who are already fully committed at both the Interim and Annual meetings. No specific conclusions were reached on this subject.

Shortening the Work Week. Two reasons for a shorter work week were discussed: (1) to reduce total per diem costs

to the NCWM or to the members' jurisdictions or companies for attending the meeting; and (2) to reduce the total time the individual is away from the office. During the past few years, the Interim Meeting has required five working

days to complete the work of the Standing Committees. In fact, the actual work week has been getting longer, with members flying on Saturdays to get better air fares. Sunday is a work day at both the Interim and Annual Meetings. At some Interim Meetings, reducing the time available to the committees was a hardship. At the Interim Meeting

in Scottsdale, the working days were curtailed in order to work in field trips; in Bethesda, the workday on Wednesday

I was shortened in order to take a field trip to the new weights and measures facility in Annapolis. In both cases, committee members reported difficulties in getting all their work done. It was decided not to change the current weekly format of the Interim Meeting. The 76th Annual Meeting was concluded at 3 p.m. on Thursday rather than

Friday morning.

Executive Sessions. An associate member registered a complaint with the Executive Secretary that one of the standing committees closed its meeting on a Sunday afternoon during the agenda review session. The committee members

43
Executive Committee

had felt the pressure of dealing with a large agenda in a relatively short time and concluded that a closed session would likely result in a faster pace than an open session. Several sensitive issues on the agenda had led industry representatives at earlier Interim and Annual Meetings to attend the Sunday meeting to introduce information. The

Committee felt that the Sunday session should be a work session, and that industry input should be held until the open

forums on Monday. Since they had had difficulty in controlling interruptions in the past, they decided that the fairest approach would be to make the Sunday session an executive (closed) session. The Committee obtained prior approval

of the Executive Secretary and posted the notice at the registration desk. Unfortunately, since the meetings began on Sunday, there was no advance warning for out-of-town participants planning to attend the Sunday session. The Conference has followed a general policy to keep all meetings open. The Announcement Books read: "Unless

otherwise posted, all meetings are informal and open to all registered delegates." As a result of much soul-searching

at the Annual Meeting in July 1990, the following was added to the Sunday session descriptions for each committee

in the Interim Agenda this year: This is a working session for the Committee. Although the session is open, no input

will be taken from other than members of the Committee." However, the Executive Committee believes it is necessary to formalize its open meeting policy. The Committee acknowledges the need to emphasize the purpose of the Sunday committee meetings. The Committee

instructs the Executive Secretary to include appropriate text in NCWM Publication 16, Program and Committee

Reports for the NCWM, to clarify the purpose of these meetings for members who plan to attend the annual meeting. Committee Recommendation: Adopt the following policy:

All sessions of conference meetings are normally open to all members of the Conference. If the Chairman

of a Committee recognizes an abnormal situation involving a proprietary issue (e.g., NTEP appeals) or

sensitive issue or other substantive need, that portion of the session dealing with the abnormal issue may

be closed provided that: (1) the Conference Chairman (or in his absence the Chairman-Elect) approves, and (2) announcement the closed meeting is posted on or near the door to the meeting session and on the announcement board at the registration desk. If at all possible, the posting should be done at least a day

prior to the planned closed session.

101-13 I Meeting, Annual, 76th

The 76th Annual Meeting was held at the Four Seasons Hotel in Philadelphia, PA during the week of July 13, 1991. A total of 275 delegates were in attendance along with 60 guests. There were 43 States represented, plus Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Islands. American Samoa, Colorado, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Guam, Maine,

Mississippi, Montana, Nevada, and New York were not represented this year. Delegates from Canada also attended.

This year four states received first year banners for 100% membership of their State and local weights and measures

officials in the NCWM. This brings the total to 22 States that have 100% membership in the NCWM.

The "President's Certificate Award" was presented this year for the second time. Six States received this award wit! 100% of their State office staff as members for the 1990-1991 conference year.

Weights and Measures for the 21st Century

In his address to the Conference, Chairman Smith reflected on the major accomplishments of the NCWM over th< past five years. He emphasized the need for NCWM members to continue efforts to promote the importance o weights and measures programs in spite of the severe program cutbacks experienced by many jurisdictions. Chairma

Smith recalled the theme of the 1990-1991 NCWM year, "Weights and Measures for the 21st Century." He cited number of current changes that have occurred in technology and markets which affect the weights and measure

community, and he stressed the need for the weights and measures community to continue to look ahead. Chairma

Smith ended his address by recognizing the importance of the work of the Task Force on Planning for the 2k

44
Executive Committee

Century, he commended the Task Force for the work which has already been accomplished by its members. It is hoped that the Task Force will present recommendations to the NCWM for developing strategies that will enable the weights and measures community to improve the quality of its services and products as it responds to the rapidly changing environment of the future.

77th Theme: Partnerships for Progress Chairman Colbrook has chosen "Partnerships for Progress" as the 1991-1992 theme. In his address to the NCWM,

Chairman Colbrook cited some of the many examples of partnership which exist among members of the NCWM and

other organizations and agencies, both nationally and internationally. He also announced his appointments for the 1991-1992 year. (See the New Chairman's Message for details.) Chairman Colbrook reviewed some of the exciting new endeavors of the NCWM, such as the expansion of the National Type Evaluation Program to include performance criteria for grain moisture measuring devices and protein

analyzers. He also noted that he has asked the members of the Task Force on the 21st Century to continue their work on looking to the future for the weights and measures community. 101-14 I Meeting, Annual, 77th

The 77th Annual Meeting will be held during the week of July 19-24, 1992 at the Stouffer Nashville Hotel in downtown Nashville, TN. Planned activities include attendance at the Grand Ole Opry and the dinner theater on the General Jackson (a river paddle boat). The rates are $99 for a single or double room. The Stouffer is a 31-story

hotel in the heart of Nashville. It is connected to the new Convention Center and the new Church Street Shopping

Mall (over 65 retail stores and dining). The hotel has a health center containing a fitness room, indoor swimming

pool, whirlpool, sauna, and outdoor sun deck. Nashville has many attractions, including the Grand Ole Opry, Music Row, Riverboats, a theme park, and Printer's Alley (for night-time dinner and entertainment). The hotel is within

a half hour of the airport. 101-15A I Meetings, Annual 78th

The Executive Secretary reported on general plans regarding the location of future meetings. The 78th Annual

Meeting is being planned for the Central Weights and Measures region. The Central Weights and Measures

Association has recommended that the NCWM consider either Cincinnati, OH or Kansas City, MO as appropriate

locations for the 78th Annual Meeting. 101-15B I Meetings, Interim 1992

The Interim Meeting will be held at the Hyatt Regency Bethesda, Bethesda, Maryland during the week of January

12-16, 1992. The room rate will be $69 for a single or double room. 101-16 I National Training Program (NTP)

The Executive Committee and the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs met in a joint session at the Interim Meeting. At that session, Education Committee Chairman Steve Malone reported on the progress and the status of the National Training Program. His report was essentially a summary of the Education

Committee's Interim Report published in NCWM Publication 16, 76th Annual Meeting Program and Committee

Reports 1991. (See the final Education Committee Report.) The Education Committee is concerned that the existing modules will not be updated routinely and will become

obsolete, thus wasting much of the effort and resources invested in their development. The OWM staff does not have

the resources to keep all modules current. At each Annual Meeting large numbers of changes to Handbooks 44, 130,

133, and other publications are adopted. This, in turn, establishes the need to make large numbers of changes in the

training modules, not only to the excerpts from the Handbooks, but also text to explain the changes. In response to

selected cases of the need for massive changes in a Module (e.g., Module 5), the Education Committee is contracting

to get the work done. However, the long term need for annual updating still needs to be resolved.

45
Executive Committee

The Executive Committee took action to encumber previously allocated funds into the next fiscal year (see Item 101-

Coordination between the U.S. and Canadian weights and measures programs is continuing with the objectives to: (1) reduce differences in the legal requirements of the two countries; and (2) share the workload for studying and

analyzing issues affecting both programs. Reduction of Differences. The two countries continue to send representatives to each other's meetings. The

Canadian Legal Metrology Branch sends representatives to the meetings of the Committee on Specifications and

Tolerances, the Committee on Laws and Regulations, and the NTEP technical committees. Henry Oppermann and

others from the OWM staff attend technical meetings in Canada. The Canadian Legal Metrology Branch and the NIST Office of Weights and Measures solicited comments from the

private sector to identify differences between the legal requirements of the two countries that cause problems or confusion for device manufacturers. Both the Canadians and the U.S. wrote to the industries on their mailing lists. To date, the OWM has received over 20 written responses and a similar number of telephone responses to its letter. The Canadians report a smaller response to their letter. The two countries are exchanging copies of the letters and comments received.

Sharing Study of Issues. The two countries have divided primary responsibilities to study selected technical issues and

will share results. This will reduce expenditures in time and workload and should enable combined studies of more

issues. Issues now under study include computers, audit trails, mass flow meters, and the method of sale for baler

twine. 101-18 I Program, Task Force on Safety At the Interim Meeting, Mr. Charles Gardner, NY, Chairman of the Task Force reported on the work accomplished

by the Task Force and its future plans. This report was included as an appendix in the Announcement Book (NCWM

Publication 16). Mr. Gardner provided the Executive Committee with an update of the work of the Task Force since the Interim Meeting. The Task Force completed its work at its final meeting in April 1991. The Task Force has submitted a complete final report to the Executive Committee along with its final recommendations to the NCWM for addressing

the issue of safety in the weights and measures workplace. This complete report of the Task Force is divided into the following sections:

I) Summary

II) Recommendations to the NCWM

III) Background The Establishment of the NCWM Task Force on Safety IV) The NCWM Task Force on Safety V) Who Needs a Safety Program? -- Making a Committment

VI) Establishing a Safety Program in the Weights and Measures Workplace — Where to Start VII) Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Program and Making Modifications

VIII) Resources for Maintaining an Effective Safety Program The complete report of the Task Force was made available to attendees of the Annual Meeting as an addendum to the Interim Report of the Executive Committee. A brief summary of the Task Force's work is included in Appendix

E to this report. Also included in Appendix E are sections (II), (V), (VI), (VII), and (VIII) of the final report. The

latter four sections contain major points to be addressed when establishing a safety program. They are considered

to be the most significant portion of the Task Force's report. The final report of the Task Force is available in its entirety as a separate NCWM Publication, Number 19. Copies

of NCWM Publication 19 will be distributed to all State weights and measures directors. A limited number of copies

V). 101-17 Program, Coordination With Canada

46
Executive Committee

of Publication 19 are still available at no cost to NCWM members. When this supply is exhausted, a second printing

will be made and copies made available (at reduced cost to members).

Revisions to include safety considerations will be included in the 1992 publication of NCWM Publication 12, Examination Procedure Outlines for Weighing and Measuring Equipment. Similar revisions are expected to be made

to future editions of NIST Handbooks 143, State Weights and Measures Laboratories Program Handbook, and 145, Handbook for the Quality Assurance of Metrological Measurements, or issued as addenda to the Handbooks. A

glossary of the key safety phrases which will be used in Publication 12 and/or in Handbooks 143 and 145 is included

as an attachment to Appendix E. 101-19 I Program, International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML)

At the Interim Meeting, Dr. Sam Chappell, Chief of the Standards Management Program, NIST, updated a joint session of the Committee on Liaison and the Executive Committee on the activities of OIML. With the development

of the OIML "pattern approval" plan and the evolution of the EC, the NCWM needs to consider these rapidly moving

activities to determine the impacts on the NCWM and the U.S. commercial system. An update to Dr. Chappell's report is included in Appendix F to this report. 101-20 I Program, Office of Weights and Measures (OWM)

OWM Status. At the Interim Meeting, Mr. Albert Tholen, Chief of the OWM, briefed a joint session of the Committee on Liaison and the Executive Committee on the program of the OWM. Each member of the Executive Committee was provided with a copy of the OWM's Long Range Plan. Copies were later provided to members of

the Committee on Liaison and the Task Force on the 21st Century. Mr. Tholen encouraged review of the Long

Range Plan, especially from the point of view of addressing the needs of the weights and measures community. He

also suggested that it be reviewed (especially the Section on "Program Trends and Needs") in the context of the work

of the Task Force on the 21st Century so that the plans of the NCWM and the OWM are compatible. As reported by Mr. Tholen, the work of the OWM is conducted in seven task areas:

1. Provide the Secretariat and technical advisors for the operation of the National Conference on Weights and Measures to: (a) maintain and improve the Conference organization and operations for the solution of weights and measures problems; and (b) develop and adopt national consensus standards for uniformity in the regulation of commerce.

2. Provide the basis for equity in trade through the development of uniform laws and regulations and methods of

test that serve as standards for the State regulation and administration of commercial commodity exchange.

3. Promote uniformity of weights and measures administration, inspection, and enforcement in State, county, and

local jurisdictions, through training and the design and development of training materials.

4. Provide technical support for the traceability of State weights and measures laboratories to the national standards through development and use of standard procedures, protocols, measurement assurance programs, and audit the use and care of the physical standards of mass, length, and volume.

5. Provide the technical measurement bases for development of uniform performance specifications, tolerances, and

test methodology for commercial weighing and measuring devices and systems, and field standards and equip- ment.

6. Evaluate new measurement instruments, systems, and field standards to determine their conformance with

required standards of design and performance. Provide training of State officials for NTEP evaluation and

laboratory authorization.

7. Provide leadership and coordination among State and local weights and measures officials, and between them

and Federal agencies, private sector organizations, and the International Organization of Legal Metrology.

47
Executive Committee

Mr. Richard Whipple, formerly from Gilbarco, Inc., was hired by OWM July 1, 1991. Mr. Kenneth Butcher, chief of Maryland Weights and Measures, was hired July 29, 1991 to replace Mr. Eric Vadelund in the Office of Standards Management (OIML) and to provide assistance in OWM.

NIST Visiting Committee. Dr. Ed Heffron, MI, is a member of the National Institute of Standards and Technology's

Visiting Committee. He reported on the role and activities of the NIST Visiting Committee and his participation. Dr. Heffron said that he is quite impressed with the members of the Visiting Committee and believes that he has an

important role to play in its deliberations. At the Annual Meeting, Dr. Heffron reported further on the role of the nine member committee as authorized by

the 1988 Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act in reviewing and making recommendations on budgets, programs, and policies of NIST. His report acknowledged justification of a NCWM member being appointed to the Visiting Committee to utilize the experience and expertise of NCWM as a broad measurement science organization, in particular, its liaison work with State and local government and industry. The report outlined the Visiting Committee's independence in analyzing and making ongoing recommendations to the administration of NIST and to appropriate congressional committees in an annual report to the Secretary of Commerce. Examples were outlined of the determination of the Visiting Committee to implement major updating

of the NIST facilities at Gaithersburg, MD and at Boulder, CO. Dr. Heffron indicated that the Visiting Committee

has a major ongoing charge to emphasize the transfer of advanced technology. One of the success stories of NIST

has been its scientific discoveries that have been or are amenable to transfer into useful commercial products. One

of the means undertaken by NIST for enhancing the transfer of advanced technology is the establishment of regional manufacturing technology centers, now numbering five. These centers are exhibiting early signs of significant results. The extension of technology by NIST is, in many aspects, similar to the productive relationship between the NCWM

and the OWM. The Visiting Committee is increasingly aware of the need for NIST to continue to expand its measurement science base for commerce and industry (similar to the extension as conducted by the OWM and the NCWM). These Visiting Committee views coincide with and reinforce the planning of NIST. Dr. Heffron summarized the vital role that the NCWM can play, not only as a functioning model, but also as a measurement

science conduit to industry.

101-21 I Program, National Uniformity

Status of Uniformity. The Office of Weights and Measures has as a major goal in the legislation that established the National Bureau of Standards in 1901 "cooperation with the States in securing uniformity in weights and measures

laws and methods of inspection". After 90 years, attainment of uniformity is still a goal; this conclusion is based on

the following evidence:

1. NIST Handbook 130 reports on the status of adoption of the uniform laws and regulations and NIST Handbook

44. The format of reporting the status of adoption has been changed. Handbook 130 now keeps track of whether

a State automatically updates its rules when new editions of Handbook 44 and the regulations in Handbook 130

are printed. In many cases, fewer States have adopted uniform regulations than the number that have not adopted them.

2. Although 36 States automatically adopt the most recent edition of Handbook 44, 17 States must go through

additional rule-making administrative procedures or through their legislatures to adopt changes. Some States consequently reference handbooks five or more years out of date.

If the goal is uniformity, can the Conference and NIST be satisfied with anything less than complete adoption of Handbook 44 and the uniform laws and regulations in Handbook 130? The reason for including the new Sections

5 through 10 in the Uniform Law (1983) was to provide a mechanism for the States to keep up to date with the

actions of the Conference. For example:

48
Executive Committee

"Section 5. Requirements for Packaging and Labeling The Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation as adopted by the National Conference on Weights and Measures and published in the National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 130 "Uniform Laws

and Regulations" and supplements thereto or revisions thereof, shall apply to packaging and labeling in the State, except insofar as modified or rejected by regulation." Knowing that essentially every State Director attends the Annual Meeting and votes on every issue before the Conference, one could conclude that the efforts working toward uniformity are understood. Why, then, is the progress toward to uniformity so slow? Answers include claims that: (1) State regulations are similar to the models; (2) an individual State does not "need"

certain regulations; (3) it is very difficult to get changes through the legislature; or (4) budgets are being cut and

Directors want to "keep a low profile." The Executive Committee restated its desire to continue the ongoing efforts for uniformity, including the following: L Reconfirm the information in Handbook 130. If States know of inaccuracies in Appendix G (reprint of pages 4-6

in Handbook 130), please contact Carroll Brickenkamp, OWM, 301-975-4005 with corrections and updates.

2. Offer assistance of OWM and the NCWM to the States in their efforts to update statutes.

3. Determine if the NCWM should establish an official program for promulgation of uniform laws, regulations, and

standards to achieve uniformity among all jurisdictions.

In this period of growing complexity in and internationalization of commerce, the status quo with many State

variations" adds costs to our business system. Can all the States achieve the goal of adopting the uniform laws and

regulations as written? Until or unless this is accomplished, will we have the free, open, uniform marketplace

envisioned 90 years ago?

State Program Funding. Considerable concern was expressed that being aggressive about changing legislation at the

State level is not high on the agenda because of belt tightening due to widespread budget shortfalls. The discussion turned to addressing the growing pressures to reduce budgets, including legislating fees and/or licenses as sources

of income to reduce strain on general funds. The official position of the NCWM is:

1. Weights and Measures is a regulatory function, not a "service" for fee function.

2. The preferred source of funding weights and measures programs is from general funds.

3. Funding through fee systems is inequitable and conflicts with effective regulation. The Executive Committee suggested that States faced with major changes in funding and funding sources solicit the

assistance of neighboring jurisdictions, the NCWM, and the OWM to assist in providing arguments for maintaining

general funding. Position papers on program funding are available from OWM upon request. 101-22 I Program, Task Force on Planning for the 21st Century

This Task Force was established by Chairman Smith. At the Interim Meeting, the Task Force Chairman, Mr. Darrell Guensler, reported on the work plan of the Task Force. The responsibilities of the Task Force are to:

1. make predictions on the future of weights and measures and recommendations for meeting the challenges;

2. make recommendations for new areas to come under the weights and measures umbrella;

3. investigate avenues that will put the value of weights and measures and the Conference before the political and

civic "movers and shakers" in our States and at the National level;

49
Executive Committee

4. suggest how to take the Conference to the membership, rather than only bringing the members to the Conference;

5. determine the need to include a session on motor fuel quality at the Annual Meeting;

6. consider the impact of biodegradable, recyclable, and safety packaging on existing requirements; and

7. generally "rock the boat" and get us "sailing in the right direction" now and into the future. The Task Force held its first meeting on December 13 and 14, 1990 in Raleigh, NC. In addition to the members of

the Task Force, Chairman Smith and Carroll Brickenkamp participated in the meeting.

After much discussion and agreement on what the Task Force should do, the group identified approximately 25 issues and goals to study. These items include "new ways of financing weights and measures programs," "networking," "future of device inspection," and "identifying with the quality movement." Each member of the group was assigned the task of identifying five top priority subjects that will allow the group to concentrate at the next meeting on the most important ideas. The Task Force met March 21-22, 1991 in Burlington, VT. The report of this meeting is included as Appendix H to

this report.

Part II - Board of Governors

102-1 I Publications, Status Report

The Executive Secretary reported on the status of NTEP Publications 5 and 14.

Publication #5. Publication 5 was originally offered in three formats: (1) Publication 5 - complete document including

listings of Certificates of Conformance issued by company, device type, and certificate number; (2) Publication 5A

containing listing by company only; and (3) an electronic version on floppy disk (provided by requestor). As of the Interim Meeting, the following orders were filled:

Pub. #5 Pub. #5A

At no charge to members 338 251 To non-members 46 ($15 each) 34 ($5 each)

Electronic (no cost) 60 14

Total 384 285 Cost of printing $5,320 $ 649 Income _710 170 Net loss ($4,610) ($479) The number of requests is encouraging, but we think that inspectors need more. The large expenditure in printing resulted from a lack of deadline for requests; reprinting to meet the demand of members was expensive.

50
Executive Committee

The latest edition of NCWM Publication 5, "National Type Evaluation Program Index of Device Evaluations", has been updated and was published in May 1991; it lists all NTEP Certificates of Conformance issued from January 1986 through May 8, 1991. The publication is available in two versions. The first version, NCWM Publication 5, is a complete listing of certificates sorted three ways, by company, by device type, and by certificate number. The cost of this publication is $20 per copy for NCWM members ($35 for nonmembers). The second version, Publication 5A,

is a 5-1/2 by 8-1/4-inch version of Publication 5. This smaller version was published for convenience in field inspections. This publication is available at $15 per copy for NCWM members ($30 for nonmembers).

A flyer detailing purchasing information for Publications 5 and 5A was mailed to all NCWM members in late July

1991. For further information on how to order a copy of these publications, please call (301) 975-4003.

Publication 14. This publication is in the process of a major revision with publication targeted for the fall of 1991. The new edition will include a checklist and test procedures for automatic bulk-weighing systems, and belt-conveyor

scales; the checklists for scales, load cells, and liquid-measuring devices will be updated.

National Type Evaluation Program Weighing Sector Technical Committee Reports. Summaries of all Weighing Sector Technical Committee Meetings held from November 2, 1988 through June 26-27, 1990 have been combined into a

separate report and is Appendix I to the Executive Committee Report. 102-2 I Program, Acceptance of the NTEP Regulation by the States The adoption of the Uniform Regulation on National Type Evaluation (URNTE) has been a subject of interest and

discussion by the Executive Committee for the past two years. The Board of Governors strongly urged that: (1) all States adopt the regulation; (2) all field inspectors be trained to enforce the codes in the latest edition of Handbook

44; and (3) field inspectors routinely verify that all inspected devices have been issued a Certificate of Conformance.

Although the NTEP program has attained many of its objectives, it will not fulfill its potential until it is used

throughout all of the States. Nonuniform or lack of application of NTEP requirements unfairly penalizes those manufacturers who fully subscribe to NTEP as the process to assure conformance with the requirements of Handbook

44 since those who do not participate still have access for their products (which may not meet requirements) to the same markets. The problem is compounded by variability in inspection protocols among inspectors due to incorrect or incomplete training. Additional problems are introduced into the system by lack of knowledge and understanding on the part of private sector design, manufacturing, and service personnel.

Shortly before the 75th NCWM, the SMA established an Ad Hoc Task Force to study the status of adoption of the URNTE and to make recommendations for the SMA's consideration regarding an industry program to support NTEP.

The Task Group, chaired by SMA Technical Director Daryl Tonini and including Terry James (Cardinal Scale), David Quinn (Fairbanks Scales), and Tom Stabler (Toledo Scale) as members, interviewed 10 weights and measures officials regarding their views on NTEP and the URNTE.

These interviews, conducted at the 75th NCWM and the 1990 meetings of the Western and Southern Weights and Measures Associations, led to consensus that:

a. an industry role in encouraging state adoption of the URNTE would be welcome;

b. such an effort should include concurrent support for adoption of the Voluntary Registration of Servicemen Model

Regulation;

c. weights and measures officials view NTEP training for their staffs to be their responsibility. However, an industry

role and involvement would be in order for training of service and dealer personnel; and

d. there is a need for improvement of industry, service, and dealer understanding of NTEP.

Following the report of the Task Group in November, 1990, the SMA Board of Directors approved a program for

a joint NTEP effort with the NCWM. The objective of the program is to encourage and assist state adoption of the URNTE.

51
Executive Committee

In addition to the members of SMA taking a more active role in NTEP training of their service and sales personnel,

the SMA Task Group was assigned to develop a program to present the NTEP/URNTE message at regional W&M

and industry association meetings (such as NISA and ISWM).

The program was presented to NCWM/OWM in December, 1990. NCWM and SMA then announced the program

in letters to State Weights and Measures Directors in jurisdictions without type approval or URNTE. Modest but important responses were received from about 10 jurisdictions. At the 1991 Interim Meeting, Mr. Dave Quinn, Fairbanks Scales, gave a presentation on the "Scale Manufacturers

Association/ National Conference Program for adoption of the URNTE." As explained by Mr. Quinn, there are two

objectives of the program: (1) to achieve national adoption of the URNTE; and (2) to advocate aggressive enforcement of the URNTE. The SMA goals are to attain high nationwide product quality so that all devices meet

the requirements of Handbook 44. This will require that the NTEP no longer be "voluntary". The SMA encourages adoption of the URNTE as an efficient and effective system of type approval requiring only one approval (rather than 12 or more as before NTEP) for any type device. A Certificate of Conformance is evidence

that the device meets the code requirements of Handbook 44, paragraph T.N.8., and is of commercial quality and

product conformance. The Task Group has been told that the industry participants need additional training in the knowledge of and

application of NTEP, and that increased communications are needed between the industry and the weights and measures jurisdictions. The program of the SMA/NCWM initiative includes the following steps:

1. identify jurisdictions that have not adopted the URNTE, but are interested in adopting it; 2. offer the assistance of the SMA Task Group or individual SMA members, and of the NCWM or OWM, in planning for adoption, including scheduling and holding of hearings and deliberations necessary in a given

jurisdiction;

3. monitor the adoption process in specific jurisdictions and nationally; and

4. train industry personnel to aid the implementation of NTEP and develop support of NTEP among the industry.

Panels were organized to present the case for URNTE adoption at the 1991 regional weights and measures

conferences, the National Industrial Scale Association spring meeting, and the International Society of Weighing and Measurement annual meeting. As of the 76th NCWM, panels have made presentations at meetings of the Central and Northeastern Weights and Measures Associations, NISA, and ISWM. Weights and measures panel members have included Sid Colbrook of

Illinois, Allan Nelson of Connecticut, Jim Truex of Ohio, and Henry Oppermann of OWM.

The Institute for Weights and Measures (IWM) is independently pursuing a very active NTEP training program for W&M officials, dealers, and servicemen.

In addition to Nebraska, which will adopt URNTE in 1991, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, and Michigan are considering

strategy for URNTE adoption. Other jurisdictions also have the program under active consideration.

In general, other non-URNTE jurisdictions have responded positively to the SMA/NCWM initiative. However, other

factors and priorities often have to be considered before the adoption process can proceed.

In view of the number of non-URNTE jurisdictions, a program goal is to see URNTE adoption proceed at the rate of 3-5 jurisdictions a year. At the Annual Meeting, Daryl Tonini provided an update on the work of the SMA Task Group to the NCWM. (See Mr. Tonini's presentation at the front of this publication for details.)

52
Executive Committee

102-3 I Program, OIML Certification Plan

At the Interim Meeting, Dr. Sam Chappell of NIST briefed the Board on the "OIML Certificate System for Measuring

Instruments" adopted by the Organization of International Legal Metrology (OIML). See Appendix J for Dr.

Chappell's report. The Board of Governors and the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances are studying the OIML system to develop a position for the NCWM regarding U.S. use of the OIML system. Some basic questions need to be

answered, including: (1) To what extent are NTEP and the OIML Program compatible? (2) What is the value of the OIML Program to U.S. manufacturers? (3) Does the NTEP have the capability to test devices for conformance to the OIML recommendations? Some observations were:

1. The range of instruments included in the OIML program under "legal metrology" is broader than the U.S. system (Handbook 44 and NTEP); for example, OIML includes medical and environmental instruments. The U.S. (perhaps the NCWM) will have to review the possible need for coverage of instruments not now

addressed under NTEP in order to serve U.S. manufacturers.

2. The U.S. may have problems ensuring that our issuing authorities and testing laboratories meet the criteria of the OIML system, including acceptance of our system in the international exchange of Certificates.

3. We may have to strengthen our appeals mechanisms and funding in order to "go international." At this time, the U.S. industry position on funding appeals could severely restrict our operations.

4. No conclusion has been reached regarding the impact of the OIML system on the workload and interests of the NTEP Participating Laboratories.

5. Regarding paragraph 3.3.1. (See Appendix J) OWM will look at the ISO/IEC Guides 25 (General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration and Testing Laboratories) and 38 (General Requirements

for the Acceptance of Testing Laboratories) to determine the effect on the NTEP Participating Laboratories.

6. Finally, if we embrace the OIML system, we will need to revisit NCWM Publication 14, NTEP

Administrative Procedures, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures to bring our two systems into "harmonization," including consideration of requirements contained in OIML D19 (Pattern Evaluation and

Pattern Approval).

Mail Ballot 76-6 was sent to the Board of Governors in the Fall of 1990 for their comments on the OIML Certificate system. Comments received indicated that the Board members had concern about the compatibility of that system

with the NTEP, as well as questions regarding the value of the system to the U.S. The Board requested that the Executive Secretary re-ballot the Board now that the members have been briefed in detail about the OIML Certificate system to determine whether or not the members' original votes would change based on the information provided. 102-4 I Program, USDA Certification Plan

At the Interim Meeting, Mr. Richard Pierce, USDA, briefed the Executive Committee on the "Grain Quality

Incentives Act of 1990" (the 1990 U.S. Farm Bill) which contains provisions that could result in the expansion of the National Type Evaluation Program to include commercial devices used in commercial grain inspection. See Appendix

K for the report.

In summary, the United States Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71) is amended by adding at the end the following new

section:

"Sec. 22. Standardizing Commercial Inspections.

53
I 'll i uiivi ( ommlttee

(.1) Testing i (|iii|)iik ui To promote greatei uniformity In commercial grain inspection results, the Adminiitratt ay worli In conjunction with the National inititutc ol Standardi and Technology and the

i lational ( onfi rent t <»" Weights and Mcaiurei to

(I) Identify Inspection instruments iccpiiring standardization undci subsection (l>),

(.') i ,i .il ili.li performance criteria loi commercial grain inspection instruments)

( \ > develt in •• national i" i iffl am to approve si aln Impaction initi umenti foi commercial Inipectionj and

i 1 1 <i< v. lop standard n fcrance matariali 01 othei meani necessary foi calibration 01 testing <>t approved

Initi enti

(i>) General InspectIon Procedure! To eniurc than produceri are treated uniformly in delivering grain, ihe

-\« I lifttratOI shall devel( ip practical "i*l COll effective procednics I « > conducting commercial inspections

oi p. mi wiiii reipecl to tht Application ol quality factori, thai result in premiumi and discounts. The

procedures shall be made available to country elevators and others making flrst-point-of-delivery

inspi < (ions

(i ) Inspection Services and I ui lalion To cncouiagc the use ol c<piipmcnl and procedures developed fa) accordance with subsection < . ) .m<i < i >), the Admlnistratoi shall provide foi official inspection services by

iht St rvit e, Stati s, and <>"•< lal Inspet tlon ageni ies and provide information <>n the propei use <>i sampling

.11 it i Inspection equipmt nt, application <>i the grain itandardSi snd availability ol official inspection services,

in* hiding nls undei this a» i "

iii. NCWM .mil the USDA nn working logcthci studying this proposal to determine its impact »>n both

organizations rht NCWM needs to determine i'k Feasibility i<" NTEP to expand into ares ol inspection,

in* hiding iii< related woi k load <>n the ( Conference < !ommittoes, 1 < iffit c <>i Weights and Measures, and the nitt

. \ nlual i*>ii * ap.iiuiii Ies

i iu Chairman, the Chi tan Elect, Carroll Brickenkamp (NIST), and Henry Oppermann (MIST) met in April with

t c .is to * stablish prioritit w ithin I resources available and the roles each organization should play. The incentive

c 'ommittec believes that the *

' « > i

* rent i is b< ">r Inviti <i i<» i* >*i a very important standardization c - 1 1 « > i one that many State weights and measures and grain moisture program dire< i*»r. have long sought the partnership ol F( <\s with <h. NCWM ui the whole an a *ii commercial grain measurement equipment beyond pist scales and weighing

in .in . w. i to the question ol wht thei oi n<>< the ( lonference should get involved to this depth with commercial grain measurement equipment, wt need to be reminded that there arc w state weights and measures agencies ihai report

to State Departments ol Agriculture The prices set i>»i grain trades are directly related to the measurements of moisture, protein, dockage, and lest weight on the giain; this makes these measui ements definitely in the scope °f

\\cith.ls and m. .i-.m. -. * on. *

' i ii'.

1 1 .is i . . ommitting I 4 stafl yeai to serve as technli al advisoi i*> two National type Evaluation Technical ( ommittees

1

1 r< • ) (moisture meters >n*i neai Infrared devices) m also plans to provide funds to the N( !WM to Bupporl two

meetings p< i yeai foi each <>i two NTETC's foi •'< least two years The NCWM will provide the forum foi public consensus building, volunteers from the State regulatory Bgencics and regulated businesses, and the administration

oi the task with the i'xc« utivc c ommittec a* ting as the Board ol ( iovernors, the S&T ( lommlttee to address the codes, and iiu two N I 'E N !'s

\s with measurement Ol OCtanc and othci ipialily la* tors n. motoi fuel, the i 'ommittec be lieves thai involvement of weights and measures in this arena is tin opportunity l*>i |>nl>li* service, "good press," and program growth

The Conference will announce ih* formation *>l the new sectors and iccpicsl in the grain trade press and elsewhere

that organizations express theii interest in participating in the meetings An organizational meeting is planned in IVccmbci that will include a discussion ol the key issues. Hecause ol I he overlap in interest in both sectors, the two sectoi meetings will be scheduled sequentially, probably loi two days each

S-l
Executive Committee

102-5 I Program, Participating Laboratories/Evaluation Report

The Executive Secretary reported on: (1) certificates of conformance issued by type and by laboratory; and (2) the

capabilities to conduct evaluations now and in the future.

Certificates Issued. In 1990, 231 Certificates of Conformance (CCs) were issued or updated. Of this total, 26

Provisional, 23 Pre-NTEP, and 182 Full certificates were issued. Of the 231 certificates issued, many were updates (addenda and amended) of certificates issued in previous years. Updated certificates often retain the Certificate of Conformance number prefix of the year the certificate was

originally issued; the 47 certificates modified from previous years were: 26 1989 CCs, 10 1988 CCs, 7 1987 CCs, and

4 1986 CCs. The 231 evaluations were conducted by the following participating NTEP laboratories: California, 64; Ohio, 52; New

York, 10; North Carolina, 6; Federal Grain Inspection Service, 2; Kansas, 1; and the National Institute of Standards and Technology, 96 [39 for load cells; 23 Pre-NTEP; and 17 addenda (paper reviews)].

Evaluation Capability. The term "participating laboratories" refers to jurisdictions or agencies that are authorized to perform specific types of evaluations for the NTEP in areas for which they have the capabilities. The Participating Laboratories are authorized to conduct evaluations in the following areas:

Laboratory Areas of Authorization

California Design and performance evaluation of scales, cash registers, metering devices, service station consoles, and taximeters. Kansas Performance evaluation of large-capacity scales. New York Design and performance evaluation of scales and cash registers. Expansion into

liquid measuring devices is under discussion. North Carolina Performance testing of liquid-measuring devices. NIST All NTEP evaluations, including load cells (NIST Force Group). Ohio Design and performance evaluation of scales and cash registers. USDA/Federal

Grain Inspection

Service (FGIS)

Design and performance evaluation of automatic bulk-weighing systems,

grain test scales, and performance testing of railway track scales.

The total workload of the Participating Laboratories has not changed much; the major change in the evaluation

process has been associated with evaluation of load cells by the NIST Force Group. A major problem faced by the

aboratories is the large proportion of devices submitted for evaluation that fail initial inspection or testing. In some

:ases, the submitting organization does not have the capability to test to NTEP criteria and, therefore, the NTEP

aboratory is a first evaluator of a new design. In some ways, this involves NTEP in the R&D process, which is not

| ts intended purpose. When devices need to be returned, a considerable amount of effort is expended in idministrative work. Even though the manufacturer is billed for this work, the time and effort expended could be

setter utilized by the Participating Laboratory staff.

rhe Board expects the annual requests for evaluations to continue in 1991 at about the same rate as 1990. Offsetting

iny expected increases in requests as a result of more States adopting the Uniform Regulation will be a decrease as

i result of the recession. The Board plans to add one Participating Laboratory within the next 12 months.

55
Executive Committee

The following graphs are summaries of NTEP Certificates of Conformance and evaluations performed between the time period of 1985 and July 1991. The first graph is a summary of the number of Certificates of Conformance issued by type of certificate, and the second graph is the number of certificates issued by the participating laboratories. Certificates of Conformance Number of Certifies

| ssue(j Ff()m 1985 Through Ju|y 1991

Total CCs FullCCs Provisional Load Cells Pre-NTEP

Type of Certificate Certificates of Conformance

Number ot certificates Issued by Participating Laboratories

OH NY FGIS NC

Participating Laboratories KS NIST

102-6 Policy, Type Evaluation Criteria for Computers

Computers are being used more frequently as integral elements in weighing and measuring systems. Agreement i needed on the procedures and criteria for the NTEP to follow when evaluating computers and the effects on th performance of systems being evaluated. The item was referred to the OWM for further development. OWM i working with Canada on this issue.

Discussions with Canada, and subsequently with the Weighing Sector of the Technical Committee on National Typ

Evaluation, have evolved to the position where computers incorporated into weighing and measuring systems do m

need separate type evaluation criteria. The Weighing Sector has reviewed and modified type evaluation criteria s

56
Executive Committee

that most criteria will apply to the typical scales or computers incorporated into weighing systems without any special

distinction being made. Additionally, the scope of type evaluations for systems that may incorporate computers has been defined (see Item 310-1 in the Report of the Specifications and Tolerances Committee). The type evaluation

criteria for computers as part of weighing systems will be included in the next update on NCWM Publication 14. 102-7 I Policy, Load Cell Testing

The load cell test procedures contained in NCWM Publication 14, Part II, Section 2, have been updated to incorporate

the changes that have been made since January of 1989 by the Weighing Sector of the Technical Committee on

National Type Evaluation. The changes are not extensive; however, they include clarification of certain aspects of the

test procedures, changes to the tolerances reflecting the change to the class III L tolerance for temperature effect on

zero, and numerous editorial changes. The basic nature of the test procedures has not changed. 102-8 I Policy, Belt-Conveyor Scales, Test Procedures

At the Interim Meeting, Mr. Pete Perino, Chairman of the Belt-Conveyor Scales Sector, reported that work has been

completed in the development of test criteria and procedures for use in evaluation of belt-conveyor scales. The

Executive Committee voted to conduct a test using these criteria and procedures prior to the 76th Annual Meeting. The Belt-Conveyor Scales Sector met in June 1991 to discuss issues that arose as companies prepared to submit scales

for the laboratory tests. Agreement in concept was reached on the most complex issues; the details of the revised laboratory test procedures are being developed. It is expected that the first laboratory tests will be started in late summer or early fall. The field permanence test, which is a 6-month test, has been initiated on two scale models.

N. David Smith, North Carolina, Chairman

S. Colbrook, Illinois, Chairman-Elect

F. Gerk, New Mexico, Past Chairman

R. Andersen, New York

K. Butcher, Maryland

T. Geiler, Barnstable, MA

E. Heffron, Michigan

P. Nichols, Alameda County, CA

K. Simila, Oregon

C. Gardner, Suffolk County, NY, Treasurer

A. Tholen, NIST, Executive Secretary

T. Butcher, NIST, Technical Assistant Executive Committee

57
S3 8

8

4

3

8

3

8 8

©

£©<

-3ca

^ Sio

c

8 8 s

8

.1 o

C3

8

58
Executive Committee

Appendix B - Policy, Members' Expenses

Section 1 - Introduction

1.1 Background - As a legal metrology standards-developing organization, the NCWM provides essential support to the various State and local weights and measures jurisdictions, developing its products largely through the attendance and

participation of its active members, advisory members and associate members, at a wide range of meetings, conferences, and related forums.

1.2 Purpose - It is the purpose of this policy to establish a fair and equitable procedure for the reimbursement of travel expenses for Conference members when on authorized Conference business. Any traveler on official business is expected to exercise the same care in incurring expenses that a prudent person would exercise if traveling on personal

business and expending personal funds. Excess costs, circuitous routes, delays or luxury accommodations and services unnecessary or unjustified in the performance of official business are not acceptable under this policy.

It is the intent of this policy to make the NCWM the "reimburser of last resort." NCWM reimbursement is to be

requested only after it has been determined the traveler's organization can not reimburse the traveler fully or partially.

1.3 Persons Covered - This policy applies only to NCWM Active Members, Associate Members, and Advisory Members,

and not to non-members, invited observers, Federal agency personnel, or Conference guests including speakers.

1.4 Annual Meeting - Attendance at the NCWM's Annual Conference is not a Conference reimbursable expense.

Section 2 - Definitions

2.1 Traveler - means any person authorized to be reimbursed.

2.2 Official Station - means the site (providing the lesser cost to the Conference)

1) at which a traveler is normally assigned by his/her employer, or

2) which is officially recognized as the domicile of the traveler.

2.3 Per Diem - means subsistence (meals and/or lodging) reimbursement for a 24-hour period beginning with the

traveler's time of departure.

2.4 Transportation Expenses - means:

a) commercial carrier fares; b) taxi, bus, van, airport limousine or necessary rental car charges;

c) private car mileage allowance;

d) parking, garage and toll charges;

e) other charges essential to the traveler while en route; and

f) taxes for any of the above.

Section 3 - Levels of Reimbursement

3.1 Full Reimbursement - Reimbursement is available for any authorized travel when the traveler's parent organization can not provide funding.

Partial Reimbursement - Partial reimbursement is available when the traveler's parent organization partially funds

the travel expenses.

59
Executive Committee

Section 4 - Reimbursement Rates

4.1 Per Diem Expenses

4.1.1 Meals - Except as stated in section 4.1.3, the NCWM's meal per diem shall be that rate authorized by NIST for its employees' meals. For a portion of a day, dinner shall constitute 50% and breakfast and lunch 25% each. Actual meal

expenses (documented by receipts) may be authorized when necessary by the NCWM Executive Secretary and NCWM

Chairman.

4.1.2 Lodging Expense - except as provided in section 4.1.3., expenses shall be reimbursed at no more than the minimum

rate at the meeting site hotel except when otherwise authorized in writing.

4.1.3 Lodging and Meals at an Interim Meeting -

a) When an authorized traveler shares a room, the NCWM will reimburse the traveler the cost of the room plus up to 100% of the traveler's meal per diem allowance.

b) When an authorized traveler occupies a single room, the NCWM will reimburse the traveler the cost of the room at the minimum single room rate plus up to 60% of the traveler's meal per diem allowance.

4.2 Transportation Expenses

4.2.1 Airline travel shall be reimbursed at the most economical coach class (including economy or excursion or Saturday fare) rate practical. Travelers shall utilize advance purchase discounts.

4.2.2 Rental cars when authorized shall be reimbursed at the subcompact or compact rate.

4.2.3 Private car mileage reimbursement shall be the current NIST reimbursement rate, but not to exceed the round trip airfare, as provided in section 4.2.1, from the traveler's official station.

4.2.4. Taxis, limos, shuttles and other ground transportation shall be reimbursed at the most economical rate.

4.2.5. Airport parking shall be reimbursed at the most economical rate (i.e., satellite parking).

Section 5 - Travel Authorization

5.1 Domestic Travel (within USA) - Travel to be reimbursed fully or partially from NCWM sources must be authorized

in writing (in advance of the travel commencing) by:

Executive Secretary and the NCWM Chairman or NCWM Chairman-elect.

5.2 International Travel - International traveler must have been selected according to Conference international meeting

selection procedures. NCWM will reimburse a traveler to locations outside of the U.S. Such travel shall be undertaken

only with advanced written authorization from the NCWM Executive Secretary and with the concurrence of the NCWM

Chairman.

Section 6 - Vouchers

6.1 Authorized Forms - Requests for reimbursement of travel expenses shall be made on a NCWM Travel Voucher. NCWM will provide a copy of this form, along with a summary of this policy to each traveler at the time such travel

is authorized.

60
Executive Committee

6.2 Receipts - Receipts for common carrier, lodging and other expenses as required must accompany submitted travel vouchers.

6.3 Certification - NCWM Travel Vouchers shall include the traveler's signature attesting the information is correct and

that no other reimbursement has been or will be provided by any other source.

Section 7 - Exceptions

7.1 Exceptions - The NCWM Chairman may grant exceptions to this policy for good cause on a case by case basis.

61
Executive Committee

Appendix C - Proposed Chart of Accounts

Until the preparation of the 1991-1992 Budget, the accounting of Conference monies has been primarily a recording of income

and expenditures. The Conference has assets (primarily certificates of deposit), is acquiring other assets (e.g., laser printer, computer), and is likely to acquire more. These need to be accounted for by using accepted cost accounting methods. The sources of income for the Conference come from (1) general funds (registration fees, membership fees, interest) and (2) charges for services (NTP and NTEP). Similarly, expenditures are a result of (1) general operations of the Conference and (2) delivery of services. The proposed income and expense accounts are set up to represent these breakdowns. To provide the budgetary detail and organization needed for the management of the Conference's finances, the 1991-1992 Fiscal Year draft budget is organized as follows: Balance Sheet Accounts

100 Series Accounts for ASSETS

200 Series Accounts for LIABILITIES

Income and Expense Accounts

400 Series Accounts for INCOME

500 Series Accounts for EXPENSES BALANCE SHEET ACCOUNTS

The proposed balance sheet accounts are shown on the following table.

Balance Sheet Accounts

Assets Liabilities

100 Total Assets 200 Total Liabilities 110 Current Assets 111 Signet Bank

112 European American Bank

120 Other Assets

121 Certificates of Deposits

125 Equipment

126 Accumulated Depreciation on Equipment

62
Executive Committee NCOME AND EXPENSE ACCOUNTS

jicome is of two types: (1) that from general revenues (i.e., membership and registration fees) and (2) that from reimbursables

i.e., sale of publications, special events, etc.). Similarly, expenses are those paid from general revenues (i.e., meetings) and those ncurred for services provided (i.e., cost of printing publications for sale, underwriting training, etc.).

jeneral Revenues and General Expenses

3eneral Revenue and General Expense accounts are shown on the following table, Income and Expense Accounts. General

Revenues are Registration Fees, Membership Fees, and Other Income (interest, etc.). General Expenses are categorized into

;ight areas:

(1) Annual Meeting;

(2) Interim Meeting;

(3) travel expenses of standing and annual committee members (other than that associated with the Annual and Interim Meetings);

(4) travel expenses of members of Task Forces and Special Committees;

(5) expenses of the Chairman and Chairman-Elect;

(6) administration of the business of the NCWM;

(7) printing and publication expenses; and

(8) train-the-trainers.

Reimbursable Accounts. Reimbursable accounts (income and expense) are categorized into five areas:

(1) Special Events;

(2) Publications;

(3) NTEP Operations;

(4) National Training Program; and

(5) Promotions. Income and Expense Accounts INCOME EXPENSES

400 Total Income 500 Total Expenses

410 General Revenues 510 General Expenses

411 Registrations Fees 511 Annual Meeting

511.1 Hotel, Food Service 511.2 Equipment, AV, Office

511.3 Personnel

511.4 Printing/Copying

511.5 Committee Expenses

511.6 Printing of Announcement Book

63
Executive Committee

INCOME EXPENSES

412 Membership Fees 512 Interim Meeting

512.1 Hotel, Food Service 512.2 Equipment/Personnel/Printing

512.3 Exec Cte

512.4 L&R Cte

512.5 S&T Cte

512.6 Education Cte

512.7 Liaison Cte

512.8 Other Ctes & TF

512.9 Printing of Agenda

415 Other Income 513 Other Meetings - Committees

513.1 Exec Cte/Bd of Gov

513.2 L&R Cte

513.3 S&T Cte

513.4 Education Cte

513.5 Liaison Cte

513.6 NTE Technical Ctes

513.7 Annual Ctes 514 Other Meetings - Task Forces/Spe Ctes

514.1 21st Century

514.2 Safety 514.3 OIML

514.9 Miscellaneous 515 Chairman/Chair-Elect

515.1 Chairman

515.2 Chairman-Elect

515.3 Regional Breakfast

64
Executive Committee

INCOME EXPENSES

516 Administration

516.1 Equipment, Supplies

516.2 Contracts, Personnel

516.3 Awards

516.4 Stationery, Mailing

516.5 Treasurer's Expenses

516.6 Supplies

517.7 NTP

516.9 Miscellaneous 517 Printing. Publications 517.1 Membership

517.9 Miscellaneous

518 Train the Trainers Reimbursables

480 Services Revenues 580 Services Expenses

481 Special Events

481.1 Annual Meeting

481.2 Interim Meeting

581 Special Events

581.1 Annual Meeting

581.2 Interim Meeting

482 Publications 482.1 NTP Modules

482.2 NCWM Publications

582 Publications 582.1 Modules

582.2 NCWM Publications 483 NTEP Operations 583 NTEP Operations 484 NTP Seminars 584 NTP Seminars

485 Promotions 585 Promotions

65
Executive Committee

Appendix D

Proposed Operating Budget for Fiscal Year 1991 - 1992

(July 1, 1991 to June 30, 1992) The proposed Operating Budget is detailed in the following two tables. For each account, the information provided includes:

the Account Number and Description;

the proposed budgeted amount for the Fiscal Year (FY) 1991-1992; and

the comparable budget amount for the current FY (1990-1991).

Note: The attempt to show the comparable 1990-1991 entries could not be done on a one-to-one basis because of the restructuring of the budget as described in Item 101-11 and in Appendix D. Each of the two tables is followed with footnotes provided additional insight into the derivation of the budget entries. INCOME

Income

Account Number Description

Proposed FY 91-92 Budget

FY 90-91 Budget

400 Total Income $191,000.00 $158,000.00 410 Income, General Funds $147,500.00 $126,500.00 411 Registration Fees $30,000 $30,000 412 Membership Fees $110,950 $92,500 415 Other Income $6,550 $4,000 Expense & Income (Reimbursable)

480 Income, E&I $43,500.00 $31,500 481 Special Events $9,000.00 $8,000

481.1 Annual Meeting $8,000

481.2 Interim Meeting $1,000 482 Publications $11,500.00 $7,500

482.1 NTP Modules $ 5,000 482.2 NCWM Publications $6,500 483 NTEP Operations $15,000 $15,000 484 NTP Seminars $6,000 0 485 Promotional $2,000 $1,000

Footnotes to INCOME

411 Based on 300 registrants @ $100.00 (Registration Fee). 412 Based on 3170 members @ $35.00 (Membership Fee). 413 Interest on Certificates of Deposit

481 This Account is split into two subaccounts (481.1 and 481.1) to track income associated with each of the meetings. The income and expense accounts (581) are planned to balance. This account represents optional events such as outings, tours, etc. 482 This Account is split into two parts (482.1 and 482.1) to record income derived from the sale of training Modules and NCWM

Publications respectively. This account is related to Expenses Accounts 582.1 (the cost of printing modules) and 582.2 (the cost of printing NCWM Pubs).

66
Executive Committee

482.1 Two new modules and complete revisions of two other modules are estimated to generate sales of approximately $5,000.

482.2 200 Publication 5 (Complete Index of NTEP Evaluations) @$15 = $3000

200 Pub 5A (Company Index of NTEP Evaluations) @ $5 = $1000

approx. 42 Pub 7 (Weights and Measures Week Guide) @ $12 = $500

200 Pub 12 (Examination Procedure Outlines) @ $10 = $2000

13 See Expense Account 583 which is based on the Executive Committee budgeting $15,000 for the purchase of load cells to conduct tests as part of appeals and/or gathering data on performance of production load cells as compared with "handpicked" load cells. Income under Account 483 will occur only if provisions are made through the development of a new policy. Such a policy could include one related to reimbursement of expenses for conducting tests under appeals and/or increasing standard NTEP fees for the evaluation of all devices. If the latter is adopted, all manufacturers would be paying a "surcharge"

to cover costs associated primarily with testing load cells.

14 This account is related to Expense Account 584 (the cost of conducting seminars). In 1990, NCWM hosted National Training Program Module 8 in New Hampshire on a cost reimbursable basis. This pilot effort indicates that training can be sponsored

by the NCWM recovering all costs. In 1991-92, this approach should generate approximately $6,000 for 4 seminars @ $1500

each (travel and per diem of instructor plus incidentals such as module printing, coffee breaks, etc. )

55 This account is related to expense account 585. It is income and expense from the sale of ties, tie tacks, and other novelties. Expenses in 585 include give-away items at the Annual Meeting plus stock for two-year's worth of sales. Therefore, 485 takes two years to recover costs incurred in 585. In 1992, the replenishment of stock will be necessary.

(,1
Executive Committee

EXPENSES

This proposed budget provides much more detail of expenditures than did previous budgets. This additional detail enables t Budget Review Committee, the Chairman, the Executive Committee, and other interested parties to take part in budj development and financial management. This table provides the Expenses portion of the proposed budget by major accou \ The following footnotes include another table that provides detail by sub-account. The books will be kept in the detail shown

;

the table located in "Footnotes to Expenses." EXPENSES

Account Number DescriptionProposed FY 91-92 BudgetFY 90-91 Budget

General Funds

500 Total Expenses $191,000.00 $132,000.00 510 Expenses, General Fund $147,500.00 $124,000.00 511 Annual Meeting 46,000 15,000 512 Interim Meeting 36,000 5,000 513 Travel - Committees 22,000 20,000 514 Travel-Task Forces/Spe Ctes 9,000 43,000 515 Chairman/Chair Elect 10,000 12,500 516 Administration 20,500 16,500 517 Printing/Publications 4,000 12,000 Expense & Income (Reimbursable)

580 Expenses, E&I $43,500.00 14,000.00 581 Special Events $9,000 $8,000 582 Publications $11,500 $4,000 583 NTEP, Operations $15,000 0

584 NTP, Seminars $6,000 0 585 Promotional $2,000 $2,000

Footnotes to EXPENSES

511/512 vs 513/514/515

In the FY 90-91 budget, travel for the committees and task forces during the Annual and Interim Meetings was assigned to-je Committee accounts (513/514/515) rather than to the Meetings accounts (511/512).

Account Number

Sub

Account

Description Expense

($) 511 Annual Meeting 46,000.00 511.1 Hotel, Food Service 20,000 This subaccount includes the Chairman's reception, Opening Session reception, coffee & rolls at breakfast time, annual committees' breakfast or lunch, etc. 511.2 Equipment, AV, Office 4,000

511.3 Personnel 4,000 This includes Convention Bureau staff at registration and hourly personnel in the staff office. 511.4 Printing/Copying 5,000 This includes printing the addendum sheets 511.5 Committee Expenses (travel/per diem) 2,000

68
Executive Committee

Account Sub Description Expense Number Account ($) 511.6 Printing of Announcement Book 11,000 The estimated cost for printing the Announcement Book is $11,000. N1ST can assume the cost of

postage at $4,000 (4th class). N1ST assumes all costs for printing and distributing N1ST Handbooks 44 ($15,000), 130 ($12,500), 133 supplement ($5,000) 133 ($15,000), Proceedings ($12,500) Index to Reports ($5,000), NCWM Publication

2 (Directory) ($18,000), Pub 1 (Constitution & Bylaws), Pub 3 (Policy & Guidelines), Pub 9 (Nominating Committee Report), Pub 10 (Conduct of Annual Meeting) and other incidental pubs @ $5,000 512 Interim Meeting 36,000.00

512.1 Hotel, Food Service 4,000

512.2 Equipment, Personnel, Printing 4,000

512.3 Exec Cte 4,000

512.4 L&R Cte 4,000

512.5 S&T Cte 4,000

512.6 Education Cte 4,000

512.7 Liaison Cte 4,000

512.8 Other Ctes & TF 4,000 Expenditures for committees is the largest single expense in the Interim Meeting.

512.9 Printing of Agenda 4,000 The reason for the NCWM assuming the cost of publication is because the turn-around time for publishing the agenda by the Government Printing Office is one month or more; if the NCWM goes to a

private printer this turn-around time is reduced to two weeks. NIST will assume the cost of mailing the agenda first class at $4,000. 513 Travel - Committees 22,000.00

513.1 Executive Cte/Bd of Governors 6,000

513.2 Laws & Regulations Committee 0

513.3 Specifications & Tolerances Committee 3,000 513.4 Education Committee 3,000

513.5 Liaison Committee 0 513.6 NTE Technical Committee 8,000

513.7 Annual Committees 2,000 514 Travel - Task Forces, Special Committees 9,000.00 514.1 TF on 21st Century 3,000 514.2 TF on Safety 0

514.3 OIML 3,000

514.9 Miscellaneous 3,000 515 Chairman/Chairman-Elect 10,000.00

515.1 Chairman, Travel, per diem 5,000

515.2 Chairman-Elect, Travel, per diem 4,000

515.3 Breakfast Meetings at Regionals 1,000

69
Executive Committee

Account NumberSub

Account

Description Expense

($) 516 Administration 20,500.00 516.1 Equipment 2,000 516.2 Contracts, Personnel 12,000

516.3 Awards 2,500 516.4 Stationery, mailing 1,500 516.5 Treasurer's Expenses 500

516.6 Supplies 500

516.7 National Training Program 1,000 516.9 Miscellaneous 500

517 Printing and Publications 4,000.00 517.1 Membership 3,000 This includes the printing of membership invoices and Publication 6, the membership brochure. The

costs of mailing first-class are assumed by NIST.

517.9 Miscellaneous 1,000 581 Special Events - Reimbursable 9,000.00 581.1 Annual Meeting 8,000 581.2 Interim Meeting 1,000 582 Publications - Reimbursable 11,500.00 582.1 NTP, Modules 5,000 Estimated printing costs for 85 instructor manuals = $2500; 150 inspector manuals = $2500

582.2 NCWM, Publications (not Agenda or Announcement

Book)

6,500

Estimated printing costs of Publication 5 & 5A (NTEP Index of Evaluations) @ 700 copies = $4000;

Publication 12 (EPO's) @ 800 copies = $2000; Publications 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 14, 17, 18 assumed by NIST, Pub 7 $500. 583 NTEP Operations 15,000 584 NTP Seminars 6,000

In 1990, a pilot effort showed that NCWM could sponsor a training seminar anc

is planned to expand to 4 in the 1991-92 year at $1500 per session. recover all costs. This

585 Promotions 2,000 This includes ties, lapel pins, and other novelties given away at the Annual Meeting; costs for give-aways

are recovered by sales of ties and lapel pins over a 2-year period.

70
Executive Committee

Appendix E - Excerpts from the Final Report of the

NCWM Task Force on Safety

Tina G. Butcher, NIST, Technical Advisor

This appendix includes a brief summary of the work of the Task Force and the Task Force's recommendations to the NCWM. Also included are four sections excerpted from the Task Force's final report; these sections include the major

points to be addressed when establishing a safety program, and they are considered to be the most significant portion of

the Task Force's report. The final report of the Task Force is available in its entirety as a separate NCWMpublication, Number 19.

Submitted By: Task Force Members:

Charles A. Gardner, Suffolk County, NY, - Chairman

L.F. Eason, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, Standards Division James D. Harnett, Orange County California Department of Weights and Measures

Jean Johnson, American Petroleum Institute Donald J. Soberg, Wisconsin Dept of Agriculture

Earl (Hap) Thompson, American Petroleum Institute

Technical Advisors: Tina G. Butcher, NIST

Joan Mindte, NIST

The members of the Task Force wish to express their thanks for the contributions of the many individuals who

provided information and assistance to the Task Force in the course of its work. Special thanks are extended to the

following individuals and agencies: Mr. Fred A. Gerk, New Mexico Department of Agriculture, Division of Standards; Mr. N. David Smith, North Carolina, Department of Agriculture Standards Division; Mr. Thomas J. Shepich, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; Mr. Alphonse Abadir, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; Mr. MacArthur Cheeks, Occupational Safety and Health Administration; Mr. Roy Demory, Virginia Weights and Measures; Ms. Georgia Harris, NIST; The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association; The NCWM Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs; The NCWM Committee on Liaison; The Office of Weights and Measures, NIST; and The many agencies and individuals in the weights and measures community who contributed information and

assistance to the Task Force. The Task Force extends particular thanks to Joan A. Koenig, NIST, for her dedicated assistance in editing this report.

I) Summary

The NCWM Task Force on Safety was established in August 1989 by the NCWM chairman at that time, Fred Gerk. The Task Force was established in response to concerns raised by members of the NCWM about how safety is being

addressed in the weights and measures workplace.

71
Executive Committee

The Task Force held a total of four meetings: January 1990, April 1990, November 1990, and April 1991. The major

accomplishments and activities of the Task Force during this time included:

- Developed an addendum to NIST Handbook 143 and to NIST Handbook 145;

- Collected, reviewed, and collated information on safety to create a safety library;

- Developed suggested additions to NCWM Publication 12, including revisions to the EPO's to include safety information, the development of an introductory section on safety, and the development of a glossary of safety key

phrases;

- Established a working relationship between the NCWM and OSHA;

- Developed a final report in a format designed to: (1) Provide assistance to the NCWM Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs in its

j development of the NTP Module on Weights and Measures Administration; and

(2) Assist weights and measures jurisdictions and other NCWM members in the development of a new safety I program or the modification of an existing program. The Task Force recognized that safety in the weights and measures workplace can be a complex issue due to the

variation in designs of weighing and measuring equipment; the many different types of potential hazards to which the

j weights and measures inspector, metrologist, and serviceperson are exposed; and differing policies and regulations from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Because of these variations, the Task Force realized that it would be impractical to develop a "model" safety program to be used by the weights and measures community. The recommendation of a j model program could even have potentially dangerous consequences; an agency might overlook a safety hazard present

in its area that was not specifically addressed in the model program, or the agency might violate a local or departmental safety requirement by following the model program.

In the course of its work, the Task Force found that many NCWM members have long had well-established safety programs while many others have few or no recognized safety policies in place. Consequently, the Task Force's j recommendations were designed to be useful to jurisdictions with safety programs at all levels. As a result of its work

with OSHA, the Task Force was able to develop suggested guidelines which can be useful to any jurisdiction in establishing or maintaining a safety program. The final report of the Task Force provides suggestions of guidelines to be considered when developing safety policies and procedures and is presented in a format intended to assist an agency in developing a new safety program or in maintaining a current program. An agency must evaluate the safety hazards which are created by the unique

combinations of equipment, procedures, and environmental factors present in its own workplace, and it must develop 1 a safety program which is tailored to meet its individual needs and any applicable local and State safety requirements, j It is absolutely essential that the agency work closely with the local or State Occupational Safety and Health

Administration (OSHA) official or departmental safety officer when developing a safety program to insure that all potential safety hazards have been adequately addressed The Task Force emphasizes that even the most well-developed safety program must be continually evaluated and

monitored; safety procedures or policies are of little use if they do not adequately address the safety hazards actually present in the workplace or if they are not followed. The intent of the final report of the NCWM Task Force on Safety is to provide information about the work of the Task Force and to emphasize to agencies in the weights and measures community the importance of establishing and

maintaining an effective safety program. All agencies in the weights and measures community are urged to make

safety a priority issue. The Task Force encourages members of the weights and measures community to work with

their local or State OSHA official to develop and implement a safety program which is tailored to meet the specific needs of their agency and all local and State safety requirements.

II) Recommendations to the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM)

The NCWM Task Force on Safety presents the following recommendations to the Executive Committee of the NCWM. i

72
Executive Committee

1) Establish a Subcommittee of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs (the Education Committee) to address safety in the weights and measures workplace, thereby reaffirming the commitment of the NCWM to safety in this arena. Such a Subcommittee should include representation of all segments of the NCWM including the Associate Membership, the Metrologist's Group, and the general membership of the NCWM.

While the Executive Committee will be responsible for determining the specific structure and duties of the Safety Subcommittee, the Task Force has identified several basic areas of responsibility with which the Subcommittee should be charged:

(a) The primary responsibility of the Subcommittee should be to address any questions pertaining to safety in the weights and measures workplace, including field, laboratory, and office environments;

(b) Additional responsibilities should include:

- Expanding upon the approach used in the revisions of the Examination Procedure Outlines and extending

the approach to other types of routine weights and measures activities such as package checking;

- Updating and sharing information pertaining to safety in the weights and measures workplace (format to be

used might include a biannual safety newsletter or a regular section in the National Institute of Standards and

Technology, Office of Weights and Measures newsletter, Weights and Measures Today);

- Providing a listing of information available in the safety library established by the Task Force;

- Providing the NCWM and regional weights and measures associations with a report of any activities or issues pertaining to safety that are identified during the year, including a list of safety training seminars and

materials;

- Assisting the Education Committee as requested in revising the National Training Program (NTP) training modules to include safety information;

- Assisting the Metrologist's Group as requested in revisions to laboratory documents to include safety information;

- Identifying sections of NCWM documents that should be revised to include safety information, and taking

steps to encourage revision of these documents (this would necessitate regular review of the recommendations of the other standing committees to revise or add to existing NCWM documents -- e.g., other NCWM committees' annual and interim reports); and

- Maintaining the working relationship between OSHA and the NCWM.

1 The Task Force also emphasizes that the Subcommittee should not be expected to provide analyses of individual safety programs, and that it should only meet as needed.

i

: 2) Request that the Education Committee include the recommended safety revisions to the EPO's, the "Safety Considerations" section, and the "Glossary of Safety Key Phrases" in the next publication of NCWM Publication

12, and encourage NCWM members to follow the revised versions of the EPO's.

3) Encourage NCWM members to follow the safety recommendations that will be added to or issued as addenda

to NIST Handbook 143, State Weights and Measures Laboratories Program Handbook, and to NIST Handbook

145, Handbook for the Quality Assurance of Metrological Measurements.

4) Encourage the Education Committee to include at least a chapter in each National Training Program (NTP)

Training Module to address safety precautions.

73
Executive Committee

5) Request that the NCWM Specifications and Tolerances Committee recommend the addition of a section pertaining to safety to the General Code of NIST Handbook 44 (and to any other codes deemed appropriate

by the S & T Committee), and request that the various sectors of the Technical Committee on National Type

Evaluation revise the checklists of NCWM Publication 14 as appropriate to reflect this change to Handbook

44. The Task Force recommends consideration of the following language for inclusion in HB 44 as an additional section and/or incorporation into existing sections of the General Code:

Specifications Section: G-S.X. Safe Design Principles A device shall be designed, manufactured, constructed, and marked in accordance with applicable Federal, State, or local safety requirements and trade or industry standards of safety. Notes Section: G-N.X. Safe Inspection Practices

Inspection and testing shall be conducted:

(a) Using safe work practices, equipment, and procedures; and

(b) In conformance with Federal, State, and local safety laws and regulations and with the safety policies i effect at the inspection site.

If a violation of the safety provisions of this code occurs or a hazardous condition occurs in the worl environment, inspections and tests shall be suspended and the equipment under test placed in an unapproved | status until the violation or hazardous condition has been corrected. User Requirements Section: G-UR.X. Safe Installation, Maintenance, and Use Practices

(a) Devices shall be installed in accordance with Federal, State, and local safety laws and regulations applicable trade or industry safety standards or recommendations; and all safety warnings or procedure^;

specified by the manufacturer.

(b) Devices shall be maintained (i.e., marking and warning labels, safety mechanisms, and environment) ii accordance with the provisions specified in (a).

(c) Devices shall be operated or used in conformance with the instructions or markings provided by th( manufacturer and used only when all safety appliances are operational.

6) Encourage the regional weights and measures associations to establish regional safety committees and t promote the presentation of safety training seminars at regional weights and measures conferences.

7) Disband the Task Force as of July 1991.

Ill) Who Needs a Safety Program? -- Making a Commitment

Almost every organization can realize benefits from establishing a safety program. The reasons for establishing

| safety program are many. Among the most basic reasons for establishing a safety program are reducing workplac

injury, disability, and property damage. In addition, many agencies are obligated by legal requirements to establis a safety program. There are also a number of less evident, but just as valuable, benefits which can be derived fror

74
Executive Committee

he implementation of an effective safety program. Both employers and employees benefit from a well-established

afety program; moreover, both have specific responsibilities in maintaining a safety program that is beneficial and

: \ orthwhile. The long term cost savings which are often realized from an effective safety program are significant

r.centives to implement a safety program. However, it is the human element, the basic responsibility for maintaining

i safe work environment for employees, that should remain the prime impetus for an agency to establish a safety urogram. }ome Basic Philosophy

*Vhen considering the establishment of a safety program, many questions arise. Among the most common questions

hat are asked by many employers are "Why should I establish a safety program?" and "How will it help the agency?" The reasons for establishing a program are varied, but all have the same end result -- reducing workplace injury,

iisability, and property damage.

3 roviding a safe working environment reduces the potential for injury to employees and other persons, medical costs

( r injuries, lost work time due to injuries, decreased productivity due to injury, and damage to equipment and

property. A safe working environment also contributes to the improvement of employee morale; an employer who

-tablishes and conscientiously maintains a safe work environment sends a clear message to employees that their safety ind health are important to the agency. A correctly implemented safety program may even increase productivity since

setter equipment, better working conditions, and improved employee moral can all contribute to increased efficiency.

-egal Reasons

-'• jrfany employers may not realize that there are probably legal obligations that require them to establish a safety urogram. There are currently OSHA rules in effect in many States requiring employers to notify employees of

potential safety hazards that may be present in their workplace environment. OSHA standards such as the Hazard

> 'Communication Standard (29 CFR 1910.1200) (also known as "The Employee's Right-to-Know") and the Occupational -Exposure to Hazardous Chemicals in Laboratories Standard (29 CFR 1910.1450) (which includes requirements for

i Chemical Hygiene Plan") are intended to reduce the possibility of workplace injury by informing employees about

iotential safety hazards that may exist in the workplace and providing a full disclosure about the nature of products o which they are exposed. The implementation and enforcement of such laws help to educate the employer and the mployee about the potential hazards associated with a product or procedure; to decrease the exposure of employees

o hazardous products and conditions; and to encourage the use of safe work practices by all employees, thereby

lecreasing the potential for injuries.

: ailure to establish and maintain a safety program or to follow established safety laws and regulations may possibly

esult in penalties to the employer. In many cases, if an agency does not establish a program, it can and will be forced

o establish a program and its budget will be used for that purpose. 4

itnefits

: \.mong the most elemental benefits for establishing a safety program are reducing workplace injury, disability, and

)roperty damage. In addition to these benefits, there are other less-evident, but just as valuable, benefits to be derived rom implementing an effective safety program. The implementation of a safety program often has a monetary benefit

IW or an agency which is measured not only in terms of dollars, but also in terms of employee work time and employee

lealth. Many employers find that the benefits realized from the decreases in costs far outweigh the expenses incurred

n the implementation of the safety program.

-ollowing the implementation of an effective safety program, an agency often observes an improvement in employee

iealth, moral, and well-being. Better working conditions, proper safety equipment, and proper training can decrease

he amount of work-related illness and injury experienced by the employee. For example, training a scale inspector

)n the use of proper lifting techniques can decrease the frequency of back injuries due to improper lifting. Similarly,

l

i vell-ventilated work area and the use of chemical hoods in the laboratory can help to prevent illness due to

i nhalation of chemical fumes. When an employee understands that the employer is concerned about maintaining a

id afe work environment for the health and safety of the employees, an increase in employee morale often results. This

75
Executive Committee

improvement in morale also contributes to the employee's general feeling of well-being and may generate renewei enthusiasm about the work. A comparison of costs before and after the implementation of a safety program often reveals beneficial changes

Better working conditions, proper safety equipment, and proper training can impact significantly on the employee'

performance and, consequently, can affect the costs observed by the agency. For example:

Sick Leave, Medical Costs, and Insurance Costs A decrease is often observed in work-related illness or injury as a result of the byproducts of better workin;

conditions, proper safety equipment, and proper training. This also results in a decrease in the amount of sick-leav; paid to employees. Similarly, the employer may see decreased costs in health care for injured employees and j decrease in insurance claims for work-related injuries. An employer may also observe a decrease in health insurance premiums with a well-implemented safety progranj An insurance company may look upon a safety program as a preventative measure for decreasing work-related injur and illness. The improvements made to the work environment with the implementation of a safety program may eliminate otht

risks such as fire hazards. Training such as defensive driving techniques and improved maintenance on vehicles m

decrease the risk of vehicle accidents. The reduction of risks such as these may help to decrease property insuranc premiums.

Property, Equipment, and Production Costs: As part of implementing a safety program, an agency often purchases new equipment, modifies or repairs existii equipment, and provides employee training to reduce a potential safety hazard. Although some initial costs may

experienced in the purchase or modification of equipment, these costs are usually outweighed by the benefits that a

be derived. Suitable, properly operating equipment decreases the amount of employee injuries and absences, improv< \ efficiency and production, and reduces repair costs. Worn, faulty equipment can contribute to work-related injury and illness. As the frequency of employee absence di to work-related injury or illness increases, production can decrease. The cost of production can rise even higher

it is necessary to require other employees to work overtime to compensate for absent employees. Similarly, wor^

faulty equipment may not operate as efficiently as equipment that is in good operating condition; this can al decrease productivity. The frequent repairs required for worn equipment can increase repair costs and decrea; productivity due to the amount of time required for equipment repair. The use of inappropriate equipment for a task can be dangerous, inefficient, and costly. Inappropriate equipment c| increase injury to employees and, consequently, increase employee absence and decrease production. Becau|

inappropriate equipment is not as efficient for a task as properly selected equipment, it can also contribute decreased efficiency and decreased production. If equipment is not being used as intended by the manufacturer

the equipment, damage to equipment can often result; this leads to costly repairs and decreased production while t equipment is being repaired. In some cases, improper use of equipment can damage other pieces of equipment

property.

Safety and procedural training teaches the employee how to operate equipment properly and safely; this decrea* i the chance for injury and employee absence and also decreases the likelihood of damage to the equipment,

addition, training can enable employees to perform more efficiently and effectively. Another less evident benefit of establishing a safety program is the discovery of existing, but unobserved safi hazards. When implementing a safety requirement, other safety hazards may be uncovered which would not otherw

be discovered until they resulted in personal injury or damage. For example, part of complying with the requiremt

to post a placard on a vehicle which transports hazardous materials the vehicle must be inspected. During the vehi inspection other potential safety problems (e.g., faulty brakes or loose parts) may be discovered; such problems c be corrected before causing injury or damage. Similarly, the job hazard analysis is useful in revealing many of I

76
Executive Committee

Potential safety hazards associated with a particular activity and the potential hazards can be minimized before injury

•r damage occurs. rhe following is a summary of the benefits to be derived from establishing a safety program that were discussed in

; etail above: Improved employee health, morale, and well-being; Improved employee attitude and enthusiasm; Decrease in work-related injury and illness;

• Decrease in the amount of sick-leave paid to employees; Decrease in health care costs for injured employees; Decrease in insurance claims for work-related injuries; Decrease in insurance premiums;

Decrease in employee absence due to work-related injury or illness; Decrease in the costs for damaged equipment or property;

"- Increase in production time; Increase in efficiency and productivity; and

Increase in the discovery and resolution of safety hazards before injury or damage occurs. m

lie Responsibilities of the Employer and the Employee W

'erhaps the most crucial responsibility shared by the employer and the employee is the commitment which each

nakes to safety in the workplace. This commitment is essential to reducing workplace injury and property damage

_nd is demonstrated in many ways:

"he Employer

T!-'he demonstration of the employer's commitment goes beyond simply announcing or publishing safety policies; the

- mployer's commitment must be evident in many other facets of the workplace operations. The employer's ommitment is demonstrated through the employer's personal concern for the safety of the employees; the emphasis

^hich is placed on adhering to safety regulations and following safe work practices; the response of the employer to

-£>rrect unsafe work conditions or safety violations as they are discovered; and the fulfillment of the other

esponsibilities of the employer/employee such as those listed later in this section. One of the most critical lemonstrations of the employer's commitment is that of setting a good example for workplace safety and health.

li 'he Employee

"he demonstration of the employee's commitment to maintaining a safe working environment is just as crucial as that

)f the employer; workers are just as accountable as their employer for their own safety and health. Safety policies md regulations have little benefit if they are not followed by one of the groups they are designed to protect - the mployees. The employee's commitment is demonstrated by a conscientious adherence to safety policies and

egulations; to the development of safe work habits and proper use of equipment; and to the immediate reporting of

insafe working conditions. Employees must understand that their own personal commitment to workplace safety )romotes not only their own personal safety but also that of their coworkers; failure to adhere to safety policies and

egulations threatens not just their own personal safety but that of those around them. -\mong the other responsibilities of employers and employees are the following:

1) Mandating and maintaining better working conditions; .The employer must mandate the implementation of safety regulations and policies and must clearly outline the :onsequences of violating these requirements. The employer must also thoroughly evaluate and, if needed, improve

he working conditions of the employee to decrease potential safety hazards. The employees have the responsibility

)f maintaining a safe work environment by carefully following all safety requirements mandated by the employer and

ocal laws.

77
Executive Committee

(2) Providing and properly using resources; Adequate equipment, training, and access to safety information resources must be provided to the employee

promote a safe working environment. Employees must use all equipment as intended and follow all safety policie to insure that a safe working environment is maintained.

(3) Encouraging everyone to participate;

Safety programs are most effective when everyone participates, and encouragement to participate in a safety prograr can be generated from various sources. The employer must look for and use ways to encourage everyone

participation in workplace safety, including all levels of management. Employees can be very influential in persuadin coworkers to participate in and follow a safety program. Outside functions such as training seminars an

demonstrations can also provide needed encouragement to inspire all levels of employees to participate in th program.

(4) Maintaining open channels of communication; An effective safety program can only be sustained if channels of communication are kept open between the employe and the employees. The employer must be made aware of safety hazards in order to take corrective action, and th employee must be made aware of potential safety concerns as management learns of them in order to protect himse

or herself from possible injury. The employee must feel free to voice concerns and must also be assured that th concerns will be given serious consideration.

(5) Implementation and use of a good reporting system A good reporting system insures that the employer is notified of a safety hazard as soon as it is discovered. A

effective reporting system can decrease the potential that a hazard will be discovered only as the result of an acciden by discovering the hazard before an accident occurs and taking corrective action, the possibility of personal injury ca be decreased. Employees should be provided with instructions on how to report a potential or acknowledged safe! hazard, and the employer should employees to submit such reports. In order for a reporting system to remai

effective, the employer must respond quickly to reports of safety hazards and must indicate to the employee th; measures have been or will be taken to correct the hazardous condition. Regular self-inspections are an excellei means of insuring that safety regulations and policies are being followed and also for uncovering potential safei hazards that may not have been evident before the inspection. Taking corrective action as the result of a reporte hazard is a decisive act that confirms the company's commitment to maintaining a safe workplace environment. s

(6) Balancing Productivity and Safety

Neither the employer nor the employee should sacrifice safety for productivity. An employer or employee will ofte claim that productivity will be sacrificed if safe work habits are followed or safety equipment is used. In the long ru an increase in productivity is often realized when an effective safety program is in place; there are usually few<

injuries and less lost time of employees and equipment, and employees are often more productive when they kno

that the employer is committed to mamtaining a safe work environment for them.

IV) Establishing a Safety Program in the Weights and Measures Workplace -- Where to Start Because of the variability in the design of equipment used by weights and measures officials and servicepersons ar various other factors in the workplace that can affect the safety of its use, it is difficult to provide comments abo

the potential hazards associated with a particular task or about the structure of a safety program for an individu

jurisdiction. However, there are several general areas to consider when establishing a safety program or evaluatii the potential safety risks associated with a particular task. These recommendations are provided only as guidelines . suggestions. These recommendations are not intended to describe the only means of establishing a safety program or

describe the elements of a program which is ideal or appropriate for every jurisdiction. Conditions and circumstanc

are different for every jurisdiction as are many local and state safety requirements. It is essential that an agency wo

closely with the local or State OSHA official or departmental safety officer when developing a safety program to insu

78
Executive Committee

that all potential safety hazards have been adequately addressed for the unique situation of the agency, to insure that the program meets the specific needs of the agency, and to insure that all local and State safety requirements are met. Appoint a safety officer. One of the first steps in establishing a safety program in an organization is to designate a person as the "safety officer." By addressing all safety concerns through a single person, an organization can help insure that safety policies and

decisions will be uniformly and consistently implemented. The safety officer should be given responsibility for overseeing the organization's safety program; this should include the organization, management, and regular maintenance of the safety program. The safety officer should also be responsible for working with any existing safety committees within the organization as well as local and State safety officials as deemed necessary. The safety officer should also be given the authority to make decisions necessary to maintain an effective program. When selecting the

safety officer, the administrator should be sure that the individual understands the time commitment necessary to properly maintain the safety program and that the individual will be permitted to set aside the time required. The

safety officer can perform the duties associated with the title on a full time or part-time basis depending upon the size of the agency and the workload of the agency's staff.

If a program is part of a larger organization, there may already be a safety officer designated for the entire organization as well as a structured safety program for the organization. If this is the case, the administrator of a program should work with that person to ensure that the program meets all departmental safety requirements and

to discuss any specialized needs which the program may have. The administrator may still wish to designate a safety

officer for his or her own program to act as a liaison with the departmental safety officer and to facilitate the

resolution of specific safety issues within the individual program.

If a program has personnel located at more than one facility, the program administrator may find it advantageous to appoint a safety officer at each location. This would help to insure that safety information is distributed and safety concerns are addressed as quickly as possible at each site. This can improve the implementation of safety practices

at each facility since the safety officer is able to monitor the activities of the facility on a daily basis. In addition, this can be helpful in establishing organizational policies to address specific circumstances within the organization since

the safety officer at each facility is familiar with the geographical layout of the site and the equipment located there. Some weights and measures programs have more than one major type of activity (e.g., a motor-fuel testing division and a packaging and weighing division). If this is the case, the program administrator may consider appointing a

safety officer in each division to monitor the division's activity. Since the potential safety hazards associated with

different types of activities can vary, the establishment of a safety officer for each activity can help to insure that these

potential hazards are adequately addressed. Since the safety officer works in the division being monitored, it is likely that he or she will be very familiar with the procedures used in the division and can better respond to questions concerning the establishment and implementation of organizational safety policies.

Developing the Basic Structure

After appointing a safety officer, an overall structure for the safety program must be developed.

In a letter dated March 29, 1991, Mr. Thomas J. Shepich, U.S. Department of Labor, OSHA, outlined four main areas

to consider when establishing a safety program. (This letter was sent to the Task Force by Mr. Shepich in response

to a request from the Task Force to review the safety information added to the EPO's in NCWM Publication 12.) Using the recommendations contained under each of the headings in Mr. Shepich's letter, the Task Force has expanded these ideas into the following suggestions. OSHA's recommendations for each heading are indicated by

italicized type immediately following each of the four lettered headings:

(a) Conduct a job hazard analysis.

Information regarding actual job conditions should be used to identify potential hazards.

79
Executive Committee A job hazard analysis can help to identify potential safety hazards associated with a specific task. The information j obtained from the job hazard analysis can then be used to determine what actions are required to reduce the potential [j risk to the person performing the task.

Collect Information on Current Practices and Procedures

Information on current practices and procedures should be collected and a detailed description of how each job or

task is performed should be documented. This should be done for various tasks using different types of equipment s hi( which is available within your jurisdiction (e.g., testing a vehicle scale using two different types of weight movers)

This information should also be gathered for various environmental conditions to insure that potential hazards from m

environmental conditions are addressed (e.g., testing a vehicle tank meter in icy weather introduces the hazard of

slipping on icy surfaces when mounting the prover and moving around and requires extra care in locating a stable i|

surface for setting up the prover). A review should be made of the examination procedure outline used for each

testing procedure within your jurisdiction to insure that all conditions specific to your jurisdiction are considered in the safety reminders and instructions. An agency may find it helpful to develop a checklist or form for gathering information about the details of a procedure and for recording observed or potential safety hazards. Such a form or checklist could provide a uniform method of documenting all of the inspection or laboratory procedures used by an agency's employees, and the completed checklists could be used to facilitate the development of safety policies for the agency.

It may be helpful also to document the procedures of a particular activity on videotape. For example, a videotape

might be made of the inspection and testing of a retail-motor fuel dispenser, starting at the time that the inspector

or serviceperson arrives at the test site and ending when he or she leaves the site. The videotape can be reviewed

repeatedly and it serves to document the procedure in great detail. The videotape can be reviewed by the safety

officer and/or a departmental safety committee when establishing safety policies to help identify potential safety hazards in the procedure. The agency may find the videotape useful when working with local OSHA officials or

consultants to develop a safety program which will address the safety hazards which are present in the jurisdiction. The agency may also consider using videotapes of procedures as a means to emphasize the use of proper testing j b

procedures. Videotapes can be shown during training sessions or safety meetings to point out the "right" way to perform a procedure, using correct test procedures and adhering to all safety policies and also to point out the "wrong" way of performing the procedure. Review the Procedures and Identify Potential Safety Hazards When the information has been collected, a thorough review of the current procedures and practices should be made

to identify potential safety hazards. Once the potential hazards are identified, additional steps can be taken to reduce

or eliminate the potential risks.

Dm

pBpsn A review by an individual or individuals outside of your program can be valuable; potential hazards may be i : inadvertently overlooked by someone who is very familiar with your procedures, but quite obvious to another person^ v la who is not connected with your program. A job hazard analysis should include input from an individual or individuals i with training in safety to insure that no potential safety hazard is disregarded. h

A review of the EPO's in NCWM Publication 12 with your local OSHA official is useful in helping you to determine how to address the hazards present in individual situations in your jurisdiction. The Task Force has developed

suggested revisions to NCWM Publication 12 to include safety information. The revisions include the addition of an

introductory section on safety, "Safety Considerations"; revisions to each EPO to include safety reminders; and a,) . "Glossary of Key Safety Phrases" to further define the reminders in the EPO's. When the revised NCWM Publication 12 is issued, a review of the safety reminders in each EPO and in the glossary may help you to identify potential safety; hazards that may be present during routine inspection activities in your agency.

'((Hi Collect Related Safety Information

c* During the process of performing the job hazard analysis you may find it useful to collect information pertaining to safety hazards associated with the various procedures used in your jurisdiction. Several of the organizations listed ini| ^

i

80
Executive Committee

xtion VI maintain safety libraries that contain information on a wide variety of safety-related subjects as well as formation about the hazards associated with exposure to various products.

i) Determine what safety and health training is needed.

f a result of the job hazard analysis, areas where training is necessary for the NCWM inspectors can be identified.

v identifying potential safety hazards associated with a particular task, the job hazard analysis will help you to identify e types of training that would help to reduce the risk of personal injury to the people who routinely perform that

sk. For example, an inspector or serviceperson testing a medium capacity scale is exposed to the potential risk of back injury when moving 50-lb weights during the test procedure; providing safety training in the use of proper

ting techniques may decrease the risk of a back injury for that person. hen you have completed your job hazard analysis, you should contact your local and/or State OSHA representatives determine if they can assist you in determining what types of safety training are needed (or even required by law)

r your employees for the various tasks performed within your jurisdiction. Consultants are also available in many

eas to assist you in devising a training plan or obtaining safety training for your employees. When working with

;encies other than OSHA to arrange for safety training, your safety officer should verify that the training will meet

ith any requirements established by OSHA.

hedule Training on a Regular Basis for All Employees

egular safety training for employees is essential both for establishing a new safety program and maintaining an

listing program. Formalized safety training for employees will insure that all employees receive uniform, consistent formation pertaining to safety hazards and how to minimize the risk of personal injury. Ideally, the training should

: presented by someone who is an expert in the field of workplace safety and who is familiar with all applicable state

id local OSHA requirements. hen new equipment is purchased or current equipment is modified, training must be provided to all employees who

11 use the equipment to insure that they understand the safe and proper use of the equipment. This is especially

j sential if the new equipment operates differently or has different features from equipment currently used by the

nployee. Similarly, if the modification of current equipment changes the operation of the equipment, it is important

at the employee be familiar with the changes and understand the proper and safe operation of the modified

|uipment.

aining should be presented to all employees both new and experienced on a regular basis. New employees should

ceive proper safety training before engaging in any activity which involves a potential safety risk. Even employees

10 have been employed with the agency for a long period of time can benefit from routine safety training. Safety quirements periodically change as new information is discovered, and procedures to protect an individual from

JHential safety hazards can change accordingly. Only through routine training can employees receive the updated

lining needed to help them take proper precautions to protect themselves and their coworkers from hazardous

editions. Many times an experienced employee who has been performing a particular task on a routine basis can

pse into bad habits and become careless in following required safety procedures; regular training can help to inforce the importance of good safe work practices and can reduce the possibility that these bad habits will be

-ssed on to other employees. Conversely, many experienced employees are extremely conscientious about adhering

safety practices and can provide a good example to new employees. Such employees can often emphasize the

cessity for adhering to a particular safety practice by relating to other employees a personal experience with a

I izardous condition, thus underscoring the importance of safe work habits.

^viewing with employees the safety information proposed for inclusion in NCWM Publication 12 and NIST

andbooks 143 and 145 may be useful in emphasizing the importance of safety in the workplace and in conveying

formation about potential safety hazards. The "Safety Considerations" section, the EPO's with safety revisions, and

e "Glossary of Key Safety Phrases" in Publication 12 may be helpful in highlighting potential safety hazards which

e associated with various types of inspection activities for inspectors and servicepersons. Similarly, the proposed

fety revisions for NIST Handbook 143 and the proposed addendum for NIST Handbook 145 may be helpful in

: nphasizing the importance of safety to laboratory metrologists.

81
Executive Committee

The agency may consider videotaping examples of inspections and testings and of laboratory procedures as a means

to emphasize the use of proper testing procedures. These videotapes can be shown during training sessions to point out the "right" way to perform a procedure, using correct test procedures and adhering to all safety policies and also

to point out the "wrong" way of performing the procedure.

Safety training should not be limited to just teaching employees about the proper use of equipment and safety procedures. Other types of training which relate to the health and safety of the employee are also very beneficial. For example, classes in first-aid and cardiopulmonary resuscitation can help to prepare coworkers to assist an injured employee.

(c) Determine the control (administrative, engineering, and personal protective) method needed. The Material Safety Data Sheets and the job hazard analysis should be helpful in the proper selection of personal

protection equipment and the reduction of exposure time. If engineering controls are utilized on a site, lesser measures

ofprotective equipment and administrative controls may be needed. When a safety hazard has been identified it is necessary to determine the type of control that will be most effective

in minimizing the risk involved. In order to reduce the safety risk it may be necessary to change the way a procedure;

is carried out or to obtain personal protection equipment for the person performing the task. Before making changes

to a procedure or purchasing new equipment, you should carefully consider the results of the job hazard analysis and other tools available to you such as the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS's) provided by manufacturers ol \ hazardous products (for more information see page 42); prudent use of these tools to evaluate the situation can save time and money and will help you to identify the most effective way of reducing the risk. After modifying existing equipment or purchasing new equipment, training on the safe and proper use of the equipment should be provided

to those individuals who will be using it.

Selecting the Control Method A potential safety risk can often be minimized or eliminated completely simply by changing the established policy 01 procedure to be followed for a given task. Use the information obtained in the job hazard analysis of the task tc determine how the task is currently performed, then examine alternative means of performing the task which woulc

eliminate that part of the procedure which precipitates the safety hazard or would minimize the risk associated wit! the activity. For example, if an inspector or serviceperson stores a weight kit on the top shelf of a rack in the reai of his vehicle, there is a potential for a back injury due to the height to which the weight kit must be lifted. Bj

changing the designated storage location for the weight kit to the bottom of the rack, the potential for injury due t(^ lifting the weight kit to a higher level is reduced. The potential risk can be further reduced by providing the inspecto or serviceperson with training in the use of proper lifting techniques. Purchasing Equipment

Before purchasing any equipment, check to be sure that the equipment meets all local, State, and Federal safet requirements. Evaluate the equipment carefully before purchasing, and be sure that the manufacturer or supplie understands the intended application for the equipment. Documenting the safety requirements in writtei specifications for the equipment will help to insure that the manufacturer or supplier understands the safet requirements applicable to the intended use of the equipment.

When purchasing new test equipment, consideration should be given to ways in which equipment design can minimiz

potential safety hazards; the job hazard analysis can provide information about the potential hazards which wer

identified for any procedure in which the new equipment might be used. For example, the design of the steps on

trailer-mounted prover should be reviewed to insure that they minimize the risk of slipping or falling from the provei

Personal protection equipment should only be purchased after determining that potential safety hazards have bee minimized as much as possible by a careful review and modification of procedures. In some cases changing the polk

for procedures to be used to perform a given task may eliminate the risk in question completely; purchasin

equipment without first carefully reviewing alternative controls can be a costly and sometimes ineffectual action. Us

the information obtained in the job hazard analysis and input from your local and State OSHA officials to determin

82
Executive Committee

whether or not other means of controlling the safety hazard as discussed earlier in this section will adequately minimize the risk; once these other means have been addressed, personal protection equipment can be considered. There are many sources of personal protection equipment available. Only personal protection equipment that meets

all local, state, and federal safety requirements and that will mitigate the safety hazard should be considered. The

proper use of personal protection equipment can not be overemphasized. Once appropriate personal protection equipment has been purchased, it is essential that employees be given adequate training on the use of the equipment;

improper use can render the equipment ineffectual and even hazardous to the employee. The results of the job hazard analysis may indicate that new testing equipment or the modification of current equipment is not necessary; the hazard may be mitigated by the purchase of supplemental equipment which will make

a task easier and less hazardous to perform. For example, the purchase of a roller table to facilitate the movement

• of heavy weights; the use of small hand carts to reduce the amount of lifting and carrying required in transporting provers during the inspection of retail motor-fuel dispensers; the use of caution signs, safety cones, or fluorescent

vests to reduce the potential of personal injury or equipment damage during the testing of retail motor-fuel dispensers,

taximeters, vehicle-tank meters, or large scales; the purchase of 25-lb weights to replace 50-lb weights; or the purchase of first-aid kits for installation in all vehicles and in the metrology laboratory. As with the purchase of new

equipment or the modification of equipment, the individual requirements of a jurisdiction must be carefully considered

before purchasing supplemental equipment to determine that the equipment is appropriate and necessary for the task.

' Modification of current equipment

9

i In some cases, it may be possible to modify existing equipment to minimize or eliminate a potential safety hazard.

- The decision to modify equipment should be made based on information obtained from the job hazard analysis and

information from local and State OSHA officials; this information should indicate that modification of the equipment

provides the most effective means to minimize the potential safety hazard. Prior to making any modification to equipment, an agency must take appropriate precautions to insure that the proposed modification does not violate any

local or State safety requirements or change the equipment manufacturer's design in a manner which might render the equipment unsafe in another way.

o:

- In the course of its work, the Task Force was provided with a number of examples of how weights and measures

jurisdictions or service agencies have modified existing equipment to address a safety concern. Some of the many

]- examples brought to the attention of the Task Force are listed below. NOTE: These modifications may not be

I appropriate for every jurisdiction. Check with local and State OSHA officials to determine whether these modifications would be appropriate for the specific circumstances in your jurisdiction before making any such modifications.

i

- Metal cage enclosure around an LPG prover - The cage prevents tampering with the prover and valves when the prover is unattended, yet provides adequate ventilation to prevent the accumulation of product fumes. The cage

also reduces the possibility of damage to the prover.

jj - Securing of weights on a vehicle - Securing of weights can be accomplished in a number of ways: using a separate

W enclosure or box in which to store weights; using weights that can be locked down with specialized fasteners.

f

: - Modification to vehicles - Installation of a separate enclosure with venting to the outside of the vehicle for storing 5-gallon test measures. Installation of a partition between the driver and the area where equipment is stored to reduce the possibility of injury from the equipment in the event of a vehicle collision.

- Extension of height on funnels used in testing retail motor-fuel dispensers - The added height may help to reduce

! stress on the back when returning product to storage.

1 Training Employees to Use the Equipment

1 New equipment may operate differently from equipment currently in use or have features which are unfamiliar to the employee, and modified equipment may operate differently from the original version. It is important that adequate

' training be provided to all employees who will use the equipment to insure that they understand how to safely and

properly operate the new equipment and also to insure that safety hazards are not created by the improper use or

83
Executive Committee

operation of the equipment. Check to see if the manufacturer or supplier of new equipment is willing to provide

instructions on the use of the equipment. Other sources to check include local or State OSHA offices, consultants, organizations which provide safety training, and local industry groups. Without proper training on the safe use of equipment, the care taken in the selection and purchase of the equipment will be ineffectual, and the use of the equipment may even be hazardous to the employee.

(d) Provide a written safety and health program. An effective methodfor emphasizing safety and health is to have a written program as exemplified in your document [The EPO's in NCWM Publication 12 as revised by the Task Force and the introductory section on safety and glossary of terms]. We recommend that it would be made available to all inspectors for pre-inspection planning. Even the most carefully designed safety program can be ineffectual if the program is not adequately documented. Documentation of the program's structure and policies helps to promote consistency in adhering to safety regulations and to emphasize the safety and health policies established by the organization. All employees should receive written copies of the documentation and the information should be communicated and reinforced through training seminars and safety meetings. Once the documentation is complete, the policies and procedures can be communicated to the management and employees and implementation of the safety program can progress. The structure and format used to document the safety program depends on the needs of the agency. Documentation

might be in the form of a single safety manual with separate sections to address different areas, or in the form of

separate publications that each address a particular area. Documentation should include a statement of purpose; a

clear indication of the agency's commitment to the safety and health of the employees; an overview of how the program is structured; the local, State, and/or Federal safety requirements which must be followed or a source where

the regulations can be obtained; a description of safety policies established by the organization; procedural

information such as how to report unsafe conditions, how to obtain safety information on hazardous materials, and

the scheduling of safety meetings; information on obtaining copies of MSDS sheets for materials used by the employees and how to obtain an explanation of the information on the MSDS sheet; and any other information

pertinent to the safety program. Although the documentation may include a variety of safety issues which are specific to an individual program, there

are several areas that should be included in any safety program. Information pertaining to these procedures should be included in the documentation and implemented as part of the safety program as it is established:

- How to Report Unsafe Conditions and Potential Safety Hazards

Instructions should be provided to advise the employee how to report an observed unsafe condition or potential

safety hazard including who to contact, what observations to make, what documentation and information to provide

to the contact person or persons, and any other required actions.

- What to Do in the Event of an Accident

Specific instructions should be given to assist the employee in preparing to respond to an accident. More than one

set of instructions may be required to address different types of inspection activities. These instructions should

include basic information such as where to go; the names and phone numbers of the people or agencies to be

contacted and the information to provide to them.

- How to Submit Recommendations to Reduce Risks or Hazards

This should include a step-by-step description of how to submit recommendations on reducing risks or hazards,

including: the name(s) of the person(s) to submit the recommendation to; the type of information to provide; the required format of the submission; and the time frame in which the employee should receive a response to the submission. (NOTE: When establishing the time frame for responding to an employee submittal, management

should be particularly careful to select a time frame which can reasonably be met by management. Failure to respond within a stated time frame may send the message that management does not consider safety a high priority

issue. This apparent lack of management commitment to maintaining a safe work environment can discourage

84
Executive Committee

employees from submitting recommendations in the future and may even discourage the reporting of safety hazards.)

- Safety Meetings

Information should be provided that details how frequently meetings will be held, who will attend, how issues should be presented for discussion, and other relevant information.

In addition to documenting these procedures, the success of the safety program is dependent upon both management and employees consistently following the procedures. If management does not respond to an

employee's report of an unsafe condition in a timely manner or does not acknowledge the submission of a

suggestion for reducing a safety risk, it is unlikely that the employee will go to the trouble of reporting future

incidents or making future submissions. Likewise, by failing to report an observed unsafe condition employees may

endanger themselves and other employees and set a poor example for other employees to follow.

Copies of the documentation should be distributed to all employees. The effective operation of the safety program

is dependent upon all employees operating under the same safety policies and requirements. Distribution of the documentation to all employees is an effective way of communicating to employees all of the safety policies and

procedures that must be followed and insures that all employees receive the same information. The documentation

can also serve as a reference document that the employee can use to become familiar with the potential safety hazards to which he or she is exposed. The documentation should be updated on a regular basis as needed to

reflect changes in safety requirements or policies and other information included in the documentation. Communicating Safety Information to Employees

In addition to the four main elements outlined earlier in this section, there are several other components which should be considered and included in an effective safety program. These additional components provide an effective means

of encouraging participation in the safety program and of insuring that information about the safety program and its implementation is communicated to management and employees.

Effective communication between management and employees is essential to the smooth operation of the safety program, and lines of communication must be established to insure that pertinent safety information reaches those

affected by it as quickly as possible. Management must be able to quickly notify the employee of any unsafe

conditions or changes in safety requirements, and employees must be able to quickly and easily inform management

of observed hazards or potential hazards. A good communication system is also effective for the interchange of ideas concerning the implementation of safety policies and how the program can be improved. The communication link between management and employees can be facilitated by the agency's safety officer. An effective safety program employs a variety of communication forms, including written, visual, and verbal to emphasize vigilance and safety awareness and to motivate people to participate in the safety program. The additional elements which are outlined below use various means to communicate the importance of safety in the workplace.

Written Communication

Provide employees with copies of the written documentation of the safety program as indicated in the basic element

that describes documentation for a safety program. Written communication of safety information can help management and employees to better visualize the structure of the safety program. The documentation can also serve

as a reference to help resolve questions about safety issues as they arise.

I Safety Meetings

Safety meetings and seminars facilitate the verbal communication of safety information and can be used to emphasize

the commitment of management and the employees to maintaining a safe work environment. These meetings can

1 be used in addition to safety training to communicate the application and use of policies and procedures in the written

safety documentation provided to the employee. Safety meetings can also be used to examine and revise existing

85
Executive Committee

policies and procedures. Safety meetings should be scheduled as needed or as required by local requirements and

should be scheduled to include all employees who are affected by the topics of discussion.

Safety meetings also provide an excellent forum for responding to and discussing input from management and

employees on ways in which the safety program can be improved. Employees are encouraged to present their views on the current program based on personal experience and management can obtain feedback on how the program is actually functioning. Motivating People to Participate The presentation of certificates, awards, and other incentives can help to encourage the participation of employees and management in the safety program. By publicly recognizing contributions to the operation and improvement of

the safety program, people are encouraged to participate and contribute new ideas. Similarly, publicly recognizing accomplishments involving safety practices helps to generate enthusiasm about participation in the safety program and

emphasizes the importance placed on maintaining a safe work environment by management. The use of posters, videotapes, and various audio-visual aids can help to generate interest and participation in the

safety program and can help the employee to better retain the information in memory. Items such as posters also provide a constant, visible reminder of the importance of safety. These items can help employees to better visualize proper safety techniques and practices and to relate to how the techniques are used.

Safety Committees

Safety committees (either existing or newly established) can be useful in evaluating safety issues and communicating

information to employees and management. A safety committee can be appointed as a permanent body or in response to a specific safety issue which needs to be reviewed. While the composition of these committees varies,

it is often helpful to include management as well as employees who represent various interests (e.g., a large-capacity

scale inspector, a laboratory metrologist, an LPG meter inspector, a field supervisor, etc.) in the agency according to the tasks assigned to the committee. By including representation from all of the groups which are affected by an issue, the views of the committee tend to be more balanced and the decisions may be more readily accepted by the groups

represented on the committee. Obtain and post current Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS's) MSDS's are provided by the manufacturer of a product to identify the product's basic characteristics and hazardous

information. MSDS's typically provide information pertaining to the characteristics of a product such as hazardous

ingredients, physical data, fire and explosion hazard information, health hazard information, reactivity data, spill or 1 leak procedures, special protection information, special precautions, toxicological information, and other relevant ! information. MSDS's can be obtained from the manufacturer of the product. For further information on MSDS's,

contact your local OSHA office.

•« k MSDS's are used widely to determine the potential hazards exposed to an employee who is working with or near a particular product. As new information is discovered concerning the properties of a product and the effects of various

levels of exposure to it, MSDS's can change. The manufacturer of a product is responsible for providing updated

copies of these sheets to individuals who have requested MSDS's for that product. In order to insure that your agency does in fact have a copy of the most current MSDS sheet for reference, it is suggested that the safety program have

its own mechanism for updating the agency's MSDS files on at least an annual basis. Employees and management should receive training in the use and interpretation of the information on an MSDS

this will insure that they adequately understand the potential hazards associated a product and are aware of the necessary precautions to take when working with the product. MSDS's should be made accessible to employees at

all times. Posting MSDS's in a location available to everyone and advising employees of the location insures that al! employees will have access to the information. Check with your local or State OSHA representative to determine whether or not your agency is required to meet specific requirements concerning providing the information in MSDS's

to employees.

86
Executive Committee

btain Information from Outside Agencies

The resources of outside agencies can be helpful in trying to determine the most appropriate way to address a safety :oncern, and sharing information with other agencies can be helpful to them. As mentioned earlier in this document, DSHA representatives can be of great assistance in resolving safety concerns. Other resources are also available as ndicated in Section VI of this document. Another source of information is that of input from agencies which may

lave encountered a similar problem; contacting an agency which has successfully dealt with the safety concern saves he resources involved in researching and devising ways to resolve the issue. For example a weights and measures

urisdiction in one State may have reduced the hazards associated with transporting a 5-gallon test measure; sharing

heir findings with other States with similar concerns can help those States avoid the costs and delays associated with

esearching the issue. Establishing and maintaining cooperation and information exchange with the NCWM, private ndustry, and other W & M jurisdictions can benefit everyone.

•0 Evaluating the Effectiveness of a Program and Making Modifications

ifany policies and regulations will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. It is essential that the inspector or serviceperson

*e aware ofall safety regulations andpolicies in place at the inspection site and to practice the safety policies established

ry the inspector's or serviceperson 's employer. When modifying an existing program or establishing a new program,it is xecessary to verify that all State and local safety requirements as well as any safetypolicies within the agency are satisfied Dnce a safety program has been established it is necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the program to insure that he program and its policies and procedures meet the objective of maintaining a safe work environment and

ninimizing potential safety hazards. A safety program must be flexible enough to respond to the changing needs of he workplace environment, and if a procedure is no longer effective in minimizing a safety risk it must be modified. DSHA is the expert in analyzing the effectiveness of a safety program; check with the local or State OSHA

epresentative for input on the effectiveness of a program.

To begin the evaluation of a program, it is first necessary to monitor what is practiced — not what is supposed to be

practiced. This can be done in several ways. Regular self-inspections are an excellent means of monitoring a safety urogram and of insuring that safety regulations and policies are being followed. Request input from the local or State DSHA representative and check to see if there is a hygienist employed within the agency who might evaluate the urogram. It may be possible to contract an industrial hygienist to evaluate the effectiveness of the safety program.

vlany jurisdictions and service agencies have well established safety programs which continue to operate effectively ind require few changes. Even these organizations recognize the benefits of continual evaluation of the effectiveness

)f the safety program. The safety programs of such organizations usually include a mechanism for providing a

oeriodic evaluation of the operation of the program, and a mechanism for making changes to the program to respond

o changes in requirements and to the dynamic workplace environment. If the evaluation indicates the existence of a potential safety hazard, it is necessary to determine why the potential

exists. If the hazard is present because an employee has failed to follow the policies and procedures established by

I he program, additional training or reinforcement of the policy may be needed. Attempts should be made to determine why the employee is not following the procedure and inquiries made into possible ways of correcting the oroblem. For example,

Is the procedure impractical? If so, does an alternative means of accomplishing the task exist?

If no alternatives to the procedure exist, ways must be found to encourage the employee to use the procedure. Can a related procedure be changed to make the safety procedure more practical and more likely to be followed by the employee?

Is the procedure not being followed because of a lack of commitment from management (e.g., lack of resources J such as proper safety equipment)? If so, ways of obtaining and demonstrating a positive commitment must be

obtained from management.

Is a lack of employee involvement in establishing the safety procedures the cause of the problem? If so, attempt

to involve employees in evaluating the program and work to encourage their suggestions for improvements of the program; they are the ones working with the procedures. Ask the employee for suggestions on how the procedure

could be improved to be a practical means for minimizing the safety hazard.

87
Executive Committee

If the hazard is present because the policies and procedures of the safety program have not adequately addressed the L problem, it is necessary to reevaluate the situation and discover a way to minimize or eliminate the risk. Can the procedure be modified to adequately address the safety concern? Would new testing equipment or personal 4 protection equipment correct the problem? Any changes made to the policies and procedures of the safety program

as a result of the evaluation and reanalysis should be included in the next revision of the safety program's j ^

documentation; until such time as the documentation is revised, a written description of the modified procedure^ «

'

should be provided to employees and they should also be notified verbally. As part of the normal maintenance of a safety program, it is necessary to periodically review the policies anc procedures to insure that they comply with all local, State, and Federal safety requirements, especially any nev

requirements which have gone into effect since the establishment of the safety program. Changes to the policy am

procedures must be made to address any changes in the safety requirements, and all employees must be properl;

notified of the change. Changes to a safety program may also be necessary to address any new equipment or modifications to curren equipment. An evaluation should be made of the operation of the new or modified equipment to determine whethe

or not changes are needed in the safety procedures to adequately address any potential safety hazards.

VI) Resources for Maintaining an Effective Safety Program

There are many resources available for safety training or safety information which can help to maintain an effectiv safety program. These resources can be in the form of training to insure that proper safety procedures are know

and followed or in the form of information about a product or test procedure which may prevent potential injury t an employee.

Safety Training and/or Information Resources

Listed below are a number of resources which can provide safety training or safety information. This is not intende

to be a complete list of all possible resources for safety information, rather this is a list of some of the agencies thi the Task Force has worked with or obtained information from in the course of its work.

Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

(Check for local and State listings; Federal OSHA is located in Washington, DC)

National Safety Council

Chicago, IL

National Institute Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH)

American Petroleum Institute (API)

Washington, DC

National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM)

Gaithersburg, MD

National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

Gaithersburg, MD

American Industrial Hygiene Association Akron, OH

American Meat Institute Arlington, VA

In addition to these and other agencies which are not listed, local industry trade groups conduct many traini seminars which may be open to W&M. For example local distributors of liquefied petroleum gas (LPG) oft

88
Executive Committee

3 onduct safety training for employees; this information may be useful for weights and measures officials who inspect .PG meters. Equipment suppliers and consultants also conduct training seminars concerning the safe use of

i quipment and safe procedures. mother resource for maintaining a safety program is a regular review and update of all procedures by a group within ;our agency (e.g., safety committee). Such a group would be familiar with your equipment, personnel, and any

onstraints which you have, and can provide excellent feedback about the effectiveness of your current safety practices.

i

89
Executive Committee

Attachment A - Safety Notes

This attachment contains a glossary of safety considerations and reminders that were identified by the Task Force i the course of its work. Many of these safety reminders will be incorporated into the 1992 version of NCWJ

Publication 12, Examination Procedure Outlines for Weighing and Measuring Devices. Many of these reminders wi

also be added to future editions (or issued as addenda to current editions) of N1ST Handbooks 143, State Weigh

and Measures Laboratories Program Handbook, and 145, Handbook for the Quality Assurance of Metrologic; Measurements. Those safety reminders which are specifically oriented toward the laboratory environment ai identified with the notation (*L).

This attachment is not intended to include all possible safety precautions which should be taken before proceedir with the inspection of a weighing or measuring device, nor are the listings of safety information and contacts comprehensive source of safety information and guidance. Additional information is available on various safety topi' in the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM)

Many policies and regulations will vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. Prior to beginning any inspection i testing activity, it is essential that the inspector, metrologist, or serviceperson be completely familiar with all safe regulations and policies in effect at the inspection site or in the laboratory; such regulations and policies inclui federal, state, or local Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, safety polici established by the firm in which the inspection is taking place, and safety policies established by the inspector

metrologist's, or serviceperson's employer. The inspector, metrologist, or serviceperson must practice and adhe

to these requirements and policies at all times during the inspection and testing process. This attachment identifi general guidelines for safety which are useful in alerting inspectors, metrologists, and servicepersons to t importance of taking adequate precautions to avoid personal injuries. These guidelines can only be effective mitigating safety hazards if inspectors and servicepersons receive training in hazard recognition and controls.

Chemicals, Petroleum Products, and Hazardous Materials: Be familiar with the nature of the products at an inspection site that is located in a plant or other facility whi

handles, uses, or packages chemicals, petroleum products, or hazardous materials; it is essential that the inspect or serviceperson be familiar with the nature of the product and any protective measures which should be tak prior to working around the product. For example, some products may cause injury through exposure to the si or through inhalation of the fumes or airborne particulates. Similarly, caustic products may also damage fi< standard weights or measures or equipment used in the test process. Determine whether or not protective clothing or equipment is needed prior to working with the product.

Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) can provide much of the basic information about the hazards involved vv a product. The manufacturer of the product should be able to provide further information about the prodi

Several sources of information concerning chemicals, petroleum products, and

hazardous materials are listed below. Some additional sources of information are included in the NCWM Saf

Library. American Chemical Society 1155 16th Street, NW

Washington, DC 20036

(202) 872-4600

American Petroleum Institute 1220 L Street, NW

Washington, DC 20005

(202) 682-8000 FAX#: (202) 682-8036

Chemical Manufacturer's Association 2501 M Street, NW

Washington, DC 20037

(202) 887-1100

90
Executive Committee

Look for leakage or spillage of chemicals, petroleum products, or hazardous materials at or near the inspections

site. Leakage or spillage of these products can be potentially hazardous if the inspector/serviceperson or facility employee is exposed to the product and is not wearing personal protection equipment. Additionally, any product

collecting on the ground surface can result in slippery, unsafe conditions for an individual moving about the inspection area. If leaking or spilled product results in unsafe conditions at the inspection site, it is recommended

that the testing procedure be discontinued until the unsafe conditions are corrected.

Chemicals, Petroleum Products, and Hazardous Materials (*L): Be familiar with the nature of the chemicals being used in the laboratory. It is essential that the metrologist be

familiar with the nature of the product and any protective measures which should be taken prior to working with

the product. For example, some products may cause injury through exposure to the skin (acids and caustics) or through inhalation of the fumes or airborne particulates (molten lead fumes, lead dust, and mercury vapors).

Similarly, caustic products may also damage field standard weights or measures or equipment used in the test process. I Determine whether or not protective clothing or equipment is needed prior to working with the product. Material

Safety Data Sheets (MSDSs) can provide much of the basic information about the hazards involved with a product. Look for leakage or spillage of chemicals, petroleum products, or hazardous materials. Leakage or spillage of these products can be potentially hazardous if the metrologist is exposed to the product and is not wearing personal

protective equipment. Additionally, any product collecting on the ground surface can result in slippery, unsafe

; conditions for an individual moving about the inspection area. If leaking or spilled product results in unsafe

conditions at the inspection site, it is recommended that the testing procedure be discontinued until the unsafe

conditions are corrected.

Clothing:

Synthetic clothing should not be worn when working around flammable products. Synthetic clothing melts at high temperatures; if the person wearing the synthetic clothing is exposed to flames, the clothing may melt and stick to the persons skin to result in severe burns. Combustion can result when an ignition source is present and fuel and oxygen are also available.

i Many types of synthetic clothing also tend to build up a static charge; this can be dangerous as a potential ignition source around flammable products. Use caution when wearing loose clothing (or hanging jewelry) around machinery such as conveyor belts, weight movers, meat hooks, gears, etc. The clothing (or jewelry) may become entangled in the machinery and result in personal injury.

jj Electrical Hazards: Be particularly aware of potential electrical hazards in or near the inspection site when testing electronic devices

or working in the vicinity of electrical equipment. Loose or exposed wiring and a frayed or worn electrical cord

should be brought to the attention of management at the inspection site. Avoid standing on wet surfaces unless

the electrical equipment is properly insulated and grounded. Combustion can result when an ignition source is present and fuel and oxygen are also available. Electrical hazards may also be potential ignition sources when testing devices which dispense flammable products or working near flammable products. Be sure that provers and other test equipment are equipped with explosion-proof motors. Always check the electrical supply lines for testing equipment carefully for signs of wear or damage, and correct any potentially hazardous conditions. Take steps to protect these supply lines from damage during use.

91
Executive Committee

Emergency Procedures: Always be familiar with emergency procedures BEFORE beginning an inspection. After an emergency has

developed, crucial time can be lost if emergency procedures are not known. Be familiar with the procedures to follow in the event of an equipment malfunction or the development of a dangerous situation with the equipment

or in the vicinity of the inspection site when operating specialized testing equipment. Be familiar with the nature of any product being dispensed by a device or being used in or near the inspection area. Know the emergency procedures to be followed when a spill has occurred or a person has been exposed to the product. Knowledge of emergency procedures and related information should include the correct selection and use i of fire extinguishers, the location of emergency shut-offs, and evacuation procedures. Keep a list of emergency phone numbers handy at all times in a notebook or on a card. Examples of numbers to keep are the local fire department, emergency medical facility, and other appropriate public safety agencies. Eye Protection: Appropriate eye protection is recommended when working around hazardous products which may inadvertently splash into the eyes, and eye-wash facilities should be considered. Contact lens wearers should be particularly careful to follow the instructions of their eye-care practitioner and local OSHA representative when working around

hazardous products. Appropriate eye protection should also be worn when working in an area with overhead projections such as meat

hooks or other sharp objects or where there is a potential of flying projectiles (e.g., when working near tools that

grind, chip, etc.).

\ Fire Extinguisher Know the proper use and selection of fire extinguishers for a given application. Contact your local fire department

for current information and training.

First Aid Kit: An appropriate first aid kit or kits should be provided for every vehicle and in every laboratory. Consideration should be given to the type of work that the inspector, metrologist, or serviceperson typically performs and the types of hazards typically encountered in these types of activities. Items in addition to those contained in a basic first aid kit may need to be added to address the potential hazards which may be encountered by the person who will be most likely to use the first aid kit. Check with your local OSHA office or with your departmental safety officer for input on the items to be included in each kit.

First Aid Kits (*L): Appropriate first aid kits should be located throughout the laboratory in highly visible locations. All laboratory personnel should be familiar with the location and contents of each of these kits. Consideration should be given

to the type of work that the metrologist typically performs and the types of hazards typically encountered in these

types of activities. Items in addition to those contained in a basic first aid kit may need to be added to address the

potential hazards which may be encountered by the metrologist who will be most likely to use the first aid kit.

First Aid Training (*L):

1 ' An adequate number of laboratory personnel should be trained and certified in first aid procedures (including Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation - CPR) to assure that any accident victim will receive proper first aid treatment.' This certification should be maintained through periodic training as recommended by each program.

92
Executive Committee

Grounding:

It is essential to properly ground the prover being used when inspecting meters which dispense flammable products. Be sure to connect the grounding wire or jumper cable to bare metal surfaces, not to painted or plastic surfaces.

Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers: When testing retail motor fuel dispensers, be sure to: Ground the nozzle against the prover neck when dispensing product. Ground the neck of the prover against the metal funnel when returning product to the storage tank.

If a test measure is left on a cart when dispensing product or returning product to the storage tank, be sure the card is properly grounded.

Vehicle Mounted Tank, Loading Rack, or Wholesale Meters: Use a grounding wire, jumper cable, or terminal ground to ground the prover to the vehicle from which

the product is obtained. Use a grounding wire, jumper cable, or terminal ground to ground the prover to the vehicle or tank when

returning product to storage. These guidelines also apply when testing liquefied petroleum gas liquid-measuring devices. Although these

devices are tested as a "closed system", the possibility of leaks is always present and can present a potential hazard. Always ground yourself to an above ground storage tank before climbing onto the tank by touching the tank or the hand rails.

Ignition Sources: Combustion can result when an ignition source is present andfuel and oxygen are also available. It is necessary to avoid possible sources of ignition when testing meters which dispense petroleum products or other flammable

materials. Possible sources of ignition include, but are not limited to: open flames or smoking, metal to metal

contact which causes sparking (e.g., metal wrench or hammer on a pipe fitting), a running motor, static discharge, worn or faulty electrical wiring, improper grounding, and the wearing of synthetic clothing. Also be sure that provers and other test equipment are equipped with explosion-proof motors. If ignition sources cannot be

i eliminated at the time of the inspection, it is recommended that the testing procedure be discontinued until the hazardous conditions are corrected.

I Because disposable lighters can spark upon impact, the inspector should avoid carrying a lighter in his or her front

shirt pocket. ALWAYS USE A METAL FUNNEL TO RETURN PRODUCT TO PRODUCT STORAGE TANKS. NEVER

USE A PLASTIC SAFETY CONE AS A FUNNEL!! Pouring product into the return fill can build up static

electricity; a proper ground must be made by placing the metal neck of the prover against the metal lip of the

funnel. I

j lifting: Be familiar with and use proper lifting techniques when lifting test weights or heavy equipment to prevent personal

injury. To reduce the possibility of back injury, use equipment which would decrease the amount of lifting required whenever possible (For example: an extended height funnel, carts for transporting weights, platforms suspended

from monorail scales instead of overhead meat hooks, etc.).

Periodic training in proper lifting techniques is encouraged.

93
Executive Committee

Location:

Carefully examine the inspection site prior to beginning an inspection and testing procedure. Look for potentially dangerous situations such as wet areas which may be slippery (see also Wet/Slick Conditions), the use or presence

of hazardous and/or flammable materials and any spillage or leakage of these products (see also Chemicals, Petroleum Products, and Hazardous Materials), adjacent activities which may contribute a potential hazard to the

j inspection (e.g., welding near the inspection area would provide a potential ignition source when testing devices which dispense flammable liquids), obstructions in the area which may prove to be safety hazards (e.g., objects on | the ground which the inspector might trip over, objects in the path of the inspector to and from the device being

tested, exits blocked by test equipment or vehicles, etc. ~ see also Obstructions), pedestrian or vehicle traffic (see

also Traffic), steep or narrow stairways, overhead hazards (e.g., feed bins, loading rack equipment, low-hanging beams in feed mills and warehouses, overhead activities, low doorways, etc. — see also Overhead Hazards), lack I of or defective handrails, and loose or exposed wiring (see also Electrical Hazards). Use great care when moving

around and working in areas in which these potential hazards are present. When using flammable products (e.g.,

J testing metering devices), note the location of the fire extinguisher, emergency shut-offs, etc. prior to beginning the

j inspection. Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS):

MSDSs are provided by the manufacturer of a product to identify the product's basic characteristics and hazardous

information. MSDSs typically provide information pertaining to the characteristics of a product such as hazardous

ingredients, physical data, fire and explosion hazard information, health hazard information, reactivity data, spill or leak procedures, special protection information, special precautions, toxicological information, and other relevant information. MSDSs can be obtained from the manufacturer of the product. As new information is discovered concerning the properties of a product and the effects of various levels of exposure to it, MSDSs can change. It

is recommended that updated versions of the MSDSs be obtained on at least an annual basis. For further information on MSDSs, contact your local OSHA office. Nature of Product:

I Be knowledgeable about the nature of the product being dispensed by a device prior to beginning a test on the

device. For all hazardous materials it is recommended that a copy of the Material Safety Data Sheet (MSDS) be

obtained for that product and reviewed prior to testing the device. Carefully read and follow the instructions on

any warning labels posted on the device or affixed to a packaged product for precautions which should be taken when working around the product.

Obstructions: Care should be taken to avoid injury from obstructions in the work area during the course of an inspection. Obstructions which might prove to be safety hazards include objects on the ground which the inspector might trip over, objects in the path of the inspector to and from the device being tested, steep or narrow stairways, exits blocked by test equipment or vehicles, etc. Overhead Hazards: Note any overhead hazards such as feed bins, loading rack equipment, low-hanging beams in feed mills and warehouses, activities overhead, and low doorways prior to the inspection. Take precautions (such as wearing £ hardhat) to avoid potential injuries as the situation dictates. Personal Protection Equipment:

I Included among the many types of personal protection equipment which is available are items such as non-syntheti<

clothing, coveralls, gloves, barrier cream, non-permeable safety aprons, safety sleeves, safety shoes, respirators goggles or safety glasses, hearing protection, and hardhats. OSHA and safety-clothing and safety-equipmen manufacturers can provide additional information concerning the selection of personal protection equipment fo a given type of inspection activity.
Executive Committee

Before providing personal protection equipment (PPE), management should determine whether or not PPE is actually required for a particular inspection activity. If it is determined that an employee is exposed to a hazard,

the management should first try to minimize the hazard by examining and modifying work methods and conditions.

If it is determined that the employee is still exposed to the hazard after modifying work methods and conditions, consideration should be given to purchasing PPE. It should be realized that certain types of PPE such as respirators can require employee physicals and extensive ongoing training and maintenance; failure to follow these requirements may render the PPE ineffective or even dangerous.

afety Shoes:

Safety shoes are recommended to be worn when performing certain weights and measures activities to prevent

personal injury. Safety shoes are available to prevent possible injury to the foot from falling weights or equipment

and also to provide protection from slippage and static discharge. Many styles and types of safety shoes are

available. The American National Standards Institute and safety-shoe manufacturers can provide additional information concerning the selection of safety shoes for different types of inspection activities.

•fety Cones/Warning Signs:

Safety warning signs or safety cones should be positioned to block off the work area when the inspection site is exposed to vehicular or pedestrian traffic . These precautions should also be taken when working around

flammable liquids to warn people of a potential hazard; in this instance, it is also recommended that "No Smoking"

and "No Open Flame" signs be posted.

atic Discharge: Combustion can result when an ignition source is present and fuel and oxygen are also available. Sources of static discharge introduce the potential of an ignition source into the testing area. Avoid all sources of static discharge when testing flammable products.

I ipport:

Scales: Be certain that the installation is adequate to support the scale, test weights equal to the capacity of the scale, and any weight carts, test platforms, platters, chains, hooks, or other accessories used to suspend or support the test weights prior to proceeding with a testing procedure. Any

test platforms, platters, chains, hooks, or other accessories must be capable of supporting the

test weights necessary for the inspection.

Meters: Be sure the inspection site surface is rigid enough to support the weight of a large volume

prover when the prover is filled with the test liquid. Chocks should be used to secure the wheels

of the prover during the testing procedure.

itch Loading: Do not use a test measure that has been used for drafts of gasoline to measure diesel fuel until you are

certain that all gasoline vapors have dissipated. This practice, called "switch-loading" is extremely hazardous

because diesel fuel is likely to produce a static charge while being dispensed. Sparks from this charge could

easily ignite gasoline vapors inside the measure.

affic: Be aware of vehicular and pedestrian traffic patterns in and around the inspection site. Mark the test spot appropriately by using safety cones, flags, etc.

95
Executive Committee

Transportation of Equipment:

Consideration must be given to isolating the inspector/serviceperson from weighing and measuring equipmer

during the transportation of the equipment to and from the work site. The inspector/serviceperson must b

isolated from hazardous fumes; means of such isolation include, but are not limited to, vehicles outfitted wit protective barriers; equipment carriers located outside of the vehicle; vehicles with separate driver/equipmer

compartments, etc. 0.

All equipment must be properly secured to avoid exposing the inspector/serviceperson to the potential ( flying projectiles. Hi Wet/Slick Conditions: Caution should be exercised when working in wet, slippery, or icy conditions to avoid slipping or possib

injury from electrical sources. Shoes with non-skid soles should be worn to provide adequate traction prevent slipping. Absorbent material should be used on any product spills to prevent possible injury due to slipping on a sli<

'

surface.

ML

tit M

forking id
Executive Committee

Appendix F - Report on Activities of OIML

By

Samuel E. Chappell, Chief

Standards Management Program, NIST

iternational Committee of Legal Metrology CCIMU

he CIML establishes the policy and approves the technical plans and work of the various OIML Secretariats. Its

st meeting was held in Porto, Portugal from October 3-5, 1990. Representatives from 37 of the 50 member nations tended. At that meeting the following significant decisions were made:

Six new OIML Recommendations were approved, including the revision of R60 on "Load Cells." The proposed "OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments" was approved for implementation. Since

its approval, the following OIML Member Nations have indicated their intention to participate in the System and have named their OIML representative as the "Issuing Authority" for the System: Belgium, France, Germany, Hungary, People's Republic of China, Sweden, and the U.S.S.R.

It was decided to revise the "Working Method of OIML Secretariats" to provide more specific guidelines for organizational structure and in work procedures. The revision will use as its basis the IEC/ISO Directives on "Participation in Standardization Activities" and "Guide for Style and Preparation of International Standards." he next meeting of CIML is scheduled for October 7-9, 1991 in Paris, France. IML Presidential Council

he Presidential Council of CIML is its executive steering committee. Its last meeting was held February 11-13, 1991

Paris, France. The principal agenda items were: A review of the current technical work of the Secretariats. A review of draft revisions of the "Working Method" for OIML Secretariats and a guide to the drafting and

presentation of OIML Recommendations. New drafts of both items are now available. A review of the current organizational structure of the technical work with the view of reorganizing.

etivities of OIML Secretariats

his part of the report provides: (1) an identification of specific work, either Recommendations or Documents, being

jveloped in Secretariats of specific interest to the NCWM and (2) a schedule of meetings of the International

'orking Groups (rWGs) of those Secretariats that have been recently held or planned for the near future. More

;tails of these activities are being reported by Otto Warnlof to the Specifications and Tolerances Committee. PS5D "Dynamic Measurement of Liquids" (Germany)

PS5D/RS1 "Meters with Measuring Chambers or Turbines" (Germany and France): An IWG meeting was

held at NIST in October 1990 at which a second preliminary draft Recommendation combining R5, R27, R57, R67, and R77 (Volume Meters, Ancillary Equipment, General Provisions, Particular Assemblies, and

Metrological Controls, respectively) was discussed. A third preliminary draft is being developed on the basis of the decisions made at that meeting and is expected to be distributed to members of the IWG for review and comment in July or August 1991. An IWG meeting has been scheduled for October 25-27, 1991 in Paris, France.

97
Executive Committee

PS5D/RS7 "Methods and Devices for the Verification of Measuring Instruments for Liquids" (Japan): An IWG meeting has been scheduled to discuss the second preliminary draft Recommendations on "Pipe Provers and Measuring Assemblies" and "Fuel Dispensers for Motor Vehicles" in Tokyo, Japan on November 25-27, 1991. PS5D/RS9 "Vortex Meters" (Japan): An rWG meeting has been scheduled to discuss a first preliminary draft on the subject during November 25-28, 1991. PS5D/RS10 "Direct Mass Flow Meters" (U.SA.): An rWG meeting was held at NIST on October 22-23, 1990 at which the second preliminary draft Recommendation on the subject was reviewed. A third preliminary draft was prepared on the basis of the decisions of the meeting and distributed to members of the IWG for review and comment in February 1991. The United States held a meeting of the IWG to review

that draft on May 13-15, 1991 in England. On the basis of the decisions at that meeting, a first draft Recommendation is being prepared for distribution for simultaneous review and vote by the Pilot and

Reporting Secretariats.

o PS5S "Static Measurement of Quantities of Liquids" (Portugal) PS5S/SR12 "Static Direct Mass Measurement of Quantities of Liquids" (Australia): A second preliminary

draft Recommendation on the subject was prepared and discussed at an IWG meeting held on May 16-17, 1991 in England at which the United States was represented. A third preliminary draft will be prepared on

the basis of the decisions of that meeting. o PS7 "Measurement of Mass" (U.SA.)

PS7/RS2 "General Problems - Electronic Devices" (U.SA.): An IWG meeting was held at NIST on July 16-

18, 1991. At that meeting a draft revision of R74 on "Electronic Weighing Instruments" was reviewed. On

the basis of the decisions of the meeting, a new draft revision of R74 has been prepared and distributed to members of the rWG for review and vote. A final response by the Pilot and Reporting Secretariats on this revision is due in August 1991. PS7/RS4 "Non-automatic Weighing Instruments" (Germany and France): A special meeting was called by

the Secretariat of some key members of the IWG in Germany in August 1990 to discuss a revision of R76. Otto Warnlof attended that meeting. A subsequent rWG meeting was held to discuss this revised draft Recommendation in January 1991 in Germany. The United States was represented at that meeting by Mr.

Warnlof, NCWM, SMA, and four persons representing scale manufacturers. As a result of the decisions of the January meeting, the Secretariat prepared another draft and sent it to the Reporting and Pilot Secretariats and Members of CIML for simultaneous review and vote. The result of those ballots were positive, hence

the revised R76 will be on the agenda for approval at the October 1991 meeting of CIML.

PS7/RS5 "Automatic Weighing Instruments" (United Kingdom): Several Recommendations are at various

stages of revision or development. These include the following: (a) a revision of R50 on "Continuous

Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments (Belt Weighers);" (b) a revision of R51 on "Checkweighing and Weight Grading Machines;" (c) a revision of R61 on "Automatic Gravimetric Filling Machines (Hoppers);'

(d) a preliminary draft R on "Automatic Rail-weighbridges;" and (e) a preliminary draft R on "Discontinuous

Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments (Catchweighers)." All drafts were reviewed at a meeting of the IWG from May 20-24, 1991 in England. As a results of the meeting, were that the draft revision of R50 was

approved; new draft revisions of R51 and R61 will be prepared based on the decisions agreed upon. The

| preliminary drafts will also be revised according to the decisions of the meeting. An FvVG meeting has beer

scheduled to discuss the revised work in February 1992 in England.

PS7/RS8 "Load Cells" (U.S.A.): The revised R60 was approved at the last CIML meeting in Portugal. The

Secretariat is now drafting "test methods" and a "format of the test report" so that this Recommendation car I become a part of the "OIML Certificate System."

98
Executive Committee

=>S8 "Weights" (U.SA.)

PS8/RS5 "Weights Used in Trade and Industry" (Belgium and U.K.): A third preliminary draft Recommendation on "Weights of Classes El, E2, Fl, F2, Ml, M2, and M3" has been prepared on the basis of consolidating the requirements of Rl, R2, R20, and R25 as well as the Monographs I, II, III, and IV

related to weights. This draft was discussed at an IWG meeting at NIST on July 19, 1990. A fourth preliminary draft was prepared by the Secretariat on the basis of the decisions at that meeting and distributed

to the members of the IWG in September 1990 for review and comment. Comments received on that draft served as a basis for a first draft sent out for simultaneous review by the Pilot and Reporting Secretariats. The U.S.'s response was positive on both ballots.

DS22 "Principles of Metrological Control" (U.SA)

PS22/RS4 "Principles of Initial and Subsequent Verification" (U.SA.): The Secretariat prepared a first preliminary draft Document on "Quality Assurance as Applied to Metrological Control of Measuring

Instruments" and distributed it to members of the IWG for review and comment in August 1990. A meeting

of the IWG was held to review that draft in France on October 8-10, 1990. A second preliminary draft is being prepared on the basis of the decisions at that meeting and has been limited to initial verification. The Document establishes principles whereby a manufacturer may provide a "declaration of conformity" of newly

produced measuring instruments to the performance requirements of international recommendations or other documented standards. The next meeting of the IWG has been scheduled for October 10-12, 1991 at BIML

in Paris, France.

99
Executive Committee Appendix G

Summary of State Laws and Regulations

in Weights and Measures

(as of July, 1991)

This is an overview of the status of adoption of NCWM standards by the States. In earlier editions of Handbook

State laws and regulations were compared to the NCWM standard from the prior year. This did not indicate wh<

the standard as printed in the current edition had been adopted by any given State. The table below has been impr

by listing those States that adopt NCWM-recommended updates automatically ("YES"); see Sections 4 through 10 o Uniform Weights and Measures Law. This means the State's regulations are current with those printed in this ed

of the Handbook. If a State has adopted an NCWM recommendation in whole or in part from a particular year updates are not incorporated automatically, a lower case "yes" is shown. We have also incorporated the status of adoji of NIST Handbook 44. Laws

State

c —1 co CO Si0 CD

1

i- c 3 o

to *-; CO JS £ o

Regulations

CJ T3

CO C

Q_ co

co

Q.

c g> O O) ftto .2

COc0aO

to 11

2 3-

Alabama yes yes yes* yes yes NO yes NO yes yes*

Alaska yes NO NO yes yes NO yes NO NO NO

Arizona yes yes yes" yes yes yes yes NO yes yes' ye Arkansas yes NO yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes

California yes yes yes* yes yes NO yes yes* yes yes Colorado yes yes yes* yes yes NO yes NO NO yes' YE Connecticut yes yes yes* yes YES yes' yes

1 yes* yes yes YE Delaware yes yes yes* yes yes NO NO NO NO yes' Yl

District of Columbia yes yes NO yes yes NO NO yes* NO NO

Florida yes NO yes' yes yes yes' yes yes* NO yes* Georgia yes yes' yes* yes yes NO yes yes* yes yes' Hawaii yes yes yes* yes yes yes yes yes yes yes*

Key: YES

yes

yes*

NO

automatically adopted and updated on an annual basis Law or regulation in force, NCWM standard used as basis of adoption, but from 8 earlier year. Law or regulations in force, but not based on NCWM standard. No law or regulation.

100
Executive Committee

State

Laws Regulations

Weights

and

Measures

Law

Weighmaster

Law

or

Regulation

Motor

Fuel

Law

Packaging and

Labeling

Method

of

Sale

Unit

Pricing

Registration

of

Service

Agencies

Open

Dating

Type

Evaluation

Motor

Fuel

Requirements

Handbook

44

tl< yes yes yes* yes yes NO yes NO NO yes* YES

0 s ves NO ves* YES YES NO yes NO yes yes YES

iana yes yes yes* yes yes NO NO NO NO yes* YES

a yes yes* yes* yes yes* NO yes* NO yes yes* YES

isas yes NO yes* yes yes NO yes NO yes yes* yes

it jcky yes NO NO yes yes NO yes NO NO NO YES

Jis>iana yes yes yes* yes* yes NO NO NO NO yes* YES

. n e yes yes yes* YES YES NO yes NO NO yes* YES

/Vland yes NO yes* yes yes yes* NO yes* NO yes* YES

.33.achusetts yes* yes* yes* yes yes yes* NO NO yes yes* yes

_h igan yes* yes* yes yes NO NO NO yes* NO yes yes

. n esota yes NO yes* yes NO NO yes yes NO yes* yes

.sissippi yes yes yes yes yes yes yes NO yes yes YES

.souri yes NO yes YES YES NO yes yes* yes yes YES

„ntana yes NO yes* NO NO NO yes NO NO yes* YES

jDraska yes NO NO yes yes NO yes NO yes yes yes

„'ada yes yes yes yes yes* NO yes NO NO NO yes

_v Hampshire yes yes NO YES YES YES YES YES YES YES YES

Jersey yes yes yes* yes yes yes* yes* NO yes* NO YES

Key: YES automatically adopted and updated on an annual basis yes Law or regulation in force, NCWM standard used as basis of adoption, but from an

earlier year. yes* Law or regulations in force, but not based on NCWM standard. NO No law or regulation.

101
Executive Committee

State

Laws Regulations

Weights

and

Measures

Law

Weighmaster

Law

or

Regulation

Motor

Fuel

Law

Packaging and

Labeling

Method

of

Sale

Unit

Pricing

Registration

of

Service

Agencies

Open

Dating

Type

Evaluation

Motor

Fuel

Requirements

Handbook

44

New Mexico ves ves ves* NO ves NO ves yes* NO yes* YES

INeW TOlK yes yes NO yes yes NO yes NO yes ves YES

iNonn oaronna yes yes* yes YES YES NO yes NO yes yes YES

M/~irfrH niaLr\ta yes yes yes* yes* yes* NO yes NO NO yes* yes

KJVWO yes NO NO yes yes NO yes NO yes yes YES

wKianoma yes yes* yes* yes yes yes yes yes* yes yes* YES

Oregon yes NO NO yes yes yes* NO yes* NO yes yes

Pennsylvania yes yes* NO yes yes NO NO NO yes* NO YES

rUciio nico yes yes NO yes yes* yes* yes NO NO yes* yes

yes* NO NO yes* yes yes* NO yes* NO yes* YES

ouuu Qnnthi (Carolina \sa\ \J\\\ \a yes yes* yes* yes yes NO yes NO NO yes* YES

^nuth Dakota yes NO yes* yes yes NO yes NO yes yes yes Tennessee yes yes yes yes yes NO yes NO NO yes* YES= Texas yes yes* NO yes* yes NO yes NO NO yes YES

Utah yes NO yes* yes yes NO yes NO yes yes* YES

Vermont yes yes NO YES yes yes* yes NO NO yes YES

Virginia yes yes yes* yes yes NO NO yes* NO yes* YESj

Key: YES automatically adopted and updated on an annual basis yes Law or regulation in force, NCWM standard used as basis of adoption, but from an

earlier year. yes* Law or regulations in force, but not based on NCWM standard. NO No law or regulation.

102
Executive Committee

State

Laws Regulations

Weights

and

Measures

Law

Weighmaster

Law

or

Regulation

Motor

Fuel

Law

Packaging and

Labeling

Method

of

Sale

Unit

Pricing

Registration

of

Service

Agencies

Open

Dating

Type

Evaluation

Motor

Fuel

Requirements

Handbook

44

v irgin Islands yes NO yes* yes* yes* NO NO NO NO NO yes

VWashington yes yes yes yes NO NO NO NO NO yes YES

VWest Virginia yes NO NO yes yes NO NO NO NO yes yes

VWisconsin yes NO yes* yes yes NO NO NO NO yes* YES

VWyoming yes* NO yes* yes* yes* NO yes NO NO yes* YES

Totals: YES

yes

yes*

NO

49

4 24

920

8

3114

639

6

2

637

6

4

159381 34

3

15

131336

1 20

230

1 1728

7

36

17

Key: YES automatically adopted and updated on an annual basis yes Law or regulation in force, NCWM standard used as basis of adoption, but from an

earlier year. yes* Law or regulations in force, but not based on NCWM standard. NO No law or regulation.

103
Executive Committee

Appendix H - Report on the Task Force on Planning for the 21st Century

Darrell Guensler, CA, Chairman BACKGROUND

The Task Force on Planning for the 21st Century (also known as "The Blue Sky Task Force") was appointed by the 76th NCWM Chairman, N. David Smith. The members of the Task Force are: Tom Geiler, Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts Mary Heslin, Consultant for Consumer Services and Regulatory Affairs Chip Kloos, Hunt-Wesson Inc. Bruce Martell, State of Vermont

Darrell Guensler, State of California, Chairman The responsibilities of the Task Force are to: Make predictions on the future of Weights & Measures and recommendations on meeting the challenges of that

future. Make recommendations for new areas to come under the weights and measures umbrella.

Investigate avenues that will put the value of Weights & Measures and the Conference before the political and civic 'movers and shakers" in our states and at the national level.

Suggest how we can take the Conference to the membership rather than bringing the members to the Conference Determine the need to include a session on motor-fuel quality at the Annual Meeting. Consider the impact of biodegradable, recyclable, and safety packaging on existing Weights & Measures

requirements.

Generally "rock the boat" and get us "sailing in the right direction" now and in the future. MEETINGS

The first meeting of the Task Force was held December 13-14, 1990 in Raleigh, NC. In addition to the Task Force>|

members, NCWM Chairman, N. David Smith, and OWM representative, Carroll Brickenkamp, participated in the

1

! meeting. The meeting resulted in the group identifying and defining 27 issues on which to do further work. The identified issue are listed at the end of this report The second meeting was held March 21-22, 1991 in Stowe, Vermont. In addition to the Task Force members, NCWN

Chairman, N. David Smith and NCWM Executive Secretary, Albert Tholen participated.

[n order to spend the limited amount of time available on the most important issues, members came to this meetinf prepared to identify their top five priority issues. After discussion, the following five items were identified fo development:

National Weights and Measures Law

Transaction Verification/Device Inspection Networking

Identifying With Quality

Technology Innovations

104
Executive Committee RECOMMENDATIONS & CONCLUSIONS

In general, the Task Force feels that Conference members must direct their attention to:

areas of nonuniformity where trade is affected;

analysis of current methods of accomplishing responsibilities (with a willingness to accept significant changes in methodology when warranted);

identification of alternate means of funding programs; and

self analysis with a goal of improving the quality of program services. The Task Force feels that much can be learned by reviewing the positive developments of the National Type

Evaluation Program (NTEP) as a model for industry/government cooperation. The program has managed to develop an excellent working relationship among the active participants and has made significant strides toward overcoming

non-uniform application of applicable regulations. The process may very well adapt to other areas of the Conference's

responsibilities. Due to the large number of issues identified by the Task Force and the need to spend more time properly developing

these issues, the Task Force recommends that it be continued in service with possible expansion and/or

reorganization. The following information, recommendations and conclusions are the result of the Task Force's discussion of each

of the five items: NATIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

The need for considering a national weights and measures law and resulting regulations is based on the assertion that current State laws and regulations lack uniformity and that costs for both government and the regulated industry would

, be less with such a national system.

In discussing this item, the Task Force felt that such a national law should mandate State and local weights and

measures programs much as they exist today with the possible addition of program certification requirements. It was

felt that some leeway should be provided to satisfy possible unique needs of particular States. One concern addressed by the group was that regulations which would result from such a national law may be

. required to be adopted by a specific federal agency through the Federal Register process as the NCWM may not be

. considered a sufficient forum to provide the "due process" required for adoption of regulations. This brings into question, the role State and local weights and measures officials will play in drafting and implementing such

regulations. Another concern raised was that such a national law would not necessarily resolve the lack of uniformity resulting from different levels of enforcement and degrees of activity in various enforcement programs. Priorities and staffing

- levels would still be set at the local level. The Task Force recommends that, before any development proceeds on this issue, the requirements of "due process,"

as required by the U.S. Constitution, be thoroughly explored and the benefits of such a proposal be more thoroughly

identified. If the Task Force is continued in service it plans to set up a study period wherein specific problems will be identified; solutions including alternatives will be developed; and future actions will be recommended. Ideas such

as establishing a peer review board or some program similar to the NTEP for other areas of responsibility will be

reviewed.

105
Executive Committee

TRANSACTION VERIFICATION/DEVICE INSPECTION

"Transaction verification" for purposes of this discussion includes undercover buying and selling, direct sale

verifications, scanner and other pricing accuracy, bulk firewood sales, household moving investigations, etc. "Device

inspection" includes type evaluation, initial verification, subsequent verification (annual inspection), and non- commercial calibration. With over sixty percent of State and local weights and measures program resources being devoted to device inspection,

it is incumbent upon any planning group such as this to consider alternative ways of accomplishing goals in this area. This is especially true when available resources are continually being reduced.

Consideration must be given to the effectiveness of de-emphasizing routine device inspection (subsequent verification), and placing more resources in the transaction verification area. This might include shifting the burden of device inspection to the owners and users of the devices through a variable frequency of inspection program, a statistical^ sampling program, or some other approach to assuring accurate devices.

In some cases it seems that transaction verification can adequately supplement or supplant routine device inspection but in other areas it does not seem cost effective. For instance, it is relatively easy to verify the accuracy of a weighed

transaction taking place in a grocery store but difficult to accomplish the same thing with any reliable accuracy when

monitoring gasoline sales in a service station. The Task Force recommends that further development of this subject be a continued effort of this group. If the Task; Force continues in service it intends, over the next year, to identify a plan for evaluating various existing alternatives

to the process of annual device inspection (such as variable frequency and sampling programs currently in use in weights and measures jurisdictions and elsewhere). The plan will include a study of the impact of such alternatives on budgets and personnel. The Task Force currently is of the opinion that actual performance evaluations of suck programs are outside the scope of the Task Force's charge. NETWORKING

For purposes of this discussion, "networking" includes utilizing various tools or mechanisms to share or disperse information of common interest. The Task Force identified several mechanisms or tools which may foster networking such as newsletters, magazines

electronic bulletin boards, round table discussions, and central banks. Types of information which lend themselves to networking for weights and measures interests include legislation, lega

cases, new technologies, and training materials. One example of a prime topic for a networking system is motor-fuel inspection information which is available fo sharing from several sources and is extremely valuable to a jurisdiction just beginning a fuels inspection program. 1 was concluded that the weights and measures community would benefit greatly from improved networking systems The Task Force recommends that existing systems such as the bulletin board and round table sessions be examine

for improvement possibilities and that the possibility of creating a Conference magazine or dovetailing with a

existing magazine be explored. If the Task Force continues in service, it intends to identify the reasons for an

shortcomings in the currently used bulletin board and round table sessions; explore the possibility of improving th use of FAX systems as part of the networking tools; identify and communicate with other regulatory association and consumer groups who work with consumer products and services; and further explore the possibility of creatin a Conference magazine or placing articles regularly in some existing publications. IDENTIFYING WITH QUALITY

The discussions regarding quality were divided into two sectors. Consumer Product Quality and Process Quality.

106
Executive Committee

cnsumer Product Quality" refers to areas such as motor-fuel performance standards which exist as part of some

ate's weights and measures programs. The Task Force discussed the possibility that there may be a need to develop

-nilar programs for other products such as brake fluid, anti-freeze/coolant, motor oil, automatic transmission fluid,

'•aL concrete, and lumber. Interfaces with other agencies may also be necessary. This area deserves more exploration.

rocess Quality" refers to the use of quality standards to measure performance within an organization, spresentatives of the Task Force met with Dr. Curt W. Reimann at NIST who is in charge of the Malcolm Baldrige

ational Quality Award. The purpose of the meeting was to explore the feasibility of applying the principles of the

iidrige Award to the NCWM, State and local weights and measures internal programs, and to the process of setting andards of expectations for the industries regulated by weights and measures. The Task Force has begun the process

evaluating the principles for application to weights and measures internal programs.

ie Task Force recommends that initially, further development of this item be limited to the internal programs

pect of the "Process Quality' portion. If the Task Force continues in service, it intends, after completion of its aluation of the internal programs aspect, to continue development of the remainder of the quality issue. -ZCHNOLOGY INNOVATIONS

)r purposes of discussion, "technology innovations" includes the use of modern technology in innovative ways to ihance routine or cumbersome tasks. Examples might be utilizing bar code scanners and laptop computers in the

;ld to reduce the need to manually transfer data and therefore reduce errors and save time. Data manipulation and

lculations required of the inspector could also be enhanced by such technology. Another, more neoteric example

• remote electronic monitoring of packaging processes or measuring systems by the weights and measures official.

ie cooperation and participation of industry is essential to the success of any attempt by weights and measures

- ficials to institute new technology.

ie Task Force recommends that individual Conference members (active, associate and advisory members) give •nsideration to the use of modern, innovative technology and present their success stories to forums such as round

ble discussions, bulletin boards, etc. The Task Force plans to take additional steps in identifying and evaluating

ndidates for further development in this area. Consideration is being given to inviting outside experts to consult

th the Task Force to further develop this issue. ISSUES IDENTIFIED FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION

Program Evaluation - examining the effectiveness and efficiency of weights and measures programs. Program Certification - assuring that weights and measures officials are technically qualified, properly trained, and

certified to perform regulatory inspections. Marketplace Audit - conducting coordinated surveys of the marketplace to assure regulatory compliance and to

identify areas needing surveillance.

1 Identification With Quality - expanding the image and activities of regulatory officials to include quality measures

- as well as quantity measures. Associating the activities of the NCWM with nationwide quality programs such as

the Malcolm Baldrige Award.

-•" Publicity Management - fostering consumer and industry awareness of the NCWM and weights and measures

though media and other public contacts.

i Management/Leadership Development - self-explanatory.

National Weights & Measures Law (Uniformity without compromising States' rights) - achieving regulatory enforcement uniformity among federal and State jurisdictions through a national law.

107
Executive Committee

8. Development of Model Process for Complaint Investigation - standardizing the process of investigating consun and industry complaints.

9. Future of Transaction Verification/Device Inspection - giving consideration to alternate methods of accomplish]

the goal of accuracy in the marketplace.

10. Training/Education - establishing minimum training standards and improving application methods and abiliti

11. Future of Approval Seals -determining the appropriateness of applying paper seals to equipment tested by weigjfr and measures officials.

] j

12. Quality Measurements of Consumer Products - determining the appropriateness of expanding NCWM activit

„ into more consumer product quality standards.

13. Examination of Mandated Functions versus Service Functions - identifying and determining the appropriaten

of those activities which are mandated by law and those that have evolved as a service to our constituency.

14. Networking - utilizing various tools or mechanisms to share or disperse information of common interest regulatory officials, industry representatives, and consumers.

15. Technology Innovations - using modern technology in innovative ways to enhance routine or cumbersome taj

16. E Mark Concept - facilitating the movement and inspection of consumer goods across federal, State and lc jurisdictions through the application of in-plant certification programs such as are currently used in Europe. i

17. New Packaging Materials - identifying the impact of new packaging concepts and materials on weights ; measures responsibilities.

18. New Marketing Approaches - assessing the impact of new methods of sale such as door-to-door, mail order,

19. Value of Garbage or Recycled Materials - determining the level of involvement necessary as a result of chan

in handling methods evolving in the garbage/recycling industry.

20. Medical Measurements - determining the need for weights and measures involvement in the standardization

inspection of medical measurement instruments.

21. Public Utilities/Distributed Energy - assessing the need to broaden weights and measures involvement in measurement of energy distributed by public and private utilities.

22. New Commodities - keeping up with the development of new products and services insofar as they impac

weights and measures regulatory responsibility.

23. Interaction With World Markets (Metrics, OIML, Pacific Rim, EC) - identifying issues that affect world mar

such as metrication, import/export regulations and trading standards.

24. Explore New Methods of Taking the Conference To Members - increasing the level of Conference participa by identifying better ways of reaching those members who are not able to attend annual meetings.

25. Anticipate Future - promoting creative thinking and actions among conference members.

26. New Ways of Financing Weights and Measures Programs - identifying alternate means of funding programs w

do not depend on general tax revenues.

27. Access to Manufacturers' Databases - utilizing manufacturers' records to assess compliance criteria and di ! ; resources to areas of greatest need.

-

108
Executive Committee

Appendix I - NTEP Weighing Sector Technical Committee Reports

Weighing Sector Technical Committee Reports November 2, 1988 through June 26-27, 1990 With Indices

Constantine Cotsoradis, Editor -"EP Technical Meeting Reports prior to November 2, 1988 were published in the 72nd and 73rd National nference on Weights and Measures Reports and are not re-published in this document. wo indices are provided for the Reports from January 20, 1986 to June 26-27, 1990. One index is in alphabetical

ler referenced to the one in chronological order. The more significant issues are bolded.

u INDEX - ALPHABETICALLY

Subjects of NTEP Meetings (Particularly on Load Cells)

(Significant issues are in bold)

it , jacent to the display for capacity by division statements, definition 6/90

peal process 6/89

I

j lk-weighing systems checklist 6/90

•C, issue 11/86

relationship to section capacity 1/89 range of covered on a CC; sire of scale division permitted 1/89

mposite car for Railroad track scale testing, definition 1/86 mputer interfaced with scales, checklist 6/89

mputers checklist, criteria 6/90

' mputers incorporated into weighing systems 6/90

sep test timing 11/88, 1/89 I

stributors, Certificates of Conformance 6/88

nction keys on scales 6/89

: imidity test 11/86

109
Executive Committee

Influence factors, testing on large load cell assemblies 6/88

testing for devices 6/86 summing boxes 6/88

testing of mechanical scales waived 1/86

views on the removal of the influence factors requirements 6/86

Interim and permanent program 6/86 IR60 report 6/88 K

Key markings and symbols 10/87 L

Labels for standard weight packages type evaluation 10/89

Level-indicating means 10/87 Load cell, made of different metals 10/87 manufacturer certifying production load cells 6/87 manufacturer must have access to test facilities 6/87 market load cells with less than divisions and vmin greater than listed on CC 10/87 marking of accuracy class on load cells, indicators, and weighing elements 11/86 marking with S or M 6/87 marking requirements 10/89

marking, visibility after installation 6/89

multiple load cell testing; number of cells to be tested 1/86* NTEP program for load cell testing establishment 6/86 NTEP load cell test procedures, Clarification 6/90 NTEP program for load cells 6/89 NTEP/NIST load cell test results 6/90 number of cells to be tested for multiple load cell applications 10/87 number of cells to test for multiple cell applications: reconfirmed 6/88 number of divisions on a load cell CC 10/87

policy of extending cell families with full CCs 6/88

range covered by a CC 6/87

range of capacities to be covered based upon the test of one capacity 6/87

reconfirming capacity for test to be mid-range in family 10/89

refinement of test program (NBS Force Group participation) 11/86 remanufacture and repair 10/87 round robin testing 6/89

sampling production for compliance 1/86*

substitution of metrologically equivalent 1/89

test data from another national laboratory 6/89

test procedures and data analysis 6/87

test procedures review of IR 60 procedures 1/86*

test procedures and data format for load cell data 6/87

test systems accuracy 6/86, 11/86

test data repeatability 10/87

test loads at 500v and l,000v 6/88, 11/88

test of a cell to partial capacity 6/87

testing uncertainties; NIST test results from Ken Yee 6/89

tolerances for multiple load cells applications 10/87 update of NIST test capabilities 11/88

Location of identification badges 6/89

110
Executive Committee

ocations for permanence testing of large capacity scales 6/88

1

lanual gross weight input, postal and package shipping scales 6/89

referred to S&T 10/87

lanufacturer data, accepting 6/86 agreement of manufacturers' test facilities to NIST 10/87

lanufacturer access to test equipment 6/87

lanufacturers' laboratory 6/90

larginal test data 6/88

larking, n,^ on remote (slave) indicators 6/88

repaired equipment (load cells) 6/88

indicators, weighing elements, and load cells 6/86

with the CC number: replace other markings? 6/88

accuracy class on load cells, indicators, and weighing elements 11/86 nmMx vmm> emm on indicating elements and weighing elements 10/87

lodel designations for modified equipment 10/87

lodular vehicle scale parameters 6/90

lultiple weighing devices interfaced with a single indicator 6/89, 10/89

lultiple-pattern loading for CLC testing 10/89

luitiplier for multiple cell tolerances 6/90

)

»ut-of-level tests for wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load scales 6/89

arameters for modular scale designs: work to be done 6/89

artial testing to the capacity of a load cell 6/87 ermanence of identification badges 6/89, 6/90

ortable axle-load weighers test procedures 1/86*

osition tests on vehicle scales: discontinue in type evaluation 10/87 re-NTEP devices 10/87

xoduction devices, compliance: 10/87

epair and replacement of scale parts for compliance with influence factors 10/87

epeatability tolerance for load cells: all test values must be within tolerance 11/88

esolution required for indicators used to test III L load cells 6/87

eturn to zero test is acceptable for creep test 6/87

cale levers, protection from the environment and human interference 6/89

cale features and parameters to be sealed under the revised G-S.8. and S.l.ll 6/90

cale checklist criteria: Key sequence on POS systems and tare override 6/90

cale calibration for influence factors 10/89

cale models to be submitted for evaluation 1/86*

111
Executive Committee

Scales incorporating computers in the system: Initial discussion of concept 10/89

Sealing devices, guidelines 6/89, 1/89

electronic components: discussion without resolution 10/89

Software, verifying the version 1/89

Split pricing on point-of-sale systems 1/89

Strain load test procedure and tolerance: new test procedure developed 11/88 T

Temperature and creep tests on scales, order of 6/89 Temperature effect on MDLO,

don't zero the indicator 6/88

shall be from the temperature tests for load cell accuracy 10/87 Type evaluation handbook (NCWM Pub.14), establishing 6/86 V

Vehicle scale parameters for issuing CCs 11/88

Vehicle scales type evaluation procedures for vehicle scales using CLC 6/88

Vmin> multiple load cell applications 6/88, 11/88

multiple load cell applications: relationship to scale division and number of cells 10/87 w

Weight unit symbols: TN or tn for the short ton 10/87 Wheel load testing 6/87

* SMA minutes of 1/20/86 meeting

112
20/86

25-26/86

25-26/86

Z5-6/86

24/87

24/87

/28-30/87

Executive Committee INDEX - CHRONOLOGICAL BY REPORT

Subjects of NTEP Meetings (Particularly on Load Cells)

(Significant issues are in bold) Topics of Discussion SMA minutes of the meeting

Multiple load cell testing; number of cells to be tested Sampling load cell production for compliance

Test procedures for load cells; review of IR 60 procedures

Influence factors testing of mechanical scales waived

Test procedures for portable axle-load weighers

Scale models to be submitted for evaluation SMA minutes of the meeting Views on the removal of the influence factors requirements

Establishing the format of the type evaluation handbook (NCWM Pub.14) Establishment of the NTEP program for load cell testing Interim and permanent program

Accepting manufacturer data Accuracy required for load cell test systems Marking requirements for indicators, weighing elements, and load cells Devices to be tested for influence factors testing SMA minutes of meeting Refinement of the NTEP load cell test program (NBS Force Group participation) Marking of accuracy class on load cells, indicators, and weighing elements

Definition of composite car for Railroad track scale testing Discussion of proposed CLC issue Accuracy required for load cell test systems Humidity test SMA minutes of meeting

Test procedures and data format for load cell data

Resolution required for indicators used to test III L load cells Return to zero test is acceptable for creep test Range of load cell capacities to be covered based upon the test one capacity Load cell manufacturer must have access to test facilities Partial testing to the capacity of a load cell Range of load cells covered by a CC

Manufacturer access to test equipment

Test of a cell to partial capacity Load cell test procedures and data analysis Marking load cells with S or M

Testing of wheel-load weighers Board of Governor's issue: Manufacturer certifying production load cells will comply with Handbook 44 Board of Governors meeting

vmin for multiple load cell applications: relationship to scale division and number of cells Number of cells to be tested for multiple load cell applications Increasing the number of divisions on a load cell CC requires an complete evaluation Compliance of production devices: existing NTEP policies are sufficient

113
Executive Committee

Repair and replacement of scale parts for compliance with influence factors Repair and remanufacture of load cells Repeatability of load cell test data: all values must be within tolerance Load cell tolerances for multiple load cells applications Temperature effect on MDLO shall be from the temperature tests for load cell accuracy Market load cells with less than divisions and v^ greater than listed on CC

Load cells made of different metals Marking of n^, v,,^, e^ on indicating elements and weighing elements Pre-NTEP devices Model designations for modified equipment Manual gross weight entry capability: referred to S&T

Weight unit symbols: TN or tn for the short ton Key markings and symbols

Criteria for level-indicating means: sensitive, rigidly mounted, location, adequately protected

Position tests on vehicle scales: discontinue in type evaluation

6/22-23/88 Report of IR60: Possible changes to NTEP procedures

vm!n for multiple load cell applications Temperature effect on MDLO: don't zero the indicator Number of cells to test for multiple cell applications: reconfirmed that two must be tested Marking of repaired equipment (load cells) Influence on summing boxes

Test load at 500v for load cells Policy of extending cell families with full CCs

Marginal test data Marking n^ on remote (slave) indicators Marking with the CC number: replace other markings?

Policy on issuing Certificates of Conformance to distributors Locations for permanence testing of large capacity scales: manufacturer's facility Type evaluation procedures for vehicle scales using CLC

Influence factors testing on large load cell assemblies

11/2/88 Test loads at 500v and l,000v for load cells (pps 1-12) v^ for multiple load cell applications

Repeatability tolerance for load cells: all test values must be within tolerance Strain load test procedure and tolerance: new test procedure developed

Creep test timing

Update of NIST load cell test capabilities Vehicle scale parameters for issuing CCs

1/8/89 Relationship of CLC to section capacity (pps 13-18) Guidelines for the location for sealing with a lead and wire seal Verifying the version of software used

Split pricing on point-of-sale systems Range of CLCs covered on a CC; size of scale division permitted

Creep test timing

Substitution of metrologically equivalent load cells 6/13-14/89 Uncertainties associated with load cell testing: NIST test results from Ken Yee

(pps 19-31) End of Interim NTEP program for load cells when NTEP (NIST) can test Round robin load cell testing Load cell test data from another national laboratory

Visibility of load cell markings after installation Permanence of identification badges

Location of identification badges Order of conducting temperature and creep tests on scales

114
Executive Committee

Multiple weighing devices interfaced with a single indicator: Referred to S&T

Function keys on scales Guidelines for sealing devices Protection of scale levers from the environment and human interference

Out-of-level tests for wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load scales Manual gross weight input: permitted for postal and package shipping scales Checklist for computers interfaced with scales

Certificate parameters for modular scale designs: work to be done Board of Governor's issue: Appeal process

10/31-11/1/89 Reconfirming capacity of cell for test to be mid-range in family pps 32-45) Marking requirements for load cells Sealing of electronic components: Discussion without resolution Multiple weighing devices interfaced with a single indicator Multiple-pattern loading for CLC testing Scale calibration for influence factors Scales incorporating computers in the system: Initial discussion of concept Type evaluation of labels for standard weight packages

5/26-27/90 Clarification of NTEP load cell test procedures

,'pps 46-59) NTEP/N1ST load cell test results Multiplier for multiple cell tolerances based upon the change to the proposed change to Handbook 44 Agreement of test data from manufacturers' test facilities to N1ST for the purpose of establishing the acceptability of the manufacturers' laboratory

Definition of adjacent to the display for capacity by division statements Permanence of identification badges

Scale features and parameters to be sealed under the revised G-S.8. and S.l.ll. Modular vehicle scale parameters

Scale checklist criteria: Key sequence on computing scales and POS systems and tare override Computers incorporated into weighing systems Computers checklist criteria Bulk-weighing systems checklist

115
Executive Committee MEETING SUMMARY

Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation Weighing Sector November 2, 1988 There were two mailings (October 10 and October 17) for the meeting agenda. The second mailing was needed to provide clarification on some items contained in the initial mailing, additional items were submitted, and written comments were received on several items. The background information should be referenced in conjunction with this summary since the information is not generally repeated. There were significantly different positions on the issues and the discussions were extensive. In some cases there was

not a clear consensus, consequently, either the existing policy was not changed or the issue remains unresolved. The

results of the meeting are given first under each heading and a summary of the discussion is then provided to document the issue. The combined agenda is given below to consolidate the issues for ease of reference. Not all of

the issues were addressed at the meeting due to the number of issues and the length of discussions. Meeting Agenda for November 2, 1988

I. Test loads for load cells at 500 and l,000v A. Review of policy specifying test loads near 500v, l,000v, 4,000v, near 75 percent of cell capacity, and near 100 percent of cell capacity. B. General discussion of appropriateness of the performance requirements for Class III L.

II. The value for vmm for multiple load cell applications.

III. Tolerances for repeatability for scales and load cells A. Tolerances for class III and III L for scales and load cells B. Allow individual data values for load cells to be outside the tolerance limits; the average value shall be

used to evaluate load cell performance

IV. Strain load test: test procedure and tolerance application. V. Creep test A. The timing of the first reading has a significant effect on the results B. Consider changing to the proposed OIML IR 60 test procedure

VI. NIST load cell test capabilities A. The 112,000 lbf machine is operational

B. Considerations for initiating round robin testing

VII. Range of vehicle scale parameters to be covered on a Certificate of Conformance

A. Number of divisions to be covered

B. Concentrated load capacity (CLC)

C. Width of platform

VIII. Relationship of concentrated load capacity to section capacity Not discussed; carried over to next meeting.

IX. Methods of sealing and accessibility for sealing Not discussed; carried over to next meeting. X. Verifying the version of software used in a device Not discussed; carried over to next meeting.

116
1

Executive Committee

XI. Split pricing on point-of-sale systems Not discussed; carried over to next meeting.

Summary

I. Test loads for load cells at 500 and l,000v

A. Review of policy specifying test loads near 500v, l,000v, 4,000v, near 75 percent of cell capacity, and near

100 percent of cell capacity.

B. General discussion of appropriateness of the performance requirements for Class III L.

Results of the Meeting:

1. Specific test loads should not be mandated to manufacturers by NTEP due to equipment limitations.

2. At least five test loads are required when submitting data to NTEP. This is consistent with existing NTEP

policy.

3. Add the recommendation to NCWM Publication 14 that test loads for class III L load cells be selected near 500v, l,000v, 4,000v, near 75 percent of cell capacity, and near 100 percent of capacity. These test loads were originally recommended and adopted at the June 24, 1987 meeting of the Technical Committee. The test loads near 75 and 100 percent are required. When load cells are tested by an NTEP laboratory,

it is likely that test loads near 500 and 1,000 v will be applied.

4. A review of the performance requirements for class III L scales and load cells is to be initiated by the

Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee of the NCWM. Input from industry and any other

interested parties is requested.

Discussion: The performance of class HI L load cells at 500v and l,000v is critical to the evaluation of a load cell to Handbook 44. Because of the performance requirements are most stringent at these values, it is important to

test at these points. Regardless of the dead load of the scale, the performance at 500 and l,000v will be one of the limiting characteristics of the cell. It was suggested that test loads of approximately 10 percent of cell capacity may be sufficient to evaluate the performance of load cells at the low end and would reduce the costs of modifying existing dead weight machines to collect the desired data. The cost of modifying hardware and software on the dead weight machines is very high. It was argued that the

cost is not justified by the benefits. The problem appears to be that the performance requirements at the low end are much more stringent than what is needed for the application of class III L load cells. The tolerance at 500 and l,000v for a class III L load cell is the same as for a class III load cell with 10,000 divisions. It was

argued that the requirements for class III L scales and load cells are not logically consistent with the original intent to establish class III L as a less stringent accuracy class than class III. A graph is attached that illustrates the acceptance tolerances for a class III load cell with 3,000 divisions compared to the acceptance tolerances for a class HI L load cell with 10,000 divisions. The tolerances for class III L scales are essentially the same (0.1 percent acceptance and 0.2 percent maintenance) as they were for large capacity scales without an accuracy class marking, however, the scales must now comply with the influence factors requirements.

Although the manufacturers have the option of offering fewer scale divisions by increasing the value of the scale

division, it was claimed that the market demands a 20-lb scale division and a 200,000-lb capacity scale. Consideration was given to separating performance requirements for class III L scales from those for class III L

load cells, but the idea was rejected. This idea was motivated by a desire to relax the requirements at 500 and

l,000v for load cells but to retain the tolerance structure for scales.

It was concluded that the cost to manufacturers to modify existing dead weight machines was not justified, but

that NTEP could apply test loads of any value whenever they test a load cell. This may result in NTEP

discovering a problem that is not known to the manufacturer but that is the risk taken if the manufacturer is

117
Executive Committee

unable to test a load cell at the low end. Ultimately, it was decided that both the S&T Committee and the industry should look at the inconsistency of the logic behind class III L. The objective should be to resolve the problem of the inconsistencies rather than try to fmd complex type evaluation interpretations to circumvent the basic problems that exist. The effect on field enforcement of possible changes must be considered.

II. The value for for multiple load cell applications.

Results of the Meeting: There is a technical inconsistency in NTEP policy that currently allows the statistical concept of the cancellation | of random errors to be used twice in multiple load cell applications when it should be applied only once. Some

load cell manufacturers wanted to retain the double application of the concept because it reduces the cost of

* manufacture and is claimed to have an insignificant effect in practical application. Consensus on this issue could I not be reached. In light of the review of the performance requirements for class III L scales and load cells reported in Item I, the decision was to leave the current technical policy as it is and consider this issue in the review of the requirements.

fi Discussion:

It was agreed that a technical problem exists. The proper application of the concept for the cancellation of random errors was summarized in the following table illustrating two possible approaches to the issue. Analysis Table

1. A complete scale gets 100% of the tolerance specified in Handbook 44 (T.N.3.I.).

2. A separate main element gets 70% of the tolerance when the main element undergoes type evaluation as a separate main element (T.N.3.5.).

3. There are three main categories of error:

a. the error envelope (T.N.3.1.)

b. the temperature effect of zero (TEZ) (T.N.8.1.3.)

c. creep (T.N.4.5.)

4. There is the precedent that NTEP has recognized the statistical concept of the cancellation of random errors

in multiple load cell applications.

1

Applying these facts to two alternative approaches, A and B, to recognize the cancellation of random errors leads to the following. AB

Complete scale 100% of the tolerance 100% of the tolerance

It Main element 70 % of the scale tolerance 70% of the scale tolerance

Individual load cell /N»70% 70% of the scale tolerance

vmin relationship v^ z e/N vmin se//N

Approach A requires that the minimum number of load cells for which the load cells may be used in multiple load

cell applications must be specified by the manufacturer at the time the cell is submitted for type evaluation. This minimum number of load cells to be used would have to be used to determine is the load cells are applied properly

in scale designs. This is considered to be difficult to control. Approach B avoids the problem specified in Approach A, but has a very stringent requirement on load ceir performance at the low end for class III L load cells with 10,000 divisions. Approach B applies the cancellation ol random errors at the scale level. There was significant support by some load cell manufacturers to retain the larger limits on load cell performance

despite the technical inconsistency. Because the class III L requirements and the logic behind class III L is to be reviewed, discussion of this issue was discontinued.

III. Tolerances for repeatability for scales and load cells

118
Executive Committee

A. Tolerances for class III and III L for scales and load cells B. Allow individual data values for load cells to be outside the tolerance limits; the average value shall be used to evaluate load cell performance

suits of the Meeting:

A consensus could not be reached on this issue so the repeatability requirements have not changed. The existing NTEP policy is retained, that is, all data values must be within tolerance. However, during the data analysis, consideration will be given on a case-by-case basis to any random statistical outliers that may exist in the load

cell data.

scussion: A recommendation of possible repeatability tolerances for class III and III L scales was given in the background

information mailed before the meeting. The table is repeated below to correct some errors that were in the

original table.

e following table gives the applicable acceptance tolerances for both scales and load cells.

Class III Class III L

s t Loads Scales Load Cells Scales Load Cells

0 - 500 d 0.5 d 0.35 v 0.5 d 0.35 v 501 - 1000 d 1.0 d 0.70 v 1.0 d 0.70 v 1001 - 1500 d 1.0 d 0.70 v 1.5 d 1.05 v 1501 - 2000 d 1.0 d 0.70 v 2.0 d 1.40 v 2001 - 2500 d 1.5 d 1.05 v 2.5 d 1.75 v above 2500 d 1.5 d 1.05 v 2.5 d 1.75 v

l ere was an extremely wide range of views on the proposal and little progress came from the discussion. The

Dposal had suggested that the tolerance requirement be changed in Handbook 44, but little support existed for the

ange. A vote was taken but a consensus did not exist. The existing policy to require all test values to be within erance was retained, however, consideration to outliers should be given during data analysis. Strain load test: test procedure and tolerance application.

suits of the Meeting: It was concluded that the test procedure and tolerance application that had been used by NTEP for many years was technically flawed. Another procedure was established that was deemed technically valid. A copy of the

revised test procedure as it is formatted for the next edition of NCWM Publication 14 is attached. The revised text

is shaded.

scussion:

It was concluded that the strain load test procedure and tolerance application that has been applied by NTEP is technically flawed because the performance curve for the decreasing load test as part of the initial strain load test would follow the hysteresis curve for the return to the gross load zero. It was stated that if the reference value for the strain load test was reestablished after the initial strain load test, then the scale should return to this reference

value within one-half of a scale division if the strain load test was repeated. When evaluating the return to the

strain load reference value, consideration must be given to any creep or temperature change that may have occurred

during the test. Based upon this additional information, a different strain load test was proposed. It was concluded that this

] proposed strain load test was technically valid and it has been incorporated into NCWM Publication 14. Creep test

A. The timing of the first reading has a significant effect on the results

B. Consider changing to the proposed OIML IR 60 test procedure

119
Executive Committee

Results of the Meeting: The Committee considered whether or not Handbook 44 should be changed to unify the test procedures for creep

for both scales and load cells with the proposed test procedure under consideration for IR 60. There was suppor

to apply the table when testing load cells but that the creep test for scales specified in Handbook 44 should not bed changed. This raised concerns of the affect on scale performance of having one creep test for load cells anc I another test for scales. A conclusion could not be reached in the time available and the issue was to be carried} over to the next meeting. A

Discussion: J

The time periods specified in the table in IR 60 is intended to apply to any "change in load". During the test fo determining the load cell error, the change in load is between any increment of the test load. When the creep tes»

is being conducted, the change in load is the application of all of the weights when going from zero load to ful 1 load. Ideally, half of the time period specified in the table should be used for loading (or unloading as the casc» may be) and the remaining time should be used to stabilize the reading. The initial reading for the creep test o ft; the reading for the load cell error test should be taken at the end of the time period specified in the table. I

The results for a creep test may be significantly affected by the timing of the first reading. Some loading system!:; are unable to apply the full-capacity load to a cell in the time periods specified while other systems can apply th

!

load "instantaneously". There was support to use the table times for load cell testing but not to change Handboo

44 so that the existing creep test would still apply to scales. If the table was applied to load cells, then it woul i include the words "when practical" to allow some deviation from the stated times for those systems that were unab

to apply the test loads in the specified times. Definitive conclusions could not be reached so the issue was carried over to the next meeting. VI. NIST load cell test capabilities

A. The 112,000 Ibf machine is operational

B. Considerations for initiating round robin testing

0

ii

is Results of the Meeting: An extremely brief update on the status of the test capabilities of NIST to conduct load cell testing for NTEP. Tl P NIST is prepared to begin the testing of load cells in the relatively near future. Subsequent to the meeting, sorri problems with the test machine were experienced which is delaying the implementation of NTEP testir Manufacturers are reminded that when NIST has operational test facilities to perform the NTEP testing of lo

cells, then the NIST testing of load cells with Provisional Certificates of Conformance will be initiated. Only the load cells for which NIST is capable of testing will be required to be submitted. Manufacturers will have 60 da

after the announcement of NIST test capability to submit a letter stating that they are prepared to submit the lo

cells for test. The NIST testing will be scheduled as the calibration workload permits. The cost of NIST testing for NTEP Certificates is estimated to be $4000 for the one cell and $2000 for a seco

cell in the same family if multiple load cell tolerances are to be applied. VII. Range of vehicle scale parameters to be covered on a Certificate of Conformance

A. Number of divisions to be covered

B. Concentrated load capacity (CLC)

C. Width of platform

Results of the Meeting:

A manufacturer of a vehicle scale should strive to have the scale with the largest number of scale divisions tes for type evaluation. Based upon the current parameters for scale capacity, NTEP will issue a Certificate Conformance to cover the number of scale divisions that would exist for scales included in the range of capaci provided that:

1. the scales have scale division values equal to or greater than the value of the scale division in the scale i was tested; and

120
Executive Committee

L the number of divisions for the scale does not exceed the maximum for which the load cells and indicator have been separately evaluated.

Certificates of Conformance are currently being issued for scale widths of 10 to 12 feet based upon the testing of

• scale with a width of 10 feet. A scale width greater than 12 feet is considered by NTEP to be significantly

-. ifferent in design from a 10-foot-wide scale that it is considered a modification of design and would require a eparate type evaluation. More formalized guidelines were sought but, due to the lack of time, specific criteria were

iOt established at this meeting. The NTEP will continue to use its judgement to make decisions on the width of

cales to be included on a Certificate of Conformance.

3agreement was not reached on the range of concentrated load capacities (CLCs) to be included on a Certificate •f Conformance. One suggestion was that NTEP would cover CLCs from 50 percent of the CLC of the scale that

Iras tested up to a maximum of five tons higher. The Technical Committee did not reach a final position on this yssue.

cussion: Many members of the Technical Committee had the understanding that if a vehicle scale with a particular number

if scale divisions was tested, then the number of divisions in the scale family could vary to accommodate the

t umber of divisions that would fall within the range of capacities that were permitted under existing NTEP

: uidelines. The concern was expressed that the performance of a scale with 10,000 divisions may be different from

:he performance of a scale with 6,000 divisions. It was stated that the amount of friction in the system is the

i imiting consideration and that if a scale was tested with a 20-lb scale division, then the scale division should not

I -e smaller than 20 lb on other vehicle scales in the family because the friction and inertia of the basic design

i emains relatively constant for a given design.

lie proposal to require scales to be tested with the maximum number of divisions for which the scale would be

ised or to apply the tolerances as if the scale had the maximum number of divisions was considered impractical.

i t was thought that limiting the value of the scale division in the scales to be covered by the Certificate of ^nformance to be greater than or equal to the scale division of the scale that received the type evaluation would

•e appropriate. The justification for this policy is that most of the vehicle scale divisions are 20 lb, there is no

ynarket for vehicle scales with 10-lb divisions, and the friction for a scale design will not change significantly so that I scale division smaller than the value actually tested would not be appropriate.

i;

! j I. Relationship of concentrated load capacity to section capacity Not discussed; carried over to next meeting. Methods of sealing and accessibility for sealing Not discussed; carried over to next meeting.

Verifying the version of software used in a device Not discussed; carried over to next meeting.

Split pricing on point-of-sale systems Not discussed; carried over to next meeting.

i

121
Executive Committee

00

LJ

O

<

o

o

o

en

<

o

o

I _

I _

I _

I _

I _

I _

oo

o

COo

00

o

o £ CD U -

o —

q: . u i O CL LO | o

o <

O

O

(N

o CDO

00

o o

CD

o

LOo o o

CNo o

o

o

d O o o o o o o o o o

lN33d3d - 33NVM0T1V

122
Executive Committee

1 of 3 PERFORMANCE AND PERMANENCE TESTS

FOR VEHICLE SCALES

AND PERMANENTLY-INSTALLED

AXLE-LOAD SCALE WEIGHING ELEMENTS

Performance tests are conducted to determine compliance with the tolerance and, in the case of nonautomatic

indicating scales, sensitivity requirements specified in NIST Handbook 44. The tests described here apply only to the weighing element. It is assumed that the indicating element used during the test has already been examined and found

to comply with the applicable requirements. If the performance of the indicating element is to be determined during

the same examination, the applicable requirements for weighbeams and poises, dials, electronic digital indicators, etc., must be referenced.

Initial Type Evaluation (Field) Performance Tests The minimum amount of known test weight needed for the initial type evaluation test is equal to at least 90 percent

of the concentrated load capacity of the scale. Substitution testing may be used to reach the necessary test load.

1. Indicator Tests Beam Scale

If the indicating element is a weighbeam and poise, sensitivity tests should be conducted as follows: The sensitivity tests are conducted at zero load and at the maximum test load. The sensitivity test is conducted by

determining the actual test weight value needed to bring the beam from a rest point at the center of the trig loop

to rest points at the top and bottom of the trig loop. The maximum load applied to a scale to determine sensitivity near scale capacity does not have to be a known weight.

Digital Indicator

If the indicating element is a digital indicator, width-of-zero tests, zone of uncertainty tests, and appropriate tests for the automatic zero-setting mechanism (if so equipped) should be conducted as indicated in other sections of

this document.

2. Shift Tests An example of a four-section scale:

Vehicle Scales - 4 Section

Section

123
Executive Committee

VEHICLE SCALES AND PERMANENTLY-INSTALLED

AXLE-LOAD SCALE WEIGHING ELEMENTS Page 2 of 3 At least two complete sets of shift tests shall be conducted over each section to at least 90 percent of the concentrated

load capacity (CLC) of the scale. This is to determine the repeatability of the scale. The scale error should be

determined at a minimum of five equally spaced test loads. Scale errors may be determined at more points if desired.

If two weight carts are used, they should travel along the paths the wheels of a vehicle would take when moving across

the scale. Decreasing load tests are to be avoided when testing a section. A truck may not be backed onto the scale

in order to place weights on the inner sections. Decreasing load tests shall be conducted after the sections have been

tested to their maximum load and the weights are being removed from the scale. Do not exceed the CLC capacity. The load is to be distributed across the section. At least one complete set of shift tests to at least 90 percent of the CLC shall be conducted at midspan between

sections.

If a scale consists of modules that are connected together to comprise the weighbridge, shift tests shall be conducted by placing the load so that it straddles the connection between the modules. Later, at least one shift test is to be

conducted on the scale with the test load is placed first on one side of the connection line off the module, then on

the other side of the connection line. The results of shift tests are required to agree within the absolute value of the applicable maintenance tolerances and must be within acceptance tolerances

3. Strain Load Test At least one strain load test shall be conducted at each end of the scale. The maximum load applied during the strain load shall be in the range of 80 to 100 percent of scale capacity. The load is to be distributed over the load receiving element. Load the scale with a vehicle or vehicles so the addition of test weights will provide a gross load of 80 to 100 percent

of scale capacity. Determine the "reference point" for the start of the strain load test. Add the test weights to one

of the ends of the scale without exceeding the CLC. Do not conduct a decreasing load test or a return to the strain load reference weight as part of this particular strain load test. After removing the test weights from the end of the scale, reestablish the strain load reference value and

reapply the test weights to verify that the strain load values repeat the initial values. Conduct a decreasing load test and return to the strain load reference value as the weights are removed as part of this test cycle. The return to the

strain load reference value shall be within one-half of a scale division with consideration given for the creep and foi any temperature changes that may have occurred during this last test cycle. Remove the known test weights and the strain load. Zero the scale, place the strain load on the other end of the scale, and establish the strain load reference value. Do not use the zero-setting mechanism to set the strain load tc zero; the tare mechanism may be used to tare out the strain load. The gross load zero value is needed to conduc

a decreasing load test as the strain load is removed in the next test. Repeat the strain load test on the other end of the scale. After reaching the maximum test load for the strain loa<

test, remove the strain load but leave the known test weights on the scale. The weight indication for the decreasinj load test must be within tolerance for the known test load. Continue the decreasing load test by removing the knowi

test weights. Take several readings as the weights are being removed. When all the weights are removed, record th

return to zero. The scale must return to zero within one-half of a scale division. When analyzing the return to zerc consideration must be given for the length of time the load was on the scale and for possible temperature change

that may have occurred during the test.

124
Executive Committee

VEHICLE SCALES AND PERMANENTLY-INSTALLED

AXLE-LOAD SCALES WEIGHING ELEMENTS Page 3 of 3

Acceptance tolerances are applied only to the known test load in the strain load test. SUBSEQUENT TYPE EVALUATION f FIELD") PERMANENCE TESTS

A minimum of 40,000 lb of known test weights are needed, or 50 percent of the CLC, whichever is greater. At least one complete set of section tests shall be conducted over each section and at midspan between each section using the known test weights. At least one strain load test shall be conducted at each end of the scale. The maximum applied load shall be in the

•

1 range of 65 to 100 percent of scale capacity.

: :

1 : The time between the initial field performance test and the subsequent field test will be 20-30 days. Performance

during both tests must be within acceptance tolerances.

• • If a device fails subsequent permanence tests, the entire permanence test must be repeated. Caution Regarding Load Concentration

Concentrating large loads on scale platforms by using weight carts or test equipment using hydraulic jacks may exceed

:

:

the maximum pound per square inch load specification for the deck. This condition may arise because the small tire

i J area of the weight cart in contact with the deck surface could result in a very large load concentration over an

unusually small area. This could cause damage to the scale deck.

• This situation may occur with a weight cart having a very narrow or short wheel base and small solid rubber tires.

:

:

This is particularly likely to cause a problem on steel plate decks and could also result in damage to manhole covers.

If the load capacities of weight carts are increased beyond 25,000 lb, while maintaining solid tread wheels, it is possible

that some concrete decks could be damaged.

tiu

a3

125
Executive Committee

Meeting Participants Name Organization Michael Adams Fairbanks Scales Ross Andersen New York Bureau of Weights and Measures

frirish R Rpm

Rpra Artech DUU OlUUIUdUgll OyolClllo /AddVJddlCd, lilt.. Tina i ilia fi• jjuiviiw Rntrher NIST

T q yy\ pr \A C\T\T\ Ix ICC LxlKC WClglllllg OyMCIIld

f^ilifpirni^ Oivi^inn nf N/fpa^iirpmpnt ^tanfljirHc

^Iv Fpinliitifi Pitnpv Rnwp^ Tnr JUv VJlallllilla GEAPS

Bill Goodpaster Cardinal/Detecto RnlfP Ha a 00mm FTI i^ii^i TNTAR i avl>, Tnc inc.

XVllalll liaKCl RTDLflH Flprtrnnirx J-JlCCll UlllCo John Hodges HBM

T^iplr l/ick l-Iiirlpv nuncy F^irhanW i ail uaii^o ^p^Ip^ L/caico Torn/ 1 CI ly JalllCd I^mpQ (~* v^aihtyHti;} uiiiai/Lycicciw 1 /T^ptpptp* TpH Tr\hncr\n ^OCUoUl pn qpi rtUCMllCo rr\ n i Philin Knl7 HBM

JU11I1 Lxtcy r dCKCla Ot DlUCKydlUs /-VUIUllllMI alUJIl

J_yClllll> J. iviallcmcy, oi. DUU Rnh MrPj^rtv 1Y1CV.XH Ijf NCR P.nrnr>ratinn

iNlgcl IVllllS 1 UlCUvJ oCdlC Karl NpwpII NIST

t^rOn/ PdttPT"c/"\,n VJaiy rallCIMJIl OlipCIlUl HJdU V—Cll VAJ., inc. Peter Perino Transducers Inc. Tn\eAn 1 Ul^UVJ Sralp JU1 1 ^ Dave Quinn Fairbanks Scales Amir Rah^v

John W. Reimer Weigh-Tronix

Bob Reinfried SMA

Thomas Rhodes Maryland Weights and Measures Maarten Spoor Precision Force, Inc. Daryl Tonini SMA

Jim Truex Ohio Division of Weights and Measures Gary Uthenwoldt A H. Emery Co. O. K. Warnlof NIST

Stanley Wulf HBM

Ken Yee NIST

Walter Young A H. Emery Co.

126
Executive Committee

Meeting Summary

Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation Weighing Sector January 8, 1989

>ne-day meeting was held to discuss the agenda below.

Relationship of concentrated load capacity to section capacity Methods of sealing and accessibility for sealing

Verifying the version of software used in a device

Split pricing on point-of-sale systems Range of vehicle scale parameters to be covered on a Certificate of Conformance

A. Concentrated load capacity (CLC)

Creep test A The timing of the first reading has a significant effect on the results

B. Consider changing to the proposed OIML IR 60 test procedure

Substitution of metrologically equivalent load cells in scales

Results and Discussion

Relationship of concentrated load capacity to section capacity

ults of the Meeting

elationship between the concentrated load capacity (CLC) and the section capacity of a scale is not specified,

les that have received type evaluation before the CLC marking requirement became effective may be rated with LC specified by the manufacturer. It is up to State enforcement to verify the validity of CLC ratings.

cussion

;inning January 1, 1989, vehicle scales must be marked with a concentrated load capacity. Although the

centrated load capacity was generally discussed to be 80 percent of the section capacity, there is no requirement handbook 44 that specifies the relationship. New scale types submitted for evaluation will be tested for accuracy

he CLC rating. There is concern that the CLC rating for scale models with Certificates of Conformance may have

ir CLCs set equal to the section capacity without verifying the weighing accuracy to the CLC. This could result

infair competition.

/as suggested that the CLC rating could be determined by looking back on the amount of weight that was used

he type evaluation of the scale. The rating could be limited to 1.25 times the maximum load that was applied.

'as concluded that scales currently in production must carry a CLC. A manufacturer may request an addendum

i Certificate of Conformance (CC) but it is not necessary to issue a new CC. It was concluded that State 3rcement would be adequate to control the validity of CLCs for these scales. If there is any question about the

dityof the CLC rating on a scale, then the States should test up to the CLC to determine if the scale meets the

aracy requirements.

127
Executive Committee

II. Methods of sealing and accessibility for sealing

Results of the Meeting There should be reasonable limits on method of sealing a device to assure that the device can be sealed withe unusual difficulty. The NTEP laboratories are to develop guidelines for the location of the sealing mechanis However, consideration should be given as to whether or not the security seal is losing its significance since t software for a device can be changed very easily and is being changed frequently during the life of a product. All the Sectors of the Technical Committee should review this issue.

Discussion Manufacturers have used a wide range of methods to provide for security seals. Some scales can be sealed very ea^ from the outside of the scale; others require some disassembly to apply security seals to some part inside t indicating element of the scale. Weights and measures officials are beginning to raise questions regarding wl

constitutesan appropriatedesign for provision for sealing. Weights and measures officials do not want to disasseml a device, turn it upside down, or move the device for the purpose of sealing it because of the potential for damaj The value of sealing a device was questioned. Manufacturers are generally using microprocessors that facilitate i

\ changing of software during the production of a device type. Several people thought it is not possible to assure $ - integrity of a device type simply by sealing the device. It is fairly common for manufacturers to change software

it is not practical to have every minor change to the software reviewed through a type evaluation. Sealing provi

a "trail" or "evidence" of when and, perhaps, the frequency with which a device is adjusted. Sealing is particul important during a type evaluation when it a device is not to be adjusted during the permanence test. It is essential to the evaluation of device performance and to assess possible fraudulent practices when it is not possi

to do surprise inspections on some devices.

It was concluded that guidelines are needed in the type evaluation checklist to advise manufacturers of the accepta

practical locations and methods of sealing devices. Some initial guidelines on sealing are provided below

discussion and development. The NTEP laboratories have not had an opportunityto discuss these sealing guidelii so they may change and additions may be made. The guidelines will be presented to the Technical Committee

review, however, NTEP may begin using these guidelines prior to the next meeting of the Technical Committee

Guidelines for Sealing The provision for sealing must be located such that a security seal can be applied without disassembly exposes electronics. Any disassembly must be simple and not require excessive effort, for exam

removing a protective cover plate to seal a junction box is acceptable. In general, it is desirable to be

to seal a device without the need for disassembly. : The bottom of a device is not an acceptable location for a security seal. Weights and measures offk

j do not want to turn a device upside down or on its side to seal the device because this increases potential for damage.

When two bolts are used for a lead and wire seal, the bolts must be such that the lead and wire seal i be broken when an attempt is made to unscrew the bolts. The use of a "free-standing bolt" to serve second screw for threading a lead and wire seal is not acceptable. A "free-standing bolt" is one that sir passes through a panel and is held in place by a nut on the opposite side of the panel but is not hoi any parts together, because the free-standing screw may be loosened to the extent that the bolt will rc in its position, thereby permitting the other bolt to be turned and the wire of the seal maneuvered

the top of the bolt while turning the free-standing bolt to keep the wire from twisting. In this case

security seal can be removed to gain access to the adjustments without breaking the seal.

In lieu of the second fixed bolt, a metal tab fixed to the case or a plastic tab molded into the case ma

used. The fixed nature of the tab usually causes in the wire to twist and break before the bolt ca removed.

128
Executive Committee

4. If the lead and wire seal is located under the platform of a scale, then there must be ample clearance to eliminate the possibility of interference between the seal and the platform. Access to the provision for sealing must not require a tool for disassembly of any parts.

5. An indicating element that utilizes a NEMA 4 enclosure shall be sealed in a manner that prevents the seal from being circumvented. This may be achieved by threading a lead and wire seal through the head of

the bolt through one of the hinges and the lip of the cover of the indicator. It is not sufficient for a lead and wire seal to be threaded through the head of the bolt and the opening in the hinge because it can be

circumvented by loosening the screw slightly and pressing down on the cover to compress the sealing material and slipping the hinge off the cover.

III. Verifying the version of software used in a device M Results of the Meeting

jj It is not necessary for a manufacturer to provide a means of displaying the software version that is being used in a

device. There was virtually no support for putting the version of software that was evaluated on the CC. m

, Discussion

ij

Jjj The view was expressed that the ease with which manufacturers can change software, implement these changes into y production, and the frequency with which manufacturers change the software indicates that devices that have I undergone type evaluation may often have their software changed at some time during production. Additionally, there

. . may be numerous "small" changes to the software during the life of a product. As a practical matter, NTEP cannot

verify every change to device software.

1 The increasing use of computers in weights and measures applications introduces a new level of flexibility to software.

, This concept is not new to weighing and measuring devices, but the situation is more prevalent than in the past. It

•1 is not possible to control software or to control a device by attempting to control the software. It appears that only

.

j thorough and effective enforcement will ultimately ensure that devices and device features used in commercial I measurement are appropriate and comply with Handbook 44.

IV. Split pricing on point-of-sale systems

Results of the Meeting

i The Technical Committee did not support the concept of requiring stand-alone point-of-sale systems to keep a count

of split-priced items that may be separated during the checkout process. This would be adding a requirement that

( does not now exist for stand-alone systems. There is adequate means at the field enforcement level to deal with this

; problem.

i i Discussion Requiring this capability on stand-alone systems would increase the cost of the systems without substantial benefits.

I Scanning systems are required to have this capability but it has always been provided in the past because the scanning

ystems have the additional memory to incorporate this feature.

lit V. Range of vehicle scale parameters to be covered on a Certificate of Conformance

Results of the Meeting

Add a criterion to NCWM Publication 14 specifying that Certificates of Conformance will cover a range of CLCs from

ijj 50 percent of the CLC of the tested scale to a maximum of 5 tons higher. Scales with a larger capacity than the scale

that was tested may have a higher CLC rating, however, the scale that was tested is limited to the CLC rating that applied at the time of the test. The Committee affirmed the position it had taken at the last meeting of allowing the

129
Executive Committee

number of scale divisions for a large capacity scale to increase to the number needed to cover the range of capacities

| that may be included on a CC provided the load cells and the indicator have been tested to at least that man}

divisions.

|

Discussion There was virtually no discussion of this item. The Committee supported the recommendation that was presented VI. Creep test

A. The timing of the first reading has a significant effect on the results B. Consider changing to the proposed OIML IR 60 test procedure

Results of the Meeting The Committee decided not to take or recommend any action on this item.

Discussion The Committee considered whether or not Handbook 44 should be changed to unify the test procedures for creej

for both scales and load cells with the proposed test procedure under consideration for IR 60. It was reported thajj the test procedures for IR 60 are still developing. While IR 60 specifies a 30-minute test, IR 3 still requires a four hour test.

It was stated that the 30-minute creep test was more meaningful that a 1-hour test, however, Handbook 44 does no

require the 30-minute creep or return to zero test. The view was expressed that the load cell tests do not reflect th

results that would exist when testing a complete scale. It was also suggested that the requirements for class III L loa< cells were beyond what was needed for the scale application, however, no change was proposed. Without a definite uniform test in the OIML IRs, there was no motivation to change the NTEP procedures. VII. Substitution of metrologically equivalent load cells in scales

Results of the Meeting

!

It was decided to clarify the conditions under which load cells may be substituted in a scale design. The changes t the current NTEP policy are shown below with the new text underlined and striking out the deleted text. Load cells from the same or a different manufacturer may be substituted into a scale provided that the load cells t be substituted:

1. have been evaluated separately and have a Certificate of Conformance;

2. have as many or more verification scale divisions for the same (single or multiple load cell) applicatio as the load cells originally used in the scale;

3. have a minimum verification scale division that is suitable for the application;

4. are of the same basic type as the cells being replaced; and

i 5. the load cells can be placed in the scale without any modification to the basic design of the load ce

j mounting assembly. These criteria will be included in the next edition of NCWM Publication 14.

130
Executive Committee

:ussion

current NTEP policy permits a scale manufacturer or scale repair agency to substitute load cells in scales with

trologically equivalent or better" load cells. This policy was questioned as not being sufficiently restrictive. The

cern was that just because load cells have the same outside physical dimensions and are of the same basic type

basic design principle of the cells is the same e.g., shear beam) that the internal design of the load cells coupled ! the scale design may affect the performance of a scale. For example, the internal webbing of a cell and the :ement of the strain gauges may result in a particular sensitivity or lack of sensitivity to side loading that may be

sidered when the load cell mounting is designed. Substituting another load cell that has the same physical ensions may not have the same characteristics to side loading so the use of that load cell in the mounting assembly

particular scale may not be appropriate. lough members agreed that all load cells will have different characteristics to some extent, it was thought that EP testing would uncover significant side-loading sensitivity. It was thought that the original four NTEP criteria

ts policy captured the spirit of the concept. There was a concern that if the substitution of load cells was not

nitted, then a scale manufacturer would be locked into a single load cell and load cell supplier. Committee agreed that load cells of different basic types (e.g., shear beam, bending beam, or compression

:::imn) should not be mixed in a scale; substitution should only be permitted for the same basic type of load cell with war physical dimensions. There was concern that minor differences in load cell design within the same basic type

: ell would preclude the substitution of load cells. The Committee agreed that it would be appropriate to substitute

i cells if the only difference resulted in minor changes to the load cell mounting assembly. The examples given e a change to the mounting assembly to accommodate a slightly different hole alignment from one cell to another

rap ad a filler block to accommodate possible nonmetrological differences. If a significant change was made to the

Mil cell mounting assembly, then this would constitute a modification to the design of the scale and another type

situation would be required.

! next meeting is scheduled for June 13 - 14, 1989. The dates were selected to be consecutive with the next

;ting of the Belt Conveyor Scale Sector. It is tentatively planned that one day, June 13, will be dedicated to mssing load cell issues with scale issues being discussed on June 14. The site of the next meeting will be held at Crystal City Marriott in Arlington, VA. The meeting is being held in the Washington, D.C. area because of the

: of travel funds available to some of the representatives from federal government agencies.

xt Meeting

Participants

Tie Organization

:hael Adams Fairbanks

;t Bradley The A. H. Emery Company

a Butcher

Jax Clegg

n Elengo

Transducers, Inc. Revere Corporation of America NM Weights and Measures

Port of Corpus Christi California Div. of Measurement Standards

Hyannis, MA Weights and Measures AZ Weights and Measures

Fairbanks Cardinal/Detecto

Sensortronics

NIST

d Gerk

I Giannina

rrell Guensler m Geiler

y Helmick

:k Hurley ry James

i Johnson

131
Executive Committee

John Lacy USDA Packers and Stockyards Administration Ying-Hsiung Lin BLH Electronics John MacDonald Howe Richardson

Steve Malone NE Weights and Measures Bob McCarty NCR Corporation

Karl Newell NIST

Peter Perino Transducers, Inc. Bob Reinfried SMA

Thomas Rhodes Maryland Weights and Measures Tom Stabler Toledo Scale Corporation

Daryl Tonini SMA

Jim Truex Ohio Weights and Measures Gary Uthenwoldt The A. H. Emery Company

O. K. Warnlof NIST/OIML

David Watson City of Ft. Worth Weights and Measures Ken Yee NIST

132
Executive Committee MEETING SUMMARY

Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation Weighing Sector June 13-14, 1989 eduction

e items were added to the tentative agenda. The three issues addressed data from another national laboratory, larameters for covering modular scale designs, and a discussion of draft changes to the NTEP appeal process to de information to the NTEP Board of Governors. The agenda is listed below. Load Cell Testing Program Operation With NIST Testing A. Update on the status of NIST test capability B. NTEP operation after NIST has test capability Data from another national laboratory

Visibility of load cell markings after installation in scales Permanence of identification badges (plates) on scales and load cells Order of conducting the temperature tests and creep tests on scales

Multiple weighing elements interfaced with a single indicating element A Number of scale divisions allowed for the summed weight indication

B. Proper operation of the displays for individual weighing elements and the summed display

C. Clarify the S.4.3. requirement for indicating which weighing elements are included in the summed

display Function keys on scales A Appropriateness of "function" keys that do not have specified functions

B. Proper marking to identify the operation of the keys

Guidelines for sealing devices

Protection of scale levers from the environment and human interference

Out-of-level tests for wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load scales Manual gross weight input

A Postal and shipping scales B. Computers interfaced with scales Type evaluation checklist for computers interfaced with scales

Certificate parameters for covering modular scale designs

j. Board of Governor's issue: Appeal process

133
Executive Committee

I. Load Cell Testing Program Operation With NIST Testing

A. Update on the status of NIST test capability Ken Yee reported on the status of the NIST capability to test to NTEP requirements and the results of the tests to evaluate the automated test system. A summary of the test results is attached. Ken Yee described the criterion used by NIST to determine when the load cell reached thermal equilibrium, reported that three temperature sensors are attached to the load cell at points judged to give the greatest t difference to reach thermal equilibrium. When the three temperature sensors register the same temperature wi n 0.3 °C, the cell is considered to be in thermal equilibrium. Allowing additional time for the load cell to "soak" at

j same temperature has not resulted in significantly better agreement of the temperatures at three points on load cj The 1 12,000 lbf machine has been modified and automated. The machine can be used to test load cells with capac from 30,000 lb to 1 10,000 lb. The system has been running well. It is expected that an announcement is immii on the NIST capability to conduct NTEP tests for load cells used in compression over the range of 30,000

1

110,0001b. Decisions must be made within NIST before the program is announced. A memorandum announ NIST test capability will be sent to all companies holding Certificates of Conformance for load cells when NIS'i ready to begin testing. Fourteen tests were conducted on one load cell. The results revealed that the performance of the load cell dependent on the orientation of the load cell when it was mounted in the force machine. Several tests were ru evaluate the performance of the cell and the test system when the load cell was removed and installed again ir force machine. Although the load cell repeated very well in any one orientation, the variation in test result: independent tests was significant relative to the cell tolerance. It was suggested that the best repeatability thai] be expected for a load cell in the same set-up is 0.1 v for n = 3,000. The combined random and systematic ei for this cell were approximately one-third of the load cell tolerance. Additionally, slight changes in cell perform were noted when the load cell was left at rest at 40 °C for approximately 8 hours after the cell had reached the equilibrium. This appeared to be a reversible characteristic. No manufacturer offered data to indicate that their test systems generated a smaller uncertainty than was obtt by NIST. Until information to the contrary is provided, the estimate of uncertainty in load cell testing, based I the NIST data, is assumed to be approximatelyone-third of the load cell tolerance for class III L when n = K| Since other test systems are expected to have uncertaintiessimilar or larger than the NIST value, this large unceri i indicates that there is a high probability that test results may not agree among laboratories within the limits c il tolerance. Cells that the manufacturer believes meet the NTEP requirements may not pass the same tests in an i

test machine. Additionalvariation in test results are expected when different fixtures are used to mount the load ;ll Henry Oppermann reported that NTEP will routinely require data from two load cells when a manufactu

requesting 5,000 scale divisions for a class III cell used in single load cell applications.

B. NTEP operation after NIST has test capability When NIST begins NTEP testing, the interim NTEP program will end for load cells within the range of NIS'

capability. Load cell manufacturers will have to provide any test fixtures that NIST does not have. It is antici jtd that only two to three load cell families per month can be tested by NIST in addition to their regular calibration I

II The load cells that were originally tested by the manufacturer (assuming that they are still available) are submitted to NTEP when the load cells are being tested for an upgrade from a provisional to a full Certific I Conformance. When load cells with provisional Certificates are being submitted for NTEP testing, the manufa I

does not have to resubmit the original data for the load cell(s) because NIST will still have the data on file, tl original load cells are not available, then the manufacturer will have to select load cells from production to be I

by NTEP. The manufacturer must submit test data with these load cells to provide documentation of test cap ili and to provide a basis for comparing test results from NIST to the manufacturer's data. In the future, manufac re should retain the load cells tested for a provisional Certificate of Conformance for later testing by NTEP.

134
Executive Committee

"here was discussion over whether or not test data must be submitted with load cells submitted for NTEP testing after le interim program ends. It was stated that test data should not be required because test data is not required when

ther devices are submitted for type evaluation. The requirement that manufacturers must demonstrate that they have

le capability to test load cells to determine whether or not production cells comply with Handbook 44 requirements

as referenced. It was concluded that the manufacturer must submit test data to demonstrate their capability to test jad cells. The manufacturer must test the load cells submitted to NTEP so that NTEP laboratories are not used as

uality control laboratories. The use of the data was the next issue.

" a manufacturer is not requesting an assessment of the manufacturers test capability to permit the use of the

lanufacturer's facility to obtain full Certificates of Conformance, then the data will simply be referenced by NTEP

) document that the manufacturer has access to test facilities to monitor production. The data will be supplementary

n lformation and may be used as a basis to determine if general agreement exists among the manufacturer's facility

tid NIST. General agreement may simply be that the load cells meet NTEP requirements for the requested

ci. laximum number of verification scale divisions. jJ

? a manufacturer wants to have his facilities accepted as a test facility as a basis for receiving full Certificates of

• '.onformance, then the data must be analyzed by NTEP and compared to NIST data to determine if the results agree

S ith NIST data. The extent of agreement that will be used as a basis for acceptance of a manufacturer's facilities has

ot been established due to an absence of comparison testing. The cost for this analysis has not been established. ound-Robin Testing m

- "he establishment of a round-robin experiment with the load cell manufacturers and other test laboratories will i.squire considerable effort, planning, and time. It is not expected to be established in the near future. Consequently,

itk le following approach will be followed until a round-robin program can be established.

After NTEP announces the capability to test load cells, manufacturers will have 60 days to notify NTEP

that they are ready to submit their load cells. NTEP will give priority to testing load cells in the order that the Provisional Certificates of Conformance were issued. The second priority will be to test load cells in the order that the manufacturers notify NTEP that they are prepared to submit their load cells. Consequently, if a manufacturer received an early provisional certificate but fails to notify NTEP that they are ready to submit the cells, they will be scheduled for test after those companies that have submitted

their notice for test. The load cells are not to be submitted with the request for testing; manufacturers

will be notified by the Force Group when the load cells are to be submitted. Requests received within the

first two weeks after the announcement of the availability of testing will be considered to have been

received at the same time; consequently, the order of priority to test these cells will be based upon the order in which the provisional certificates have been issued. The load cells to be submitted for test are those that were tested as the basis for issuing the Provisional

Certificate of Conformance. Load cell manufacturers will have to provide any test fixtures that NIST does

not have. When load cells with provisional Certificates are being submitted for NTEP testing, the manufacturer does not have to resubmit the original data for the load cells because NIST will still have

the data on file. If the original load cells are not available, then the manufacturer will have to select load

cells from production to be tested by NTEP. The manufacturer must submit test data with these load cells to provide documentation of test capability and to provide a basis for comparing test results from NIST

to the manufacturer's data. In the future, manufacturers should retain the load cells tested for a provisional Certificate of Conformance for later testing by NTEP.

: 1id- The number of load cell families that can be tested in one month will be limited because of the normal

calibration workload for load cells. It is anticipated that many months will be required to test all of the load cell families with provisional certificates. It is anticipated that only two to three load cell families can be tested per month by NIST in addition to their regular calibration work. 4 Manufacturers that have obtained full Certificates of Conformance based upon an evaluation of their test

facilities and the witnessing of repeat testing may still qualify to continue to receive full certificates

135
Executive Committee

provided agreement with NIST testing can be demonstrated. This can be achieved in the following manner.

a. The manufacturer conducts the complete NTEP sets of tests and submits the test data and the load cell(s) to NTEP. The NIST Force Group will review the test data for NTEP and will determine which tests should be repeated to verify the test results obtained by the manufacturer. The repeat testing will be determined consistent with past practices. This process must be

repeated for each test machine used to collect NTEP data.

b. If the NIST test results agree with the manufacturer's results, this will establish the manufacturer'!

test machine as an acceptable test machine. The manufacturer may then use the test machine tc continue to collect data for a full Certificate of Conformance provided that all or part of tht original testing of the load cell (as specified by NTEP) is witnessed by an NTEP representative or repeat testing is witnessed by an NTEP representative. The data analysis performed by th< manufacturer will be accepted based upon previous evaluations; however, NTEP retains the righ^ to check the data or the load cells when justification is provided.

c. Acceptable agreement with NIST will permit the manufacturer to continue using the test machin

to collect NTEP data for full certificates for a period up to two years. Agreement with NIST tes results must be demonstrated every two years for each machine to maintain the process. It wa

suggested that a three- to five-year period would be appropriate. The time period will b< reassessed after more comparison testing has been completed.

II. Data from another national laboratory

Load cell data collected by the national laboratory in The Netherlands were submitted to NTEP for evaluation. Th

load cell manufacturer requested that the data be accepted as a basis for issuing a full Certificate of Conformanc The Technical Committee and the Board of Governors have previously concluded that NTEP would not accept

certificate from another country as the basis for issuing an NTEP certificate. The basis of the decision was that thei was no formal agreement among countries to accept each other's certificates. Otto Warnlof reported that the international round-robin test on load cells indicated that agreement among tl laboratories was achievable up to 3,000 scale divisions. He stated that the issue of reciprocity was a political one,,

i John Elengo reported that Holland and Germany share load cell data and France and Germany have reciprocity. Th

indicates that precedent exists for accepting data from another national laboratory; however, it has always been bas< upon reciprocity. Each country retains the right to make the final decision of whether or not to accept the data.

It was suggested that accepting data from other national standards laboratories as a basis for upgrading provisioi

Certificates of Conformance to full Certificates would reduce the time needed for NTEP to upgrade provisional lo

cell certificates.

It was agreed that foreign manufacturers must meet the same requirements and follow the same procedures as t

!

U.S. manufacturers. The discussions on accepting data from a national laboratory focussed on whether or not t load cell manufacturer had access to test equipment to monitor production and the need for reciprocity betwe

countries before accepting data from another national laboratory as a basis for issuing a full Certificate Conformance.

It was concluded that:

1. NTEP would issue only provisional certificates based on test data taken by another national standa

laboratory provided:

a. the data satisfies NTEP requirements; and

136
Executive Committee

b. the manufacturer submits sufficient evidence that is has reasonable access to test equipment

needed to perform quality control. NTEP does not consider testing by a national standards

laboratory as meeting the requirement of reasonable accessibility since a national laboratory is not

to be used as a quality control laboratory.

Establishing reciprocity with another country will require:

establishing the formal NTEP policy regarding the acceptance of data obtained from another national laboratory ; and

developing the criteria to determine from which countries NTEP will accept test data because the quality of load cell testing varies from country to country.

he Technical Committee had agreed at an earlier meeting that reciprocity must exist between countries before NTEP

mould accept a certificate from another country as the basis for issuing an NTEP Certificate of Conformance for a

:l ^iad cell family.

II. Visibility of load cell markings after installation in scales

/eights and measures officials have reported problems with the visibility of the identificationinformationon load cells

rter the load cells have been installed in scales. The load cell identification badges may have been installed by the

jad cell manufacturer in a location that is not normally visible after installation or the scale manufacturer does not

ike care to position the load cell such that the identification information is visible after installation. Access to the

larking information is needed so the enforcement official can verify that the load cells are appropriate for the

pplication and that the scale parameters are consistent with the information marked on the load cell, indicating iement, and the weighing element.

. was suggested that the documents provided with load cells to comply with the Scales Code paragraph S.6.10. should

itisfy the needs of the enforcement official. Weights and measures officials stated that the documents are rarely

: vailable when the enforcement inspections are conducted so the documents are not a realistic solution. It was

jggested that the User Requirements in Handbook 44 should be enforced so the documents would be available at ie time of inspection.

c

' "here was no apparent resolution to the problem, consequently, the Technical Committee discontinued discussion of

lis item.

V. Permanence of identification badges (plates) on scales and load cells permanence

^Tie criteria for "permanence" of identification badges on scales and load cells was submitted to the Technical Committee for clarification. Several manufacturers have disagreed with the interpretationof this requirement by the

/pe evaluationlaboratories. The interpretationhas been that the identificationbadge must be destroyed (be removed

i pieces) when it is removed.

'Tie reasons given for the requirement that identification badges be destroyed upon removal were:

the badges provide a unique identification of the devices for weights and measures records, to identify a

device for court cases, maintain a history on each device, and for manufacturer warranty;

to prevent the transfer of a badge to another device;

to identify stolen equipment; and

137
Executive Committee

4. to establish the date of manufacture of a device to determine if nonretroactive requirements apply. Thi

last objective usually involves contacting the manufacturer for assistance in determining the date c manufacture.

It was suggested that the fraud aspects of manipulating identificationbadges were not valid. Many other possibility

exist for fraud and are easier to perpetrate if someone chooses to do so. Tampering was not considered significai relative to the marking requirement. The consensus of the Committee was that "permanent" should mean that the identification information must b

j sufficientlydurable to withstand normal wear and tear throughoutthe life of the device. An identificationbadge mu

be difficult to remove. Blind rivets to attach a badge to a device are acceptable, but removable screws are not.

j Location Objections were raised to the checklist requirement that the identificationbadge be an integral part of the devic' Additionally, an objection was raised to require a security seal to attach the cover of a device to the chassis when tl identification information is on the cover. To provide some standardization in the location of the identification information, the following locations we

suggested.

1. The identificationinformationshall be located near the point where the signal leaves the weighing eleme

of vehicle, axle-load, livestock, and railway track scales. This would be on the transverse lever oir mechanical scale.

2. The information should be on or near the junction box nearest the point where the signal leaves the sc on an above-ground scale. The Committee concluded that the second sentence in the second paragraph on page 69 of NCWM Publication

shall be deleted.

V. Order of conducting the temperature tests and creep tests on scales

s The need for specifying the order of conducting the temperature and creep tests was discussed. The only reason gi for possible concern about the temperature tests is that if the humidity in the chamber is not controlled, high humi

could affect a scale that is sensitive to humidity. If humidity is controlled, then the results of the tests should be same regardless of the order in which the tests are conducted. Concern was expressed regarding the sequence of the creep test and the accuracy test at each temperature. If je creep test is conducted before the accuracy, the creep recovery characteristics of the load cell could affect the jit results of the accuracy test. The Committee concluded that:

1. it was not necessary to specify the temperature sequence for the temperature tests as long as the rek humidity is controlled so moisture does not condense on the device;

2. the accuracy tests shall be conducted before the creep test;

3. a recovery time period equal to the accuracy test time shall be permitted before conducting the creep

j

4. a scale should be exercised before conducting the creep if an extended period of time has passed sine* iiej scale was last tested; and

138
Executive Committee

the temperature testing can continue from the point of the last temperature test in the event that the temperature chamber should fail. It is not necessary to repeat the temperature tests that have been

completed.

Multiple weighing elements interfaced with a single indicating element

A Number of scale divisions allowed for the summed weight indication

B. Proper operation of the displays for individual weighing elements and the summed display

C. Clarify the S.4.3. requirement for indicating which weighing elements are included in the summed

display

: number of vehicle scales consisting of three or more individual weighing elements used simultaneously to obtain

oss weight for commercial transactions are increasing. The individual weighing elements are used to obtain axlej weights to determine compliance with highway laws and, because the entire vehicle is weighed as a single draft, summed weight can be used for commercial transactions.

till *

s approach to weighing has raised a question of how the number of scale divisions permitted in class III or III L

es should be applied. The Technical Committee was strongly divided on this issue. A number of weights and

. t asures officials and industry representatives supported treating each weighing element as a separate scale and the iming of the indications from each weighing element is the same as summing the indications from separate scales.

lers believed that the use of multiple platforms in an application determines how it is classified. The argument I that the multiple platforms are being used in the same application as a class III L scale. If the platforms were

separate, the 10,000 division limit for class III L scales would apply. Consequently, a system consistingof multiple

ghing elements must be considered as a single system and is limited to 10,000 divisions.

ca,vas decided that this issue was not a type evaluation issue. The issue was referred to the Specifications and

erances Committee. Function keys on scales A Appropriateness of "function" keys that do not have specified functions

B. Proper marking to identify the operation of the keys

increasing number of scales with function keys have been submitted for type evaluation. The function of these

s is often custom programmed for an individual user. Obviously, NTEP is unable to determine if the functions hese keys comply with Handbook 44.

i Technical Committee concluded the following. Programmable keys may be included in a Certificate of Conformance if the keys are not metrologically

, j significant.

If programmable keys perform metrologically significant functions, then the functions of the keys must be

evaluated under NTEP.

Function keys that are used in a transaction must be marked specifically to reflect the operation of the key. The manufacturer must notify NTEP if, after the NTEP evaluation, metrologically significant features are added to a device through these keys.

II. Guidelines for sealing devices Ji recommended guidelines for sealing devices were reviewed. The Committee agreed to add the guideline that

=ale shall be sealed in a manner that prevents disassembly of the device by removing a cover or cabinet to gain

ess to the adjustments. It was also agreed that hanging scales may be sealed on the bottom since the bottom of

se scales is normally readily accessible.

139
Executive Committee

The appropriateness of permitting the provision for sealing on the bottom of the device was discussed extensive Some scales have a very low profile so the only available surfaces for sealing are the top and the bottom. In son

applications, it was argued that the bottom of the scale is the only reasonable location for the provision for sealir The bottom access to switches is very convenient for many manufacturers. On the other hand, weights and measur

officials are concerned about liability if they must lift a device or turn a device upside down to apply a security se The consensus of the Committee was that the bottom of a scale may be used for sealing; however, the scale must • designed such that seals can be removed and added without damaging the scale. Scales designed to have the secur

" seal on the bottom of the scale, shall be designed such that the scale will not be damaged when turned on its side

j j upside down. The following sealing guidelines were accepted by the Committee.

Guidelines for Sealing

1. The provisionfor sealing must be located such that a security seal can be applied without disassembly tjjL exposes electronics. Any disassembly must be simple and not require excessive effort, for exam

removing a protective cover plate to seal a junction box is acceptable. In general, it is desirable to be a to seal a device without the need for disassembly. A scale shall be sealed in a manner that prevents disassembly of the device by removing a cover or cab

to gain access to the adjustments. The bottom of a device is an acceptable location for a security seal; however, the scale shall be desig *

so that it is not damaged when turned on its side or upside down to remove and apply security seals When two bolts are used for a lead and wire seal, the bolts must be such that the lead and wire seal be broken when an attempt is made to unscrew the bolts. The use of a "free-standing bolt" to serve second screw for threading a lead and wire seal is not acceptable. A "free-standing bolt" is one that sir passes through a panel and is held in place by a nut on the opposite side of the panel but is not hoi any parts together. Because the free-standing screw may be loosened to the extent that the bolt will rc in its position, thereby permitting the other bolt to be turned and the wire of the seal maneuvered

the top of the bolt while turning the free-standing bolt to keep the wire from twisting. In this case

security seal can be removed to gain access to the adjustments without breaking the seal.

::

V In lieu of the second fixed bolt, a metal tab fixed to the case or a plastic tab molded into the case ma

used. The fixed nature of the tab usually causes in the wire to twist and break before the bolt ca* if removed.

8 IDU 5. If the lead and wire seal is located under the platform of a scale, then there must be ample clearam' 4 eliminate the possibility of interference between the seal and the platform. Access to the provisio

sealing must not require a tool for disassembly of any parts.

6. An indicating element that utilizes a NEMA 4 enclosure shall be sealed in a manner that prevents the from being circumvented. This may be achieved by threading a lead and wire seal through the he

the bolt through one of the hinges and the lip of the cover of the indicator. It is not sufficient for a and wire seal to be threaded through the head of the bolt and the opening in the hinge because it a

circumvented by loosening the screw slightly and pressing down on the cover to compress the se material and slipping the hinge off the cover. IX. Protection of scale levers from the environment and human interference

There was considerable opposition to providing protection to exposed levers. It was stated that the issue had b raised in the 1960s, tests were run, and the results did not indicate any problems with exposed levers. Although It was some support to protect levers from human interference, it was reported that tank and hopper scales have ex sa levers. Usually, the transverse lever on scales and all of the levers on livestock scales are protected.

140
Executive Committee

' Committee agreed that protection would not be required on exposed levers, however, protection from

ronmental effects is a User Requirement. If a weights and measures official encounters a problem in the field,

! need for protection will be left to the judgement of the enforcement official,

i Out-of-level tests for wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load scales

able wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load scales are normally used in areas where the ground is not level, '.equently, NTEP has required these scales to be accurate when placed out of level by 5 percent or 3 degrees. The

'illation of a level-indicating mechanism (e.g., bubble level) has not exempted these scales from the out-of-level

iracy requirement. Committee discussed the appropriateness of the out of level test. Because these scales are routinely used along ways where the surface is not level (but is reasonably level), the Committee concluded that accuracy is required

ix the suitability of equipment requirement. number of directions that a scale must be tested for accuracy when out-of-level was discussed. The Committee

' ed that it was necessary to test the scales when out-of-level in at least two directions, but that a scale may be

1 ;d in as many directions as deemed necessary. It may not be necessary to test a scale in an out-of-level condition

I y time that the scale tested.

1 .dbook 44 paragraph S.2.4. states that a portable scale shall either be accurate when out of level by 5 percent or

I be equipped with a level-indicating means. The use of a level-indicating means is not realistic for wheel-load

;hers or portable axle-load scales because the scales cannot be leveled once they are set in position. Consequently,

-^scales must be accurate within the 5 percent specification. To remove this conflict, the Technical Committee

' »mmends that the S&T Committee change Handbook 44 to clearly state that wheel-load weighers and portables-load scales be accurate when placed out-of level by 5 percent. Manual gross weight input

A. Postal and shipping scales B. Computers interfaced with scales need and appropriateness of the manual entry of gross weight values on postal and shipping scales were discussed, as concluded that the manual entry of gross weight values is inappropriate on most scales. The justification for

nitting the feature on shipping and postal scales is that shipping companies issue call tags to schedule package

-up when the package is at a customer's site and cannot be weighed by the shipper. This requires the printing U manifest which includes the weight and the shipping charges. It was stated that manual gross weight entries are needed for express shipping when many packages with the same contents. The manual gross weight entry permits

grating the labels without repeat keyboard entries.

"fl Technical Committee agreed to permit manual gross weight entries under the following conditions. Manual gross weight entries are permitted only on postal and package shipping scales. The manual gross weight entries cannot interact with the scale weighing element, that is, the scale must

be at zero before manual weight entries are permitted. The scale indications and recorded weight values must be adequately defined so it is clear that the gross weight values are manual gross weight entries. Scale weight indications must be identified as "manual

weight" either through the use of an annunciator or through an alphanumeric display. Recorded weight

values shall be identified as "Manual Weight."

L T^pe evaluation checklist for computers interfaced with scales

raft checklist for computers interfaced with scales has been developed for review by the Technical Committee.

! Committee was divided on whether or not computer systems should be subject to type evaluation. The decision

141
Executive Committee

not to require the version number on software was referenced as precedent not to evaluate computer systems sin< the software could always be changed. It was suggested that a dedicated weight indicating element should always I required with any computer system to prevent computer manipulation before the weight information is displaye j Others opposed this suggestion because it would be perceived as restricting new technology.

It was suggested that computers do not fall under the jurisdiction of weights and measures. The controlling comput may be at a remote location so a physical evaluation will not be possible during a field inspection. Some weights a

measures officials insisted that if a computer is performing the functions that a scale would normally perform, th the computer must meet the same requirements of Handbook 44. Because of the ease of changing software, it was suggested that the field verification may be sufficient to control t

:

use of computerized systems. Field inspections would concentrate on evaluating a system based upon its display i and recorded information.

Since the Technical Committee could not reach a consensus, it was suggested that the issue be taken to the NCW

for resolution. XIII. Certificate parameters for covering modular scale designs The Technical Committee was requested to review the range of parameters for a vehicle scale of modular design t

!

may be included on a Certificate of Conformance. Some manufacturers of "modular" scales can vary the lengtfc platforms extensively by simply attaching more modules. Consequently, a vehicle scale may consist of several modi ! but independent small modules will not be covered by a Certificate of Conformance because the length falls be

50 percent of the length of the scale that was tested. The scale capacity does not always increase with length beca

a scale may be installed under a series of hoppers. The long platform may be needed to permit the loading (

I

vehicle under any one of the several hoppers; a higher scale capacity is not needed.

It was agreed that the agreement among sections still applies to a modular scale. The practicality of achie1

i agreement among sections was questioned when a scale that has 10 or 12 sections. The term "modular" has different meanings to different people. Some consider that the design of each weig] j element must be identical with the only difference being in the length of each weighing element. Others permit

design in one weighing element and the other modules may be attached but have only one pair of load bearing pa i in each "module" that is attached. It was stated that scales have always been articulated so the term is not con I Contractor's scales may be modular in that the scale consists of two weighing element that act independently, j b forces from the separate weighing element are then summed to provide a single indication.

It was stated that the problems with the modular approach in type evaluation is that actual scale installat

:

frequently will be custom designed to meet the specific needs of some customers. This will result in variations i odd sizes. It was suggested that modular scales should not receive special consideration. It was suggested that weighing element of a modular scale be identical and have the same concentrated load capacity. The members were more concerned that a cap be placed on the length of modular scales rather than a lower i on the size of an individual module. It was suggested that a cap of 150 percent of the length of the scale that la tested for type evaluation be retained as an upper limit. It was also suggested that the module with the gre ;» distance between sections would have to be evaluated. No consensus was apparent. It was recommended that Ross Andersen and Henry Oppermann develop criteric examples for consideration by the Technical Committee at a later date. XIV. Board of Governor's issue: Appeal process A appeal on a load cell had been submitted to the NTEP Board of Governors. Because of the significanl los associated with testing load cells, a more detailed set of procedures for resolving appeals had been drafted for r c by the Technical Committee and the NTEP Board of Governors.

142
Executive Committee

ijjie Board of Governors had received several letters from industry opposing the draft procedures. It was explained

at current NTEP policy permits third-party appeals. Considerable opposition to the draft procedures was expressed

I the meeting.

le Board of Governors met following the meeting of the Technical Committee. The Board decided to table the

i oposed changes and proceed to handle appeals using the existing procedures.

J

j VARIATIONS IN REPEATABILITY OBSERVED IN NIST NTEP TESTS

(3000 DIVISIONS)

Random error - Same set-up Delta = 0.1 v = 33 ppm of full scale Mounting variation - Same orientation in dead-weight machine (DWM) (variation in centering) Delta = 0.25v = 80 ppm

Rotation variation in DWM (Off axis load and centering) Two Sigma = 0.38v = 0.013% = 125 ppm

Soak time in chamber after reaching equilibrium Delta = 0.12v = 40 ppm

Cell aging (10 NTEP test cycles) Delta = O.lv = 33 ppm

Allowable Instrumentation and Force Generating Equipment Error (2 Sigma) = 1/3 allowable

tolerance 1200v = 1/3 (0.7v) = 0.23v = 76 ppm

3000v = 1/3 (1.05v) = 0.35v = 116 ppm

13 ext Meeting

be next meeting is scheduled for October 31 - November 1. Participants Name Organization Michael Adams Fairbanks Ross Andersen New York

Joseph Antkowiak HBM, Inc. Girish R. Bera Artech Industries Manny Bera Artech Industries Tina Butcher NIST

Bob Cheyne National Scale Jim Conn Rice Lake Weighing Systems

Carl Conrad New Jersey Steve Cook California John Elengo Revere

Sy Feinland Pitney Bowes

Joe Giannina Port of Corpus Christi

Bill Goodpaster Cardinal/Detecto

Darrell Guensler California

Khalil Haker BLH Electronics, Inc.

Dr reference:

143
Executive Committee

Mic Hendrick Richards Scale Co. Shaun Seymour II Pennsylvania Scale Company

Terry James Cardinal/Detecto Ted Johnson Sensortronics John Kicks Scaime USA

Bob Kinzie Gilbarco John Lacy USDA/P&SA

Tom Leahy Rice Lake Weighing Systems John MacDonald Howe Richardson Bob McCarty NCR

Karl Newell NIST

Patrick Nichols Alameda County, CA

Anthony Nosike HBM, Inc. Henry Oppermann NIST

Millard Polivka Toledo Scale John W. Reimer Weigh-Tronix

Bob Reinfried SMA

Daryl Tonini SMA

Barbara Umbenhauer Pennsylvania Scale Company

O. K. Warnlof NIST

Dick Whipple Gilbarco

Stanley Wulf HBM, Inc. Ken Yee NIST

144
Executive Committee MEETING SUMMARY

Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation Weighing Sector October 31 - November 1, 1989 traduction

\e item on the marking requirements for load cells was added to the agenda. The agenda of the meeting is listed low.

Cell capacity to be tested to cover a range of capacities Marking requirements for load cells

Sealing of electronic components

Multiple weighing devices interfaced with a single indicating element

Multiple loading patterns for vehicle scales

Scale calibration for influence factors testing

I. Computer checklist

U. Requirements for labels on standard weight packages

:m II in the draft meeting summary for the June 1989 meeting regarding the policy of accepting data from another

tional laboratory was discussed. Based upon this discussion and a review of notes from the meeting, changes were

ade to this portion of the summary which was included in the summary of the June meeting. Cell capacity to be tested to cover a range of capacities

was suggested that NTEP should test the smallest load cell in a range of capacities to be included in a Certificate Conformance because it is usually the most difficult capacity to manufacture to the requirements of Handbook 44. jrrent NTEP policy is to test a cell that has a capacity near the middle of the range of capacities to be covered by

certificate. As a working guideline, a load cell is judged to be in the middle of the range of capacities if the ratio the cell that was tested is not more than 4:1 (at worst 5:1) from the extreme capacities to be included in the range

capacities. This was discussed at the June 1987 meeting and concluded that the 4:1 ratio should not be established

a policy but to be used as a guideline. This was done to permit greater flexibility to determine which cell should

: tested because manufacturers may be limited by the test equipment available for testing or there may be some

her reason to consider a different load cell to be tested. was stated at this (October 1989) meeting that in some cases the largest capacity cell may be the most difficult to anufacture within Handbook 44 requirements. It was reported that the decision in 1987 was a compromise to

tablish an acceptable policy. It was the consensus to the Technical Committee to reaffirm the current NTEP policy

• test load cells that are approximately in the middle of the range of cell capacities to be included on the Certificate

' Conformance.

L Marking requirements for load cells was reported that a load cell manufacturer had marked only the serial number on load cells and the remainder of

ie marking information was in an accompanying document. Under the current language of the Scales Code

aragraph S.6.10., this would comply with the requirement. The General Code paragraph G-S.l. is interpreted to

^ply to complete devices or main elements. Additionally, the requirements in specific codes supersede those of the

145
Executive Committee

General Code. Consequently, it was requested that the Technical Committee recommend a change to Handbook 4

!

to require the load cell be marked with the manufacturer's name or trademark, model designation, and serial numbe

prefaced by an abbreviation that clearly identifies the serial number. The remaining information could be contains \ in an accompanying document provided that the document also contained the serial number of the load cell. The need to record the serial number on the accompanying document was questioned. It was reported that NTEI

permits a manufacturer to market load cells at number of divisions less than the maximum and with vmin values large than those stated on the Certificate of Conformance (October 1987 meeting). Consequently, the serial number mus

;

be marked on the load cell and recorded on the accompanying document to relate the document to a specific loa- ^

cell. The Technical Committee concluded that this issue is not specifically an NTEP issue and should be submitted to th«i Specifications and Tolerances Committee for consideration

III. Sealing of electronic components

The Technical Committee was requested to discuss the features that are required to be sealed as a result of th changes made to General Code paragraph G-S.8. at the 1989 Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weigh

and Measures. Varying interpretations of the scope of the features to be sealed exist

It was the intent of the S&T Committee that any selectable features that may affect whether or not a device compli

with Handbook 44 or any selectable parameters that may affect the suitability of a device for use in a specif application shall be sealed based upon the revised G-S.8. Others have suggested that only those adjustments th

affect performance or facilitate fraud should be sealed. The Technical Committee discussed this subject at lengt The discussion is documented below to provide information to the S&T Committee further information for its revie of the issue at the Interim Meeting in January 1990 The consensus of the Technical Committee was that the requirement in Handbook 44 should be stated in broad terr and NTEP should use judgement and determine the specific features to be sealed. The features to be sealed m

vary from scales to metering devices depending upon the decisions of each Sector within the Technical Committc j A list of features to be sealed as recommended by the NTEP laboratories and the S&T Committee should 1 }# developed and submitted to the Technical Committee Sectors for consideration and inclusion in the type evaluati

checklists.

-is

To assist the S&T Committee in its review of the G-S.8. items on its agenda, the discussion of the Techni< Committee is included.

Discussion; Henry Oppermann explained the intent of the S&T Committee as stated in the last two S&T reports and which w

verified in an additional discussion of the S&T Committee on October 12, 1989. Some people have stated that t only features to be sealed should be those affecting device performance. The language of G-S.8. prior to the IS* change limited provision for sealing to those adjustments that affected performance requirements as defined | ? Handbook 44. It was the intent of the S&T Committee to expand the scope of the features to be sealed, which is v, the language in G-S.8. was broadened beyond performance requirements. If the provision for sealing requiren* | t

as adopted for the 1990 Handbook 44 was strictly applied, then the temperature compensation feature computerized wholesale loading-rack meters and the selection of the round-off algorithm in electronic cash regist i i would be required to have provision for sealing. This discussion assumes that the use of an audit trail is an accepta : | method of sealing. Under the strict interpretation of the requirement, then it is likely that audit trails would have} be incorporated into these systems. Paul Peterson: The Packers and Stockyards Administration recommends that the automatic zero-setting mechani i I (AZSM) be disabled on livestock scales because people handling the gates on these scales could activate the AZr I

j when there was not a zero change. This would result in a false zero-balance condition. It is my opinion that lis feature should be sealed on livestock scales.

hi

bj

146
Executive Committee

:ohn MacDonald: More examples should be give to provide a better basis for the discussion.

I ,im Truex; The Central Weights and Measures Association voted that the following features should be sealed.

Scales Liquid-Measuring Devices Automatic zero-setting mechanism Octane blend setting for blend dispensers

Settings for motion detection Selection of pump characteristics Internal selection of measurement units Selection of features (method of operation) Accuracy adjustment mechanism Temperature compensating systems for VTMs

Selection of the value of a quantity division Temperature compensating systems of wholesale

Scale capacity and number of divisions in a scale meters m Selection of scale options Setting for value of pulses sent from dispenser Pressure or density correction settings Flow-control settings Meter indications in gross or net gallons Totalizer mechanism

Iffiaa Butcher The Measuring Sector concluded that operator features would not be sealed. Some members wanted

waling limited to performance requirements, but a consensus was not reached on this point.

.oss Andersen: The listing the features to be sealed should be in the NTEP checklists. The list should be established

j y the Technical Committee. If all settings for a particular feature, e.g., AZSM, would result in device compliance

. .3r a give application, then the feature would not have to be sealed.

rjj

, 'om Stabler; The scope of the provision for sealing should be kept as narrow as possible. It is not practical to seal verything that is selectable. The meaning of metrological integrity should be defined by providing a list of features

d be sealed for scales and metering devices.

• itto Warnlof: In OIML the term "metrological integrity" means that a device is designed to maintain its accuracy

z nd operational performance in a normal environment over a period of use. A different term should be used in

j landbook 44 to represent the features to be sealed. Let the Technical Committee list which features are to be sealed nd include it in the checklist.

"erry James: The list should be established by the Technical Committee.

ioss Andersen: The provision for sealing does not require that each selectable feature had to have its own seal. One

•rovision for sealing could seal all of the parameters required to be sealed.

)ennis Mahoney: A list can not anticipate other features that should be sealed as technology advances. jXnsiderationmust be given to make changes to the list as necessary.

li

.. oe Giannina: A list developed at this time would not be all-inclusive; the list is likely to grow in the future. Also, he term "metrological integrity" is vague. I support the use of "metrological characteristics."

ft

. .. )arrell Guenslen A list of features to be sealed should be developed, but avoid putting it in Handbook 44. The list hould be in the checklist. The NTEP labs should draft a list and submit it to the Technical Committee for review o provide an opportunity for industry to review and modification.

>y Feinland: Will this require that a computer disk drive be sealed since the program could be changed and change

he operation of the device?

ienry Oppennann: It was not the intent of the S&T Committee to require that disk drives be sealed; however,

nanufacturershave the responsibilityunder the NTEP policy to notify NTEP of when changes are made to a program

hat may require a new type evaluation.

147
Executive Committee

John Elengo summarized the discussion, distilled the common ground, and stated the position of the Technical Committee as reported at the beginning of this item.

IV. Multiple weighing devices interfaced with a single indicating element

The number of vehicle scales consisting of three or more individual weighing elements used simultaneouslyto obtain

a gross weight for commercial transactions are increasing. The individual weighing elements are used to obtain axle- 1 load weights to determine compliance with highway laws and, because the entire vehicle is weighed as a single draft, the summed weight can be used for commercial transactions.

This approach to weighing has raised a question of how the number of scale divisions permitted in class III or III L

scales should be applied. For example, a vehicle scale may have three platforms with the following capacities: 100,00f x 20 lb, 100,000 x 20 lb, and 60,000 x 20 lb. The sum of these scale capacities is 260,0001b for a total of 13,000

divisions. Should the maximum number of divisions for class III scales apply to the summed indication? An argument

could be made that since the total weight is only the sum of digital indications, then the 10,000 division limitation* should not apply. However, a request had been received to permit four 20,000-lb x 5-lb capacity scales be used ii combination to provide a scale with a capacity of 80,000 x 5 lb to essentially circumvent the class III L limit on th( number of scale divisions. Consequently, the 10,000 division limit should apply to the summed indication because th< summed indication is being used as the basis for commercial trade. The S&T Committee briefly discussed this item at the 1989 NCWM. The Committee concluded that a multiple platform scale system is a single system and shall be treated as a single scale. The S&T Committee requested tha the Technical Committee continue to discuss this item to see if a consensus could be reached on the requirement

that should apply. There was a reluctance from several members of the Technical Committee to accept the position of the S&' Committee without further review. Consequently, the Technical Committee did not reach a consensus on this issut I The discussion is documented below to provide input to the S&T Committee to review the issue.

Discussion: Henry Oppermann reported the position of the S&T Committee. The S&T position is that thre permanently installed axle-load scales used to obtain the gross weight of a truck from three axle-load scales is to b

treated as a single system and that class III L requirements apply to the indicator that is totalizing the weights froi the other weighing devices. This means that all of the sections in the three weighing devices must agree within tr limit set by T.N.4.4. Jim Truex distributed the Ohio memorandum stating the Ohio policy regarding these devices. The Ohio position 0 consistent with the criteria proposed for consideration by the Technical Committee.

Ross Andersen: The criterion "simultaneously displayed" is not sufficient to define which devices are to be treafo as a single weighing system. For example, multiple sets of hopper scales, e.g., 1,000 x 1 lb and 10,000 x 10 lb, a often used to batch asphalt and the individual weight indications could be added together to get an accurate weigl

I agree that a multiple-weighing-device vehicle scale should be treated as a single system, but two or mo

independent hopper scales used to batch asphalt should not be considered a single system. Joe Giannina: Why should the division values on multiple weighing devices be the same? If a system consists independent weighing devices, then each device should be tested separately. Henry Oppermann: The division values for all of the weighing devices should be the same, otherwise anyone testi the complete system would not know what tolerance to apply to the system if each weighing device has a differ* 1 scale division. Tom Stabler: Under the General Code, all of these weighing devices must have the same scale division value. Terry James: It is the normal practice of weights and measures enforcement officials to test multiple-weighing-de^ s systems as if each weighing device is an independent scale. Permitting each weighing device to have 10,000 divisi< |s

148
Executive Committee

Joes not violate Handbook 44. Using a multiple-weighing-devicescale and adding up the values to obtain a gross weight is no different than adding the weights on a calculator.

Dennis Mahoney: The indicator summing the weights from three other indicators is not a scale and should not be

a limiting factor in the number of divisions in the scale.

. c |im Truex: The 10,000-divisionlimit on the totalizing display must apply or the multiple-weighing-devicesystems will defeat the intent of class III L. Ohio already had a company that wanted to install several smaller capacity scales with

2-lb divisions for use in combination as a vehicle scale. This is not appropriate.

l onstantine Cotsoradis: It is Maryland's policy that if each weighing element has its own indicating element, we treat jach weighing device as a separate device. If multiple weighing elements have only one indicator, then the multiple

^weighing elements are a single scale. Maryland does not apply T.N.4.4. to all of the weighing elements in the system;

lit is applied only to those sections that are part of one weighing device.

T,Ross Andersen: The application will determine how the system should be treated. If a truck is being weighed as a

T single object, then the multiple weighing devices must be treated as a single system. Multiple hopper scales are

... different in that they are weighing different commodities which are to be mixed. You cannot dissociate a scale from

j^what is being weighed.

Otto Warnlof: There is no difference in scale operationwhether the scale is divided or not. The intent of the process

5 is to get weights for an individual vehicles.

Ill

, , Terry James: Manufacturers can meet the requirements to test the system as a single scale, but if enforcement

officials test each weighing device as a single scale, it defeats the purpose of the requirement.

t John Elengo: If you are weighing a single object, then you should meet Handbook 44 for the particular class ..applicable to weighing the object. It doesn't matter how the object is weighed; it must meet Handbook 44 for the

application. 1 Tom Stabler An installation must not violate the maximum number of divisions, the nominal capacity, agreement y among sections, and vmin for the application. Then, conclusions regarding the installation can be based on whether ^or not the system complies with Handbook 44.

iRoss Andersen: Individual axle weights are used to determine compliance with the highway laws and are not relevant

to commercial transactions. The concentrated load capacity for each weighing device must be addressed. Must the

. .CLCs be equal for all of the weighing elements?

[Note: It appeared that the Technical Committee agreed that the CLC must be the same for all of the weighing

, elements in the system because the truck axles move over all of the sections of the scale.] 31John Elengo: The issue raised by weights and measures officials is that when multiple weighing elements are installed

to weigh a truck and the system has more than 10,000 divisions, then it appears that the system has circumvented the

class III L maximum limit of 10,000 divisions for the scale. Mike Adams: It is incorrect that the manufacturer is trying to circumvent the Code. The manufacturer may just be

trying to get more accuracy out of the system.

IRoss Andersen: It is appropriate to test each individual weighing device to capacity and then test each section down

the scale to determine if all sections in the system agree within T.N.4.4. John Elengo: It is our job to judge a device based upon what the device is to do. This type of system provides

multiple indications and sums the values to obtain the weight for the complete vehicle. Based upon the single weight

for the vehicle, it is a class III L system. The individual weighing devices were not intended to be used independently.

149
Executive Committee

Terry James: If someone installs six 15,000 x 2 lb scales and they are accurate, then the six scales used in combination

should be permitted to be used to weigh a vehicle without the 10,000 division class III L limitation. If the scales are

tested independently, then the requirement of the 10,000 divisions and agreement among sections is meaningless.

Dan-ell Guenslen We already have a ruling from the S&T Committee that the system is to be treated as a single

scale. Let's proceed on that basis. We must look at it as a single device and test it as Ross has described. Henry Oppermann: I agree with Terry James that the system must be tested as a single scale and all sections must

agree within T.N.4.4.

Paul Peterson: If we have digital load cells in a scale, the digital outputs will be summed rather than an analog signal. Will each cell be considered a separate scale? Are we considering this issue philosophicallyor from the viewpoint

of regulatory problems?

Otto Warnlof: We must think in terms of the device application; not its design. John Elengo: We are looking to apply the requirements to a device submitted for type evaluation. The device that would be submitted is the complete system. The combined weights are the basis for the transaction so the system 1 must meet class III L requirements.

Daryl Tonini: I am troubled by the statements that you don't get a break on the tolerance when you treat each' weighing device separately. I agree that the summed weight display should be limited to 10,000 divisions; however

I have some difficulty accepting the analysis.

Bill Goodpaster. There is no difference between summing the digital indications from several scales and summin

the indications using a calculator, consequently, each weighing device should be considered to be a separate scale. John Elengo: That is an S&T or an L&R issue. We are here to establish the criteria applicable to the system. Henry Oppermann: This issue falls under the principles of T.N.I, of the Scales Code. The classification of a devic or system is not dependent upon the technology or the design. Sy Feinland: The proposed requirement that all division values for each weighing device must be the same is nc f justified. As long as the scale division in the summing display is the same as the largest division value in the differed weighing elements, there is no flaw in the implied accuracy.

[Note: To clarify terminology, the Committee agreed to refer to these devices as multipleweighing devices interface with a single indicator. This permits each weighing device to have its own indicator as well.] Ross Andersen: From a purely technical point, class III L scales may display more than 10,000 divisions because

scale may indicate up to 105 percent of its rated capacity. Mike Adams: Each scale should be considered separately because one scale may be used to weigh pick-up trucl two of the weighing elements may be used to weigh a larger truck, and all weighing elements may be used to wei; other trucks. Smaller trucks can be weighed more accurately if the scale has a smaller division. Each weighing devi should be permitted to have different scale division values, but the summing indicator should have a scale divisi equal to the largest division of the individual weighing devices. Jim Tmex: Commercial measurement is only interested in the single totalized weight. John Elengo: Each individual weighing device must meet class III L as a stand-alone device. Then if the combinati

of devices also meets class III L, then the system is acceptable. Sy Feinland: I continue to support allowing each weighing device to have different scale division values and o > require the value of the scale division for the summing indicator to equal the largest scale division value for individual weighing devices.

150
Executive Committee

snry Oppermann: This would violate the requirement that there be mathematical agreement in the digital "lications because different scale divisions could not add mathematically to a single scale division value.

»ss Andersen: Manufacturers could use manual multi-ranging scales to get the desired resolution for smaller loads.

ike Adams: The only reason to require mathematical agreement is to reduce confusion. Mathematical agreement

cot needed.

e Giannina: I don't agree that all scale division values must agree. It would be acceptable to have three scales in rib divisions being summed to a 20-lb division. Handbook 44 should not apply to auxiliary summing indications.

I jhn Elengo: We are at an impasse. It is time to return this issue to the S&T Committee.

rry James and Sy Feinland: As a final comment, we should not require the other weight displays to blank if the mming indicator overloads. This would require communication from the summing indicator to the individual

dicators which would be expensive without adequate benefits.

ill ijprrell Guenslen It seems that to have such a uniform loading pattern would be unlikely so it isn't worth the

pense.

. »ss Andersen: We must remember that the individual devices could have different capacities and that the sum of

,. 2 individual capacities may exceed the capacity of the summing indicator.

II Goodpasten I favor deleting this requirement (#5) because numbers 1 and 4 cover it. It would cost too much

-the little benefit that would result.

ike Adams: If #5 is retained, this is saying that the multiple weighing devices could not be operated as independent

ales. You should be able to operate them independently and add up the values. Multiple loading patterns for vehicle scales

He proper loading of multiple patterns when testing a vehicle scale is not specifically defined in Handbook 44.

, ultiple pattern loading may be done in a manner consistent with the method of use as stated in Scales Code

ragraph N. 1.3.4. The definition of concentrated load capacity (CLC) specifies that the capacity rating applies to

; »th test and use. There is a considerable variety of axle configurations for trucks.

le Technical Committee concluded that Handbook 44 contains all the information needed to address this question.

ie proper application of this section permits multiple test loads up to the CLC to be placed on a scale in each area

lere the axles of the truck may be positioned, including when the vehicle is in the worst case position. Each loading

t |.ttern shall be an area at least four feet long and equal to the width the scale. The application of this conclusion

suits in the following.

In the case of single axles, for example, a single steering axle with one wheel on each side, the center of the loading pattern should be positioned to coincide with the axle position.

In the case of tandem axles, for example, a series of 2 or 3 axles on a single suspension system that distributes the load reasonably equally from axle to axle (such tandem axles are usually no more than 96 inches in length from center to center of the outermost axles), two adjacent 4-foot patterns, centered on the tandem axle configuration, should be used. Each pattern should be loaded equally. The loads should total to the maximum

load allowable for the vehicle's tandem axle configuration, and should not exceed the CLC in any one pattern. J In the event that the tandem axle configuration is greater than 96 inches length from center to center of the outermost axles, each axle shall be treated as a single axle as described in point 1.

Federal Highway bridge formula is not a limitation on how a scale may be loaded.

151
Executive Committee

VI. Scale calibration for influence factors testing Some scale manufacturers have wanted their scales calibrated at a specific test load before the scale was subjecte

to influence factors testing. At times, the manufacturer has wanted the scale to be set to read either high or low c the actual value of the test load. There is concern on the part of the NTEP laboratories that a scale may be adjuste

in the laboratory to pass the temperature test but the scales in the field would be adjusted differently because th service agent may not know to set the scale to have an error at a specific load.

It was suggested that scales should be tested initially to determine the performance curve of the scale and then selei the adjustment point to minimize the scale errors (both increasing and decreasing load errors) over the entii weighing range of the scale. It was stated that the service technician will not have the knowledge of the scald performance curve with respect to temperature when a scale is installed in the field to be able to minimize the sea

errors over a temperature range. The Technical Committee concluded the following.

1. Unless the load for calibrating a scale is specified by the manufacturer, a scale shall be adjusted to have i errors minimized at ambient temperature.

2. If the manufacturer specifies the calibration load, this information must be stated in the service manual (ai the operator's manual if the operator is to adjust the scale). If a manufacturer specifies a test load f calibration, then this test load may not necessarily minimize the performance errors of the scale.

3. A manufacturer cannot select a particular calibration point for a scale submitted for type evaluation unless tl

!

test load is specified in the manual as applicable to all scales of this model designation. A manufacturer m ; advise the NTEP laboratory of the optimum point for adjusting a scale at ambient temperature to minim

performance errors to save time in the calibration process. This recommendation will be based upon t manufacturer's test results for tests conducted prior to submitting the device to the NTEP laboratory. As a result of these decisions, paragraph 3.2 on page 125 of the NCWM Publication 14 will be changed to read j follows.

3.2. Prior to the start of the test, the scale shall be adjusted after it has reached thermal equilibrium with po\

applied to the scale. Unless otherwise specified by the manufacturer in a manual, the laboratory will adjust

scale to optimum performance for the performance curve obtained at:

(a) 20 °C (or at the midpoint of the temperature extremes if the operating range for the device is significa ] different from -10 °C and 40 °C); and

a' (b) at a moisture content not greater than 50 percent relative humidity. VII. Computer checklist At a previous meeting of the Technical Committee, a draft checklist for computers interfaced with scales

j presented for review by the Technical Committee. The Committee was divided on whether or not a computer sys ni should be subject to type evaluation. A consensus could not be reached at that time and the review did not take pi 2.) The matter was brought forward again at this meeting.

A review of the proposed checklist was initiated in an effort to test its content and determine if consensus migh «i achieved. The review progressed to a point but was tabled to enable more discussion to take place relative to |ie appropriateness of conducting type evaluations on the computer portion of the scale system and to address o en

issues on the meeting agenda. The following points were made during the discussion and are believed to represent a consensus of the Tech al Committee.

152
Executive Committee

The subject is more appropriately handled by addressing those additional requirements for scales which have computers as part of the weighing system, than by developing a checklist for computers. Where the computer portion of a scale system performs solely non-metrological functions, that portion is considered to be outside of weights and measures jurisdiction and not subject to NTEP evaluation. Where the computer portion of a scale system performs functions which fall under weights and measures

jurisdiction, there is a practical limit on how far NTEP can and should go in the type evaluation process. For

Uj example, it appears wasteful that NTEP be required to evaluate a recognized standard personal computer (or companion printer) because it is used in a scale system. ^ Additionally, it was emphasized that computers without analog-to-digital (A/D) converters are already exempt

from certain type evaluation tests, specifically, influence factor testing (See page 31 of NCWM Publication 14). Likewise, digital indicators withoutA/D converters are not required to undergo error testing over a temperature

range, though they may indicators may be tested over a temperature range to verify that all keys and features operate correctly. There is general support for the view expressed in Canada that, although computer systems fall under weights

H and measures enforcement when they perform weighing or metering functions, if adequate controls are applied

through field enforcement, it may not be necessary to submit all computer systems for type evaluation. Reliance on field enforcement would require that an Examination Procedure Outline (EPO) be developed for

field verification of scale systems incorporating a computer as part of the system. Such development is outside

the scope of the NTEP Technical Committee as defined in the Administrative Procedures contained within

3 NCWM Publication 14. a To separate field verification criteria from type evaluation criteria, it is necessary to establish:

a. what constitutes a scale function when it is performed by a computer;

b. what criteria should be used to check software functions in the field; and

c. what features can be adequately controlled through field enforcement. There remains the question as to where to establish the boundary between type evaluation and the substitution of field enforcement in its place. Because the answer deals with field enforcement issues, considered by many

as inappropriate for discussion within the Technical Committee, as well as technical issues, the Committee does

not appear able to achieve a solution. The Board of Governors will be so advised and asked to provide

necessary guidance, particularly with respect to items 5 and 6, above.

e following points were mentioned but a consensus was not reached.

i It may be possible to establish EPO criteria for simple printers so not all printers must be submitted for type

evaluation. Simple printers would be subject only to field verification. The software used to process the weight information for a commercial transaction, that is, the primary weight

indications and the recording of the weight values for weight tickets should be in a fixed part of the computer

program and not be accessible for change after the system leaves the manufacturer of the weighing device. A "one-of-a-kind device" must be defined for systems incorporating computers because software is often

S customized for a specific application.

le following is a summary of the review of the proposed checklist to the point that further discussion was tabled.

153
Executive Committee

Discussion of Checklist Criteria Applicable to Computers incorporated into Scales Page 2, Testing Modes

There was concern that a separate test mode may utilize software that is different from the normal operation. It wj suggested that a void key be required to permit weights and measures officials to test the computer portion of a sea

in the normal operating mode. This proposal was opposed because void transactions in the normal operating moc

go into the operator's records. Similarly, if a "dummy" account is used for test purposes, the operator's records wou : be affected. Consequently it was decided to permit a manufacturer to provide either a training (test) mode or provicsl a void feature. Page 5, Number 2 The word "weight" is changed to "tare" so it reads: 2. Negative numbers shall not be accepted as tare values. Page 6, Number 1 This criterion required the simultaneous display of gross, tare, and net on the computer display. It was stated \h\ the usual indicating elements are not required to display this information. It was concluded that the criteri< exceeded the requirements of Handbook 44 so the criterion was deleted. Page 6, Number 2 This criterion prevents adding two or more tare weights together for a single transaction to get a final net weig] The objective is to reduce the potential for fraud. Multiple tare memories for one transaction could give t| appearance that one tare weight is taken when, in fact, two tare weights may be subtracted from the gross weight This could happen if tare is taken in a separate indicating element and another tare weight is taken by the comput The Committee concluded that:

1. the word "clear" is to be replaced by the word "replace";

2. multiple tare-weight values held in memory must be identified by some type of identificationcode to relate ea tare weight to a specific vehicle or transaction;

3. weights held in memory in a weigh-in/weigh-out system must be used to obtain a net weight before the t; weight may be cleared from memory; and

4. corrections to weight tickets may be made in a nonweighing (accounting) mode. This tickets must identify the weight ticket that the ticket was generated in the nonweighing mode.

Page 6, Number 4

This requirement was accepted. A comment was made clarifying that the gross or net may be displayed as a negai number, but mathematical agreement must still be satisfied under these conditions. Page 6, Number 5 This criterion was to require the identificationof the method of tare input and establish acceptable symbols to iden

the type of tare entry used in a transaction. There was support for this requirement on the basis that it would h customers and enforcement officials understand and trace transactions. It was argued that any weight values sto

in memory should be printed at the time of weighing and storage to provide documentationand hard-copy informal in to verify the validity of the weight values. There were several people who felt that the criterion exceeded reasons !e interpretations of Handbook 44 and, therefore, exceeded the requirements of Handbook 44. A communica ,n problem was identified because if the tare is taken on a separate indicator and sent to the computer, it would s necessary to transmit a code identifying the method used to take tare. This information is not normally transmi d i by existing indicators. The Technical Committee did not agree on this item. It was agreed that the item should go to the S&T Commi

and be incorporated into Handbook 44 if it is to become a requirement. Page 6, Number 6 Because of the large amount of memory available in a computer incorporated into a weighing system, multiple memories are often used to process transactions. The tare may have been stored as part of a weigh-in/weigh

operation or the tare may have been programmed into memory for repeated use, where permitted.

154
Executive Committee

It was agreed that this requirement should be added to page 46 of NCWM Publication 14 to keep the requirements

consistent and to reword the criterion as follows:

Tl 6. Whenever multiple weight memories are used, the gross, tare, and net weight values shall be recorded

automatically when the net weight value is recorded.

j Page 7, Number 7

- The criterion was clarified as follows:

;

! 7. The scale divisions and tare divisions on a computer and any other primary indicating element shall be the same

for the same weighing device. The discussion of the checklist was stopped at this point to address the remaining issues on the agenda and discuss

the appropriatenessof conducting type evaluationson computers incorporated into scales. The discussionof this latter

• subject was reported earlier. m

VIII. Requirements for labels on standard weight packages

The requirements for labels on standard weight packages were distributed at the last meeting. Since the labeling z requirements are based upon the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act and the NCWM Uniform Packaging and

I Labeling Regulation, the requirements cannot be changed without Congressional action or the action of the NCWM.

ft The requirements themselves were not discussed because very few people attending the meeting were involved with

id the design of random weight label printers used to label standard weight packages. Instead, the discussion concentrated upon whether or not it was appropriate for NTEP to evaluate printers for compliance with these requirements. The arguments on both sides of the discussion are listed below. Reasons given not to evaluate printers for labeling requirements

1. Type evaluation is only to determine compliancewith Handbook 44 requirements and the requirements of field standards under the Handbook 105 series.

• 2. Section A of the NTEP administrative procedures specifically states the scope of the NTEP program relative to the documents referenced in point 1.

3. Before NTEP can evaluate devices for labeling requirements, if it appropriate to do so, the NTEP Board of Governors/NCWM Executive Committee must revise Section A of the administrative procedures. Reasons given to evaluate printers for labeling requirements J 1. The labeling requirements fall in the domain of the NCWM and should be evaluated. Requirements that are generated outside the NCWM should not be part of the NTEP evaluation process.

i 2. It would be short-sighted not to evaluate printers submitted for type evaluation for compliance with these

labeling requirements since weights and measures officials are often responsible for enforcing the labeling requirements.

3. The evaluation of label printers to the labeling requirements would be very efficient and would reduce enforcement problems. It would benefit the manufacturer to catch problems early in the design process rather than after the printers are installed in the field. The Technical Committee agreed that a ruling from the NTEP Board of Governors is needed to resolve this issue. IX. Next Meeting

ii

- The next meeting of the Weighing Sector is scheduled for June 19 - 20, 1990. The accommodations of the Sheraton

National Hotel were considered acceptable. The hotel is tentatively scheduled as the meeting site.

155
Executive Committee

Participants

October 31 - November 1, 1989 Name Organization Michael Adams Fairbanks Scales Ross Andersen New York

Girish R. Bera Artech Industries Manny Bera Artech Industries Claude R. Bertrand Legal Metrology Branch, Canada

Tina Butcher NIST

James M. Conn Rice Lake Weighing Systems

Carl Conrad New Jersey Steve Cook California Division of Measurement Standards Constantine Cotsoradis Maryland Weights and Measures John Elengo Revere Transducers Sy Feinland Pitney Bowes

Joe Giannina Port of Corpus Christi

Bill Goodpaster Cardinal/Detecto Terry Grimes NIST

Darrell Guensler California Division of Measurement Standards

Khalil Haker BLH Electronics, Inc. Terry James Cardinal/Detecto Ted Johnson Sensortronics John C. Kicks Scaime USA

Tom Leahy Rice Lake Weighing Systems John MacDonald Howe Richardson Dennis J. Mahoney, Sr USDA/FGIS

Bob McCarty NCR Corporation

Nigel Mills Toledo Scale Karl Newell NIST

Henry Oppermann NIST

Paul L. Peterson USDA Packers & Stockyards Administration John W. Reimer Weigh-Tronix

Bob Reinfried SMA

Tom Stabler Toledo Scale Daryl Tonini SMA

Jim Truex Ohio Weights and Measures

O. K. Warnlof NIST/OSM

Simone L. Yaniv NIST, Force Group

KenYee NIST

156
Executive Committee MEETING SUMMARY

Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation Weighing Sector June 26 -27, 1990 Introduction

The following represents the agenda for the meeting. Load Cell Issues

I. Clarification of NTEP load cell test procedures

H. NTEP/NIST Load cell test results

HI. Multiplier for multiple cell tolerances based upon the change to the proposed change to Handbook 44.

TV. Agreement of test data from manufacturers' test facilities to NIST for the purpose of establishing the

acceptability of the manufacturers' laboratory.

Scale Issues

V. Define adjacent to the display for capacity by division statements

VI. Permanence of identification badges

VII. Scale features and parameters to be sealed under the revised G-S.8. and S.l.ll. IE:VIII. Modular vehicle scale parameters

IX. Devices requiring model numbers and serial numbers

X. Scale checklist criteria A. Key sequence on computing scales and POS systems

B. Tare override

XI. Computers incorporated into weighing systems

( XII. Computer checklist criteria

XIII. Bulk-weighing systems checklist Agenda item DC was not discussed during the meeting and will be scheduled for discussion at the next meeting.

Subtopics discussed under the subjects listed above are identified in the summary that follows.

I. Clarification of NTEP load cell test procedures

A. Changes to load cell test procedures Based on experience drawn from the evaluation testing of load cells at NIST, changes were made to the load cell test procedures. The changes can be characterized as refinements to result in better correlation with less uncertainty. The changes to NCWM Publication 14, Part II, Section 2 are identified below. The

text in bold indicates the changes to the existing requirements.

157
Executive Committee

It is necessary to tie the test temperatures to the specified nominal test temperatures to prevent someone from taking advantage of the initial test temperature to "split" the temperature effect at the temperature extremes. The choice of 2 °C above or below the nominal temperature can make a

significant effect at the extreme temperatures. Consequently, load cell manufacturers are encouraged

to test at -12 and 42 °C to assure that the cells will test at the temperatures used by another test laboratory, assuming all other effects are equal. The extremes in the temperature variation during a test shall not exceed 2 °C. Additionally, the test temperature for shall be within 2 °C of the specified nominal value. This will make the NTEP

procedure consistent with the proposed change to OIML R 60. It was agreed to change all references

to 2.5 °C to 2 °C and to change L.4. to read: Environmental conditions - Perform tests under stable environmental conditions. The ambient

temperature is deemed to be stable when the difference between extreme temperatures noted during

the test does not exceed one fifth of the temperature range of the considered cell and not greater than 2 °C and all temperatures are within 2 °C of the nominal test temperature.

Different cells have been found to have significantly different temperature rise above ambient due to internal power dissipation. It is the intent of the NTEP procedure to have the test temperature inside the environmental chamber to be equal to the test temperature. The load cell temperature must be uniform although it may not be at the same temperature as the ambient temperature. To clearly indicate that the temperature of the air around the load cell is to be at the specified temperature,

regardless of the temperature of the load cell, it was agreed to change L.8. to read: Temperature conditions - Allow sufficient time to achieve temperature stabilization of the load cell particularly for large cells. The loading system design must not introduce significant thermal gradients within the load cell. It is recommended that the temperature of one or more points on the load cell be monitored, in addition to the ambient (air) temperature, to determine that the cell has stabilized. The load cell and its connecting means (cables, tubes, etc.) which are integral or contiguous shall be

at the same ambient test temperature. The indicating instrument shall be maintained at room

temperature. The temperature effect on auxiliary connecting means shall be considered in determining

results. To unify test procedures used to test load cells and to be consistent with the proposed changes to OIML R 60, change O.I.I, to read: At 20 °C ambient, insert the load cell into the force-generating system and exercise by applying a load

to maximum capacity three times, returning to minimum dead load after each load application. Wait

5 minutes. If the operating temperature.... At a past meeting the Technical Committee had agreed that all load cells are to be tested to 90

percent of cell capacity in addition to the minimum dead load; however, this point was not incorporated into Publication 14. The manufacturer may test at a maximum test load that exceeds the load cell capacity but NTEP/NIST will not test NTEP load cells above the stated capacity. The capacity of a load cell includes the minimum dead load. The measuring range of a load cell is the load cell capacity minus the minimum dead load. The minimum load for a test shall be equal to or greater than the minimum dead load. The Technical Committee agreed to change O.I.5. to read: Apply increasing loads to least 90 percent but not more than 100 percent of maximum cell capacity

5. To be consistent with the proposed change to OIML R 60 which recommends a 1-hour wait between

the accuracy tests and the creep test to allow recovery time for the load cell, O.II.l to changed to read:

Ik

158
Executive Committee

At 20 °C ambient, insert the load cell into the force generating system and load to the minimum dead

load. If Procedure O.I. (increasing and decreasing load test) has just been completed, wait 1 hour.

If a separate creep test is being conducted, perform Procedure O.I.I and then wait 1 hour.

6. The plot of the test results shall be for the measuring range of the load cell used in the test, not the

cell capacity. This means that the 75 percent point used to normalize the data will vary depending upon the test equipment available in the laboratories testing the same load cell. To emphasize this point, P. 11.3. is changed to read: The load axis of the plot passes through both the mean minimum dead load output and the mean

output for a load of 75% of the measuring range (not necessarily the cell capacity) both measured

during the ascending load and during the initial test at room temperature....

7. To clarify the statement in P.12.1. to agree with O.I.12. which requires that all individual-run data

points must be within the applicable tolerances, P.12.1. is changed to read: Load cell error - ...The critical test result is the measured mean output, or the mean output linearly interpolated between test load (...), or any output at a test load that has the greatest absolute value

in relation to the tolerance....

8. An error exists in 1.2. The multipliershould be 1.0 instead of 0.7. The error should be corrected, but

the tolerance may be changed based upon action pending at the Annual Meeting of the NCWM in

July. (See Item III.)

9. It was suggested that a marking requirement be added to S.6.10. of the Scales Code in Handbook 44

to identify if the load cell is for 4-wire or 6-wire operation. This is considered necessary because a load cell must be installed in scales in the same manner in which it was tested by NTEP to get the same performance characteristics. The proper installation of the load cell should be enforced by

weights and measures officials. There was some opposition to the proposal because the proper use

of a load cell is indicated by its design, i.e., 4 or 6 wires, and the cell should be installed in the manner

in which it is designed. It was also suggested that marking only the 6-wire load cells is sufficient since the default design is 4-wire connection.

It was also noted that the excitation voltage can also affect load cell performance. Other factors were

also mentioned as affecting the load cell performance, but that it is not realistic to expect the weights and measures officials to check all of these parameters to verify the correct installation of the load

cells.

It was agreed that the load cell manufacturer should specify the number of wires of the load cell design and the excitation voltage for which the load cell is designed for use. These entries in the NTEP application will be added to the next edition of Publication 14. Ken Yee of NIST presented a list of "1001 factors that affect test results". It is a comprehensive summary

of equipment and procedure considerations for guidance in conducting tests. A copy of the list is attached. Load cell test results 1ST has conducted several NTEP tests on load cells from 30,000 to 100,000 lb. Ken Yee provided a report mmarizing a sampling of the results. The summary included:

Test results from load cells submitted for type evaluation Test results from production load cells

lere have been occasions where NIST test results, associated with the upgrading of certificates from provisional

itus, have differed from manufacturer's test results due to equipment design, range, and procedure differences.

,»r example, one manufacturer's set up was found to have excessive thermal loss to test machine, affecting results.

159
Executive Committee

In another case, the range of test loads was smaller than available at NIST. In some cases, this made a differenc between the load cell marginally passing or marginally failing. NTEP obtained some representative samples of manufacturer's NTEP grade load cells on the open market. Cel were submitted to the NTEP type evaluation tests. Where special hardware was required, the manufacturer w< j asked to supply same and did. Types included canisters, double ended beams, and single ended beams (in tt i range of 30,000 to 60,000 pounds capacity). Generally, the load cells failed to comply, the only difference beiij that many were marginally out, while some were way out. Despite results, the tests were considered beneficial

;

they appear to have initiated corrective action among the parties concerned.

III. Multiplier for multiple cell tolerances based upon the proposed change to Handboc

44. A. Change the multiplier for class III L multiple cell applications for TE of MDLO

B. Change the multiplier for class III multiple cell applications to 0.7 for TE of MDLO

C. Relationship of v^ to the displayed scale division D. Combination vehicle and railway track scales; combination livestock and vehicle scales E. Different v,^ values for cells used in the same scale

Multiplier for Class III and HI L Load Cells Used in Multiple Cell Applications (Points A. B. and C) The S&T Committee is recommending a change to Handbook 44 that will make the temperature effect on zero li stringent for class III L scales. The NTEP requirements should then be changed to eliminate the technic inconsistency in the NTEP requirements. John Elengo has provided an analysis of the change and derived appropriate tolerance application for NTEP.

[Note: The S&T Committee modified its recommendation and the NCWM adopted a change to T.N.8.1.3. to m;j the performance requirement for class III L scales to be 3d/5 °C. This means class III L load cells now hav< tolerance of 2.1 times v^ for the temperature effect on MDLO. The tolerance multiplier for class III and III L 1< cells used in both single and multiple load cell applications is now 0.7 times the tolerance for load cells for temperature effect on minimum dead load output. A memorandum distributed with this meeting summary descri I how NTEP proposes to update Certificates of Conformance to reflect the change in the performance requireme

| The current version of Publication 14 contained a technical error which applied the concept of the cancellatio random errors twice; (1) a tolerance multiplier of 1.0 has been used in the type evaluation of the perform;

requirement for load cells regarding the temperature effect on MDLO, and (2) the relationship of v^ ^ e/ , used when load cells are installed in scales. Assuming the NCWM adopts the proposed change, the tolerj, multiplier will be changed back to 0.7. The relationship of v^ <. e/ </N will be maintained for when load cells , installed in scales. Combination Vehicle/Railway Track and Livestock/Vehicle Scales Based upon the v^ values stated for load cells with Certificates of Conformance, it is not possible for combin;

vehicle/railway track and livestock/vehicle scales to satisfy the relationship of v^ <. e/ v/N for the scale division v; normally used in these scales. The scale divisions for these combination scales are typically 20 lb/100 lb 5 lb/20 lb, respectively. If the change to the temperature effect on zero is adopted for class III L scales, it m£ i possible that load cell manufacturers may be able to provide load cells with v^ values that will permit these load I to meet the requirements for temperature effect on MDLO to satisfy the relationship of v^ <, e/ v'N.

Different vmip Values for Cells Used in the Same Scale A scale may have load cells with different v^ values installed. Load cells with different v^ values may be ins .111 in a scale as the result of the manufacturer design for the scale, repair or replacement of individual load cells, c hej selection of load cells from available stock. Manufacturers are permitted to manufacturer load cells with M

divisions and larger v^ values listed on the Certificates of Conformance. Consequently, load cells of the same f tfy) and capacity may have different values for v^.

160
Executive Committee

In the case of multiple cells of differing and nmav values, the mixing of v^ values is permitted provided the following rules are maintained:

a. v^ cannot be greater than the scale verification interval "e" divided by the square root of the number of

cells; and

i b. n^ cannot be less than the number of divisions of the scale.

IV. Agreement of test data from manufacturers' test facilities to NIST for the purpose of establishing the acceptability of the manufacturers' laboratory.

Several companies are interested in establishing the equivalence of performance characteristics of load cells for test data obtained at their laboratory facilities and NIST facilities. The original NTEP plan for load cell testing was to permit load cell manufacturers to obtain full Certificates of Conformance based upon test data obtained using their own test equipment. This plan is still viable, but the criteria to determine what level of agreement constitutes acceptable agreement has not yet been established. Ken Yee presented slides showing comparisons between manufacturer's test data and NIST data. In some cases, comparisons were fairly close, in others differences in curve shape and thermal results were evident. There was no

correlation between type of equipment (dead weight, lever, hydraulic/transfer cell) and results.

: Further discussion indicated that one problem is the ratio of uncertainty to tolerance. Whereas it may be nice to have

ip an uncertainty that is one tenth of tolerance, it cannot always be realized. The tolerances have been set so closely, for example at the lower steps of Class III L, that the uncertainty has become a large portion of the tolerance. A suggestion was made to overlay the uncertainty of NIST with that of the manufacturer and accept results which fall

i' within these limits, even if marginally out of tolerance. Another suggestion was that manufacturers adopt stricter tolerances internally such that the effect of uncertainty at NIST would still result in performance within tolerance

M limits.

']]

i More experience is required. However, the parties are working to resolve differences and progress is being made.

taj V. Define adjacent to the display for capacity by division statements NTEP was requested to reexamine what constitutes "adjacent to the display" for the capacity by division statement. M Device manufacturers and NTEP laboratory staff often disagree on the acceptability of particular markings. Some

manufacturers have placed this information further from the display than the NTEP laboratories find acceptable, but

- 1 the manufacturers believe the placement is appropriate. Another consideration has been the size of the lettering and

lack of color contrast of the values with the background of the marking.

I The committee was unable to be more definitive and maintained its opinion that the NTEP Laboratory's judgement

| remains the best solution. In cases of extreme disagreement, the appeal process (to the Board of Governors) is the avenue to resolve. ml

VI. Permanence of identification badges

A. Letter from Toledo Scale

B. Criteria used in Canada

Weights and measures officials in attendance indicated that the durability of labels is a problem in the field,

| particularly as a result of routine cleaning of equipment by users. Canada has produced a draft test method which

J addresses three aspects of the label; (1) permanently attached, (2) suitability to be stamped with a die, and (3) permanence of the information on the label. The criteria were reviewed and discussed. Because Canada has a

- requirement to stamp equipment after inspection and the United States does not have a similar requirement, it was

suggested that different requirements for the identification badges may be necessary. Canada does not accept the vinyl

161
Executive Committee

badges because they do not meet their stamping criteria, but a number U.S. manufacturers do not want to use metal badges because of the expense. Although the premise of the identification badge is that the permanence is not needed

to counteract fraud, but only to maintain the information under normal wear and tear, it was reported that serial numbers are still being changed in devices installed in the field.

It was suggested that different requirements may be necessary for the United States and Canada since the marking

requirements are different and the information is used differently. Since devices are used in different types of environments, it was suggested that two different types of permanence criteria may be needed depending on whether

the device is used in a "business office" or an industrial environment. The final position suggested that one standard should be established for all environments.

It was decided that NIST prepare a draft for review incorporating a test based on applying commonly available cleaning materials (detergent, window cleaners, cleanser, etc.). Permanence means durable and difficult to remove. VII. Scale features and parameters to be sealed under the revised G-S.8. and S.l.ll. Audit Trail The Committee reviewed a document prepared by the Legal Metrology Branch (Canada) regarding audit trails. The

key concepts contained therein are A. access to metrologically related adjustments or features must be through a password unique for this purpose;

B. the information shall be stored in non-volatile memory so the trail is protected from unauthorized erasure,

substitution, or modification

C. the audit trail's event counter and storage area (recording medium) to record the changes in adjustments

or parameters (time and date recommended but not mandatory) shall have sufficient capacity to record information for at least 1000 events; D. the event counter shall not increment if no changes were made when in the "calibration" mode of the device;

E. an event counter is required in all audit trails, but in some cases only the event counter will be required perhaps on some relatively simple devices with limited memory or devices that do not include downloading

capability or access to software by external means (e.g.,floppy disk);

F. means shall be provided for the weights and measures official (and service technician) to easily access an

read the audit trail information without going into the "calibration" mode (i.e., the audit trail informatio

shall be accessible through a "read only" mode);

G. access to the "read only" mode shall not require dismantling or removal of any part of the instrumen

without requiring the use of a tool separate from the device, and without modification to the instrumer

or its ability to resume normal operations before or after accessing the audit trail information; and

standardized methods of accessing and scrolling through the audit trail information is recommended fc similar types of devices. The following points were made during the discussion of this item.

1. The requirements being clarified for audit trails are nonretroactive.

2. The lead and wire seal is still an acceptable method of sealing for those devices identified in E above.

3. Sealing does not prevent access to the "calibration" mode, rather it detects when it has been accessed. h

162
Executive Committee

matures to be Sealed 1ST prepared a list of guidelines as to when provision for sealing is required as well as a specific list of features to

: sealed. While a consensus was achieved relative to the guidelines, there remained differences of opinion on the

j >ecific listing of features. It was agreed that some listed went beyond what most considered as affecting metrological

i tegrity.

le guidelines for provision for sealing are listed below. The need to seal some features depends upon:

a. the ease with which the feature or the selection of the feature can be used to facilitate fraud; and

b. the likelihood that the use of the feature will result in fraud not being detected.

Features or functions which are routinely used by the operator as part of device operation, such as setting the unit

prices on gasoline dispensers and maintaining unit prices in price look-up codes stored in memory do not have to be sealed.

If a parameter (or set of parameters) selection would result in performance that would be obviously in error, such

as the selection of parameters for different countries, then it is not necessary to seal the selection of these features.

i si If the selection of individual device characteristics are selectable from a "menu" or a series of programming steps, then access to the "programming mode" must be sealable.

If a device must undergo a physical act, such as cutting a wire and physically repairing the cut to reactivate the parameter, then this physical repair process would be considered an acceptable way to select parameters without

requiring a physical seal or an audit trail. 4

omments on the specific features to be sealed are listed below. The position of the decimal point does not have to be sealed because the number of divisions,n, for a device is the

critical parameter. If n is controlled, then controlling the decimal point and division value are not sufficiently important to require that they be sealed. On the other hand, it was argued that many of these parameters are set

at the time of device installation and there is no reason to change them. It was argued on this basis that these are

- metrological characteristics that should be sealed.

It was suggested and there was significant support that the following features should not be sealed. Number of samples averaged for weight readings Averaging time for the weight indications Display update rate Selection of measurement units if through an internal switch

ail Some features are appropriate for some applicationsbut not others. Features that may not be appropriate for all applications in which the device may be used should have provision for sealing.

ven that agreement exists on the above guidelines and taking into consideration the above comments on specific

itures, NIST will prepare a new listing for future review by the Committee.

II. Modular vehicle scale parameters

e design of some vehicle scales using load cells are such that modules of the same design are joined together to

tain scales of the desired length. Examples of different designs of modular scales were reviewed. The design of

ise scales are essentially the same regardless of the length of the scales. Since NTEP most frequently tests scales 60 feet or 70 feet in length and the NTEP policy states that only scales of 50 to 150 percent of platform area will covered based upon the test of a single scale, this often leaves the short scales consisting of 1 or 2 modules off the

163
Executive Committee

Certificate of Conformance, although the short scales consist of the same type of module that was evaluated in tl longer scale. There was support to extend the range on the low end of the platform areas to include the short scales of the san

design, but there was resistance to expanding the upper limit without additional NTEP testing. There was reluctan

to allow the capacity of a scale to increase above the 135 percent of the tested scale as stated in existing NTEP polk however, it was concluded that if the concentrated load capacity (CLC) of the scale is controlled, then the capaci of the scale may increase to the limit allowed by the n,^ and v^ values of the load cells and the relationshipbetwe< the CLC, the number of sections in the scale, and the nominal scale capacity.

It was concluded that a wider range of platform areas may be covered on a Certificate of Conformance for modul

load-cell vehicle scales. The following criteria must be satisfied in the scale design and the scale to be tested.

1. Load cells of the same design and capacity must be used throughout the family.

2. The CLC in the family must be not less than 40% of the sum of the capacity of two load cells or 80% of

capacity of one cell.

3. A scale with at least two modules must be tested. The module with the largest CLC is to be tested. Strive to t the module with the longest distance between two sections. If the longest span between sections is not tested, Certificate of Conformance will include up to 120 percent of the span between sections that was test. Arrangements regarding the specific scale in the family to be tested will be established in consultationwith NTrepresentatives. The following range of parameters will be used to establish the sizes of modular load-cell vehicle scales that will covered on a Certificate of Conformance based upon the test of a single scale.

1. Capacities from 1.5 times CLC to 135% of capacity of the device evaluated.

2. Platform area not less than 50% of smallest two section (four cell) module incorporated in the device evalm

to 150 percent of the scale evaluated.

3. CLCs complying with the minimum (not less than 40% of the sum of the capacity of two load cells or 80% of capacity of one cell) to 5 tons above device evaluated, but not exceeding twice the capacity of one load cell.

4. Module spans up to 120 percent of largest two-section, four load-cell module will be included.

5. Nominal capacity equal to or less than CLC times the quantity equal to the number of sections less one hall

6. Platform construction and material similar to that of the device evaluated.

7. Scale division values equal to or greater than the value of the scale division used in the scale that was evalu IX. Devices requiring model numbers and serial numbers

A Guidelines developed by OWM

B. Application to keyboards and printers in POS systems Due to the lack of time, this item was not discussed. X. Scale checklist criteria A Key sequence on computing scales and POS systems On some point-of-sale systems, entering an incorrect key sequence for multiple items sales resulted in an erroi transaction without giving an indication of an error in the entry. Specifically, one system switched the unit pric

164
Executive Committee

e count if the number key (#) was not pressed before the "For" key. The Committee agreed to add a requirement

r both POS systems and computing scales with the multiple item entry feature to require the numeric entry in ultiple item transactions before the "For" key is hit. Example: PLU, 3, For, print means 3 for $.50 where the $.50 c me from the PLU. Incorrect: PLU, For, print gave 50 at $.50 for a total of $25.

II

! B. Tare override

3 n NTEP laboratory encountered a system where the PLU performed a tare override without the process being

ivious. The Committee agreed to clarify the checklist to state that a computingscale or POS system cannot override manually input tare without providing an obvious indication of the action. Currently this is covered by the

J -quirement that the tare cannot be replaced without an obvious indication. This clarification will be added to the

are" section of the scale checklist. »me considerations on this issue are:

1 A computing scale shall not override a keyboard tare entry unless there is a separate display of the tare. If the tare

is set to zero, there must be a clear indication that tare has been removed. If a smaller preprogrammed tare replaces a larger manually entered tare and there is no tare display, the scale will still indicate that it is in the net mode, so fraud may be perpetrated.

c Preprogrammed tare stored with a PLU is not required to be displayed before the item is weighed, but the

m! preprogrammed tare cannot replace a manually entered tare without an obvious indication. A scale may give an

error signal and permit a preprogrammed tare entry to proceed only if the tare value in the transaction memory

register is set to zero prior to the entry of the PLU.

C. Computers incorporated into weighing systems

A Features and operations to be checked during type evaluation

B. Features and operations that can be adequately checked during field enforcement inspections

C. Features to be sealed D. Checklist criteria

•llowing consideration by the Board of Governors, NIST was requested to coordinate work on this issue with

nada. This coordination is in progress. Agreement has been reached that it is not necessary to conduct type

aluations on all aspects of computers used as part of a weighing or measuring device, provided the metrological

aracteristics can be adequately controlled through field enforcement. If a computer is submitted as part of a

ighing device, its metrological functions will be evaluated as part of the evaluation of the complete system.

; msequently, OWM is considering extracting criteria from type evaluation checklists to be incorporated into amination Procedure Outlines so that not all devices need be submitted for type evaluation.

a first step to that goal the committee reviewed certain specific proposed additions to the checklists to be applied

nerally to weighing systems. For example:

to facilitate inspections by W&M officials, the system must have adequate means for test and inspection purposes

without interfering with inventory and accounting records; and

the name of the "manufacturer" and the model designation of software must be displayed on demand in some

manner so the software can be compared to a listing of software that has been evaluated through NTEP.

me precluded completing this work, hence it is being carried over.

II. Computer checklist criteria

e Item XI. A*

165
Executive Committee

XIII. Bulk-weighing systems checklist FGIS, a NTEP Participating Laboratory, completed a bulk weighing checklist containing the type evaluation criteri currently being applied to the type evaluation of automatic bulk-weighing systems. To facilitate review by th committee, Dennis Mahoney explained the highlights. The checklist will be sent to committee members along wit a mail ballot. The results will then be tabulated so that the committee can concentrate on only those points whei agreement has not been reached. Next Meeting

The next meeting of the Weighing Sector is scheduled for November 7-8, 1990. National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Meeting

Weighing Sector NTEP Meeting June 26 - 27, 1990

Participants Michael Adams Fairbanks Scales Ross Andersen New York Weights and Measures

Joseph Antkowiak HBM, Inc. Robert Badenhop Ohio Weights and Measures Manny Bera Artech

Raj Bera Artech Claude Bertrand Canada Legal Metrology Branch

Carroll Brickenkamp NIST

Tina Butcher NIST

Sidney Colbrook Illinois Weights and Measures

Carl Conrad New Jersey Weights and Measures

Steve Cook California Weights and Measures

Constantine Cotsoradis Maryland Weights and Measures John Elengo Revere Transducers, Inc. Sy Feinland Pitney Bowes

Kevin Fruechte Weigh-Tronix

Thomas Geiler Town of Barnstable (MA) Weights and Measures

Fred Gerk New Mexico Weights and Measures

Joe Giannina Port of Corpus Christi, TX

William Goodpaster Cardinal/Detecto

Khalil Haker BLH Electronics

Bill Hess Sensortronics Rainer Holmberg Eaton Corp./Consolidated Controls Wm. Terry James Cardinal/Detecto Ted Johnson Sensortronics John Lacy USDA Packers and Stockyards Administration Tom Leahy Rice Lake Weighing Systems Tom Luna Scales Unlimited, Inc. Dennis J. Mahoney, Sr USDA Federal Grain Inspection Service John MacDonald Howe Richardson Robert McCarty NCR Corporation

Nigel Mills Toledo Scale

166
Executive Committee

Karl Newell NIST

Henry Oppermann NIST

Peter Perino Revere Transducers, Inc. John Reimer Weigh-Tronix

Bob Reinfried Scale Manufacturers Association Ken Simila Oregon Weights and Measures

N. David Smith North Carolina Weights and Measures Don Stagg Alabama Weights and Measures

Daryl Tonini Scale Manufacturers Association Michael Tovey Interface, Inc. James Truex Ohio Weights and Measures OttoWarnlof NIST/OIML

SimoneYaniv NIST KenYee NIST

167
Executive Committee

Appendix J - OIML Certification Plan

An OIML Initiative for International Voluntary Certificates of Pattern Approval

Samuel E. Chappell (NIST) and Henry E. Sostmann (Consultant)

Abstract r OIML

Organization

Conference - Pilot and Reporting Secretariats CIML - BIML

Objectives

Harmonize national regulations for performance requirements for legal measuring

instruments

Facilitate international commerce of measuring instruments as well as affected products Ensure quality measurements for public health and safety and protection of the environment

10 The International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) has developed a proposal for an "OIML Certificat< System for Measuring Instruments." This proposal is expected to be adopted by the organizational a meeting of it International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) in October 1990. [A copy of this proposal is attached to thi appendix.] The System will be maintained through voluntary participation by OIML member nations that establish and follow impartial procedures for acceptance, review, and approval of applications from manufacturers, or their representative

for a Certificate of conformance of a pattern, or type, of instrument covered. The Certificate provided would attest conformance of a pattern to performance requirements of relevant OI

Recommendations. A participatingOIML member nation will administer its participationthrough its CIML membc

and an Issuing Authority or Authorities with assistance of nationally recognized testing laboratories. Certificates an

test reports will be issued to manufacturers who apply for a pattern that conforms to requirements. The Internation Bureau of Legal Metrology (BIML) will register each Certificate and will maintain and publish a current list n

Certificates issued within categories of instruments covered by the System. CIML, which is composed of

representative of each member nation, will implement and supervise the System overall. A means for appeal

168
Executive Committee

decisions within the System will be provided by each participating member nation according to its national laws and

regulations. CIML may assist, if requested, in interpreting requirements of OIML Recommendations.

In those nations that require pattern approval of some categories of measuring instruments prior to being placed in

service, this System is expected to benefit manufacturers by saving time and expense in achieving national pattern

approval, or type, approval of affected instruments and to benefit the various legal authorities by saving the time and

expense associated with the required testing of instruments for pattern approval. The establishment of this System

Is in accordance with the objectives of OIML in harmonizing and facilitating metrological control of measuring

.nstruments internationally. Furthermore, this process provides equity in international trade of products and services and ensures quality of measurements for achieving and maintaining public health and safety and for protecting the environment. Scope - OIML CERTIFICATE SYSTEM

Voluntary

Issuing authority Manufacturer, importer, distributor

Nationally recognized testing laboratories

Test report according to OIML format

Registration and published list by BIML

Certificate used by owner

Application for pattern approval

Presentation for initial verification

M

Hie OIML Certificate System provides a means of attesting the conformity of the pattern of an instrument, as

i represented by samples, to the requirements of relevant OIML Recommendations. A list of categories of instruments

x)vered by the System with reference to relevant Recommendations is maintained by the International Bureau of

-egal Metrology (BIML). The relevant Recommendations shall specify (a.) the metrological and technical

v requirements of the instruments covered, (b.) a specific overall test, and (c.) the format of a test report. Existing

: Recommendations cover instruments for measurements for mass, volume, liquid and gas flow, pressure, temperature,

ilectricity, acoustics, optics, pollution,ionizing radiation, mechanical testing, medical applications,and packaging. The

categories of instruments and, hence, Recommendations to be included in the System will be determined by the

international Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML).

l

, An OIML member nation participates in the System on a voluntary basis. If it chooses to participate, the member

r nation establishes only one Issuing Authority for each category of instrument covered. A nation's member of the

i International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML member) may be the Issuing Authority or one of the Issuing

Authorities. Implementationof the System within a member nation shall include operations, supervision,and controls

jlj as well as an appeals process consistent with national laws and regulations.

169
Executive Committee

OIML CERTIFICATE SYSTEM

RESPONSIBILITIES MEMBER NATION

CIML member

Issuing authority

Testing laboratory Test report

Certificate Appeals process Consider other Certificates and test reports to meet

national requirements

MANUFACTURER

Application Submit samples

Testing fee Registration fee May appeal decisions Submit Certificate and test report to meet national requirements

Application - A manufacturer, or its representative, may apply to any participatingOIML member for a Certificate. The applicatioi

shall include an identification of the manufacturer and a complete description of the instrument and its principles ol operation. Applicable test results of the manufacturer or of a third party testing laboratory may be submitted i support of the claim that the instrument meets the requirements of relevant Recommendations. After reviewing th< application, the CIML member, if not the Issuing Authority, shall refer the application to the appropriate Issuinj Authority. The Issuing Authority shall inform the applicant in writing of the decision to accept or refuse ai application. An explanation giving reasons for refusal are required. If accepted, the applicant shall be informed o

the number of samples to be submitted; the fees for testing the samples, issuing a Certificate, and registering

Certificate; and the approximate time necessary to complete testing and to prepare a test report. The requirement

for review and approval of an application may be abbreviated on the basis of prior experience and knowledge of th pattern and information provided by the applicant.

r

Testing - The tests of conformity of the samples of the pattern provided shall be performed by a laboratory designated by th jj Issuing Authority. The testing laboratory should have been selected according to its ability to meet requirements c international guidelines for testing, in particular, ISO/IEC Guide 25 on "General requirements for the technic !i competence of testing laboratories" and ISO/IEC Guide 38 on "General requirements for acceptance of testir laboratories." The methods of testing shall be compatible with those described in the relevant OIM

Recommendations. The testing requirements may be abbreviated on the basis of experience and prior knowledge c the pattern.

After tests are completed, a summary test report shall be prepared according to the format prescribed in the relevai Recommendations. It shall identify the manufacturer and pattern tested and generally describe the conditions an - results of tests. The test report shall be in either French or English (preferably both) and dated, each page number©

and provided a unique identification number. In those cases when the samples do not meet the testing requirement

the applicant shall be informed in writing about the reasons for failure . It is expected, however, that in most cas<ij

»

of failure a manufacturer may resubmit an application and samples whose testing will mainly be restricted to tho: j requirements not previously met. a ^

170
Executive Committee

pproval - a pattern of a measuring instrument is found to conform to all requirements of relevant Recommendations, a

ertificate and its associated test report shall be issued to the applicant who becomes their owner. A prescribed rmat shall be followed that includes a unique number. Uniform pre-printed Certificate Forms will be available for

te from BIML. The Certificate shall be in either French and English and signed by the CIML member or Issuing

uthority or both. The criteria for approval may be abbreviated depending on the circumstances regarding the status relevant Recommendations.

egistration • ae CIML member shall send a copy of the issued Certificate to BIML for registration. After review to determine

at all necessary information has been provided, BIML shall notify the owner of the Certificate of its registration, addition, BIML shall maintain and publish periodically a list of currently registered Certificates.

se of a Certificate - Certificate and its associated test report may be used by its owner as follows: (a.) in support for application for

tttern approval in any country or regional association of countries, (b.) in support of the presentation of an individual strument for initial verification in a country in which pattern approval is not required, and (c.) to inform potential

iiyers and users of the instrument through catalogues and other marketing literature. An individual instrument,

•wever, may not indicate approval or any other reference to OIML.

^sponsible legal authorities are encouraged to take into consideration in the process of evaluating an instrument for

ttern approval the Certificate and its associated test report when submitted by a manufacturer with an application 1 d samples. w

: ipervision - I OIML CERTIFICATE SYSTEM

RESPONSIBILITIES

I BIML CIML

Administers System Supervises System

Lists instrument categories Establishes instrument categories and relevant Recommendations I

Registers Certificates Approves relevant Recommendations

Maintains and publishes list of Reviews and revises System

approved Certificates periodically

Assists in appeals, if requested

r,

e CIML shall monitor the implementation of the System and adopt changes or amendments that might be necessary improve its operation and effectiveness. BIML and CIML may be called upon by a CIML member in a

rticipating nation to assist in resolving technical issues, involving mainly interpreting relevant Recommendations,

iociated with an appeals process.

171
Executive Committee

CIML will have in place a means to investigate for delisting a registered Certificate if it is misused by its owne When relevant Recommendations are revised, CIML will interpret what an owner of a Certificate attesting conformiu

to the previous Recommendation needs to do in order to get a Certificate attesting conformity to the revise Recommendation. BIML will maintain a current list of participating member nations and their Issuing Authorities. Member nations w

promptly inform BIML of any change in their status of participation or of a desire to participate in the System. Conclusions - The objective of the System is to harmonize and improve the effectiveness and efficiency of the metrological conti of measuring instruments by responsible authorities among member nations. The System already has provisions reduce the steps required to be taken during the application for and the testing and issuing of a Certificate based up

experience with previous patterns and testing information provided by a manufacturer that submits an applicatic With time and experience, the System should improve in effectiveness and efficiency as Issuing Authorities and testi laboratories in participating member nations gain confidence among themselves for mutual recognition of tj| credibility of Certificates and their associated test reports. It is expected that Certificates may also benefit users measuring instruments in areas of application not subject to legal metrological controls in various nations.

172
Executive Committee ORGANISATION INTERNATIONALE

This document was approved by the International Committee of Legal Metrology at

its twenty-fifth meeting in October 1990. The OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments was launched on 1991.01.01

for categories of instruments covered by International Recommandations that satisfy the

provisions of subclause 1 .2 of this document. Its field of application will be extended to other categories of instruments as and when the International Committee of Legal

Metrology approves, for those categories, new or revised Recommendations satisfying those provisions.

Work on the OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments started in 1987 on the

initiative of the International Committee of Legal Metrology; it was the subject of a

resolution of the Eighth International Conference of Legal Metrology in 1988, on the

basis of which the Committee continued its work to culminate with its decision of 1990. In this work the greatest importance has been attached to the international activities in certification of ISO, IEC and ILAC, as well as to the general principles laid down by

GATT.

If necessary the rules laid down in this document will be extended or adapted in accordance with future decisions of the Committee; besides which the International Bureau of Legal Metrology has been instructed by the Committee to produce one or

several final model certificates, and to assist Member States in solving the problems that may arise in the implementation of the System.

DE M ETROLOG I E LEGALE

Bureau International de Metrologie Legale

OIML CERTIFICATE SYSTEM

FOR MEASURING INSTRUMENTS

EXPLANATORY NOTE

First edition 1991.01.01

11. Rue Turgot - 75009 PARIS - FRANCE

Telephone : 33 (1 ) 48 78 1 2 82 et 42 85 27 1

1

Telex : SASVP 215463 F ATTN OIML

Telecopie : 33 (1) 42 82 17 27

173
Executive Committee OIML CERTIFICATE SYSTEM

FOR MEASURING INSTRUMENTS

0. Introduction

The OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments (hereafter in brief: "OIML

Certificate System" or "System") is a system for the issue, registration, and use, on a

voluntary basis, of certificates of conformity of patterns(*) of measuring instruments

with Recommendations of the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML). It aims to facilitate, accelerate, and harmonize the work of the national or regional bodies

that approve patterns of measuring instruments that are subject to state control in OIML

Member States or groups of Member States. In the same way, instrument

manufacturers, who are required to obtain pattern approval in some countries in which

they wish to sell their products, should benefit from the OIML Certificate System if their instruments comply with the requirements of the relevant OIML Recommendations. The

OIML Certificate System also aims to facilitate initial verification of measuring

instruments in countries where pattern approval is not required, and may help to promote the manufacture, marketing and use of measuring instruments that comply

with OIML requirements, for applications that are not subject to legal control. General rules for the certification of products, processes, and services have been laid down by recognized international organizations (see bibliography). The OIML

Certificate System follows these general rules and applies them to patterns of measuring

instruments. Those who implement and those who participate in the System shall make

sure that the international guidelines on certification and testing are observed.

1. Scope

1.1. An OIML certificate of conformity of a pattern of a measuring instrument attests the conformity of that pattern, as represented by the sample(s) submitted and tested, with the requirements of the relevant OIML Recommendation(s).

1.2. An OIML certificate of conformity may be issued only for the categories of measuring instruments for which the relevant existing OIML Recommendation(s)

specifies(y): a) the metrological and technical requirements applicable to the instru- ments concerned, b) a test method, and c) the format of the test report. A list of the categories of measuring instruments concerned, with references to the 1 relevant OIML Recommendations, is maintained by the International Bureau of Legal

Metrology (BIML) under the supervision of the International Committee of Legal

Metrology (CIML).

1.3. An OIML certificate of conformity is issued by an issuing authority of an OIML

Member State. In a given OIML Member State there may be one or several issuing

(*) The term "pattern" is most often used in legal metrology whereas the term "type" is now commonl;

used in other fields of certification; in this document, the term "pattern" is maintained with the same meanin;

as "type". 174
Executive Committee

authorities; however, for each category of measuring instrument there shall be only one issuing authority. The CIML member of a given Member State may be the issuing

authority or one of the issuing authorities in that State.

1.4. OIML Member States that choose to implement the OIML Certificate System shall ensure that procedures for the operation, supervision, and control of the System,

including appeals, are established and are consistent with national laws.

2. Abbreviations and terminology

The following abbreviations and definitions apply:

OIML means International Organization of Legal Metrology

CIML " International Committee of Legal Metrology

BIML " International Bureau of Legal Metrology

Member State " an OIML Member State Recommendation " an OIML International Recommendation

System " OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments

Certificate 11 OIML certificate of conformity

2.1. Conformity

The fulfilment by a pattern of a measuring instrument of all metrological and technical requirements specified in the relevant Recommendation(s).

2.2. OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments The system for the issue, registration, and use, on a voluntary basis, of certificates of conformity of patterns of measuring instruments with the relevant Recommendation(s).

2.3. OIML certificate of conformity A document, issued under the rules of the System by an issuing authority, indicating

that adequate confidence has been provided through testing that a duly identified pattern of a measuring instrument, represented by identified samples submitted to

test, is in conformity with the relevant Recommendation(s).

2.4. Test report A report that summarizes, as appropriate, the various test results obtained for an

identified pattern, and that is prepared according to the format provided in the rele- vant Recommendation(s).

2.5. Issuing authority A body or a person, in a Member State, that issues OIML certificates of conformity

for all or for certain categories of measuring instruments.

Notes: 1) A CIML member may be an issuing authority.

2) A list of all the issuing authorities in the various OIML Member States is maintained by BIML and is permanently available to Member States and

other interested parties on request.

175
Executive Committee 3. Issue of certificates

3.1. Application

3.1.1. The manufacturer, his representative or the importer of a pattern of measuring

instrument may apply to any CIML member for a certificate. The application shall include: - the name and address of the manufacturer and, if appropriate, of his representative or importer, - a statement that no concurrent application for a certificate for the pattern has been

made by the applicant to any other CIML member,

- a description of the pattern, sufficiently detailed to identify the pattern as distinct from other patterns, and any information related to testing, - a description of the instrument's operation, including the manufacturer's operating

instructions, - if applicable, results of previous pattern-evaluation tests (see 3.3.3). The applicant may also submit his own test results, or those of a third-party testing

laboratory, in support of the claim that the instrument meets the requirements of the

relevant Recommendation(s).

3.1.2. The CIML member shall refer the application to the appropriate issuing authority

in his country or shall consider it directly on his own authority, and shall inform the applicant accordingly. The applicant shall be informed that his application cannot be

processed if: - the pattern of the instrument does not belong to one of the categories within the System (see 1.2), - an issuing authority does not exist in the Member State for the category of instru- ment concerned; in this case the CIML member may refer the applicant to another CIML member, without obligating the latter thereby.

3.2. Consideration of the application

3.2.1. The issuing authority receiving the application shall review it and may ask the applicant for additional information and documents prior to further processing the

application.

3.2.2. The issuing authority shall refuse the application if: - the pattern does not correspond to the category of instrument covered in the rele- vant Recommendation(s),

- the information required for the application is incomplete.

The application may be refused for other, clearly identified reasons.

3.2.3. The issuing authority shall inform the applicant (and, if applicable, the CIML

member) in writing of its decision concerning the acceptance or refusal of an application. If the application is refused the reason shall be given. 176
Executive Committee

3.2.4. If the application is accepted the issuing authority shall inform the applicant of

the number of samples of the pattern that are required for testing. This number is usually specified in the relevant Recommendation(s) but, if not, it shall be mutually

agreed between the issuing authority and the applicant. In certain cases the issuing

authority may be satisfied with the results of previous pattern evaluation tests (see

3.3.3) and therefore new samples of the pattern may not be necessary; however, the

issuing authority shall obtain evidence that pattern for which a certificate is requested

is identical to the previously-evaluated pattern. The issuing authority shall provide the applicant with an estimate that is as accurate as possible of the fees for testing and for issuing the certificate, and the exact amount of the fee for registration; the amounts of the fees for testing and issuing shall be decided according to national practice; fees for registration shall be decided bv the CIML.

The issuing authority shall inform the applicant in writing of the approximate time

necessary to complete all testing and prepare a test report.

3.3. Test of conformity

3.3.1. The tests of conformity shall be performed in the laboratory(ies) designated by the issuing authority that accepted the application. In the choice of this (these)

laboratory(ies) the issuing authority shall observe the principles established in

international guidelines on testing, in particular in ISO/IEC Guides 25 and 38 "General requirements for the competence of calibration and testing laboratories", "General requirements for the acceptance of testing laboratories" respectively.

3.3.2. The methods of test shall be compatible with those described in the relevant Recommandation(s).

3.3.3. The tests of conformity may be abbreviated or omitted if the issuing authority

considers that the conclusions necessary for issuing the certificate may be drawn from

previous pattern evaluation tests, provided that they were carried out according to the requirements of 3.3.1 and 3.3.2 above. Where applicable, relevant test results of a manufacturer or of a third-party testing laboratory may be considered.

3.3.4. A test report summarizing, as appropriate, the various test results obtained for the

pattern shall be prepared in the format provided in the relevant Recommendation(s).

The test report shall include at least the following: - the name and address of the laboratory(ies) that performed the tests, with a statement of compliance with the guidelines mentioned in 3.3.1, e.g. details of any

accreditation, - reference (number and year of edition) to relevant Recommendation(s),

- identification of the pattern of instrument (e.g. designation, description, external and internal photographs, marking, inscriptions, specifications, electronic circuitry

and parts list, etc. including, if applicable, the accuracy class), - identification of the samples tested, - the name and address of the manufacturer,

177
Executive Committee

- the name and address of the applicant for the certificate, - the date (period) of the tests, - the place of testing, - the specific conditions of the tests, if applicable, - the test results, - a conclusion as to whether the samples meet all the requirements of the relevant Recommendation(s).

The test report shall be dated, signed, and provided with a unique identification number by the responsible person(s) of the laboratory(ies) or of the issuing authority.

The test report shall be in French or English (preferably both). Note: In some cases translation of the test report into an additional language other than French or English may assist in national or regional implementation and

interpretation of the System.

3.3.5. The issuing authority shall keep on file the information provided with the application and a copy of the test report (see also 3.4.5). In addition, by agreement with the

applicant, the tested samples may be kept by the issuing authority or by the testing

laboratory(ies), or by the applicant, the decision taking into account the size and the commercial value of those samples.

3.3.6. If it is concluded that the samples meet all the requirements of the Recommendation^), a certificate shall be issued in accordance with 3.4.

If not, the applicant shall be informed in writing of the reason for failure, and the

test report may be given to the applicant, if requested. The applicant may submit a new application with samples of a modified and newly-identified pattern. New tests shall be conducted but may be limited to those requirements for which the previous

pattern was found not to comply, provided that evidence supports the conclusion that the instrument's performance according to all other requirements is not likely to have been affected by the modification of the pattern.

3.3.7. The fees for testing shall be collected in accordance with national practice.

3.4. OIML certificate of conformity

If the pattern of a measuring instrument is found to conform to all the requirements

of the relevant Recommendation(s), a certificate shall be issued at the conclusion of

the tests.

3.4.1. The certificate shall be prepared according to the model given in Annex 1, or pre- ferably by completing a pre-printed certificate form available from BIML. It shall be signed by the issuing authority or the CIML member or both.

3.4.2. The certificate shall be in French or English (preferably both).

3.4.3. The certificate shall bear a unique reference number indicating: - the relevant Recommendation(s),

- the name of the Member State in which the certificate was issued, - the year of issue, - a serial number.

This reference number shall be established according to the form specified ii Annex 2.

178
Executive Committee

3.4.4. The certificate shall also include a mention of the identification number of the associated test report.

3.4.5. The certificate and the associated test report shall be given to the applicant, who

then becomes their owner. The CIML member and the issuing authority shall keep a

copy.

3.4.6. The fees for issuing the certificate shall be collected in accordance with national

practice.

Registration of a certificate

4.1. The CIML member shall send a copy of each certificate issued in his country to BIML for registration. BIML shall check the certificate to ensure that all the required information is correctly provided.

4.2. BIML shall send the owner of the certificate an invoice for the registration fee. A

certificate shall be registered only after the fee has been collected.

4.3. Periodically BIML shall inform the Member States and any other interested parties of the registration of certificates, through appropriate publications, and shall maintain

lists of registered certificates, permanently available to CIML members on request(*).

Use of a certificate

5.1. A registered certificate and the associated test report may be used by its owner:

- in support of an application for pattern approval in any country or group of countries; it is the responsibility of the applicant to give evidence upon request that the pattern presented for approval is identical to the pattern identified by the certificate; Note: The legal metrology service (or other responsible body) to which an

application for pattern approval is made should take into consideration the

certificate and the associated test report to the extent that is possible; the attention of the legal metrology services of Member States is especially

drawn to the advantages that may accrue from the recognition of certificates and the acceptance of the reported test results to facilitate, accelerate and

harmonize the processes of national or regional pattern approval. - in support of the presentation of an individual instrument for initial verification in a country where pattern approval is not required; it is the responsibility of the appli- cant to give evidence upon request that the instrument presented for verification is of the pattern that is identified in the certificate;

(*) In addition to the reference number refered to in 3.4.3, BIML may apply a special number to each

registered certificate to facilitate the maintenance and use of its lists of registered certificates.

179
Executive Committee

- to inform buyers, users and other interested parties that the pattern of measuring

instrument (represented by the tested samples) was found to conform to the requi- rements of relevant Recommendation(s). Such evidence of conformity (and the name of the OIML Member State in which the certificate was issued) may be refer- red to or included (however, see 5.2) in e.g. manufacturer's catalogues and other marketing literature but shall not be used as a proof of conformity of an individual instrument to the requirements of relevant Recommendation(s). In particular nei- ther a certificate's reference number nor any other reference to OIML shall be

affixed to an individual instrument.

5.2. Apart from the mention of the certificate's reference number with the name of the OIML Member State in which the certificate was issued (see 5.1), partial quotation of

the certificate or of the associated test report is not permitted, but they may be repro- duced in full.

6. Supervision and control

6.1. General The CIML shall supervise the implementation of the general rules, their adaptation

to changing needs, and the formulation of additional rules that may be necessary for the effective operation of the System.

6.2. Appeal

Each issuing authority shall have procedures for accepting, considering, and resol- ving appeals against its decisions. A CIML member may act as a technical advisor and may request assistance from

BIML, the responsible OIML working group(s), or CIML in resolving technical issues associated with appeals and disputes of decisions of an issuing authority in his country.

6.3. Role of a CIML member

In addition to the various tasks described above, a CIML member shall promptly: - inform BIML about the establishment or change of an issuing authority in his country, - provide the issuing authority(ies) in his country with current information concerning the operation of the System.

6.4 Misuse of a certificate by its owner When documented and substantiated evidence is presented to BIML that the owner

has used a certificate in a manner that does not conform to the requirements of clause

5, BIML shall, after consultation with the CIML member of the Member State in which the certificate was issued, inform the Member States and other interested

parties accordingly. In addition BIML shall directly inform the owner that continued misuse of the certificate will initiate corrective actions by CIML that could result in the

delisting of the certificate by BIML.

180
Executive Committee

.5. Certificate issued on the basis of wrong conclusions When documented and substantiated evidence is presented to BIML that the tests providing the basis for issuing a certificate were performed or interpreted incorrectly, BIML shall, after consultation with the CIML member of the Member State in which

the certificate was issued, delist the certificate and inform its owner, the Member

States and other interested parties accordingly. In such cases the conditions under

which the fees for the tests and for the issue of the certificate are reimbursed shall be determined by an agreement between the issuing authority or the CIML member of

the Member State involved, and the owner.

.6. Revision of Recommendations

After revision of the relevant Recommendation(s) for a given category of measuring

instrument for which certificates may be issued, the responsible OIML working

group(s) shall declare, and the CIML shall confirm, whether instruments complying

with the previous relevant Recommendation(s) also comply with the revised Recommendation(s), or whether they may not comply with those revisions.

If the instruments are declared to comply, an owner of a certificate provided in accordance with the previous Recommendation(s) may apply for a certificate referring

to the revised Recommendation(s); a new certificate shall be provided to the owner by

the relevant issuing authority and shall be registered by BIML, at no charge.

If it is declared that the instruments may not comply, an owner may apply for a new

certificate according to the revised Recommendation(s), by submitting the same pat- tern or a modified pattern of the instrument concerned, following the same procedure

as in 3.3; the tests required for issuing a new certificate may be abbreviated according

to 3.3.3.

181
Executive Committee

ANNEX 1 (This Annex forms an integral part of this document)

GENERAL MODEL FOR AN OIML CERTIFICATE

Below is a general model of an OIML certificate of conformity. It may be used

directly by issuing authorities and CIML members of OIML Member States either by

simply reproducing it or by creating certificate forms based on the model. The French

version of this document includes the same general model in French. Bilingual

certificates in which the text is in both English and the language of the Member State may be produced.

Model certificates proper to certain categories of instruments will possibly be

established by BIML as and when the OIML Certificate System applies to those categories. Those models will then be made available by BIML.

182
Executive Committee

Member State OIML Certificate N

c

OIML CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMITY

Issuing authority Name:

Address:

Person responsible:

Applicant

Name:

Address:

Manufacturer of the certified pattern (if the manufacturer is not the applicant) Name:

Address:

Identification of the certified pattern

(identification continued overleaf if necessary) This certificate attests the conformity of the above-mentioned pattern (represented

by the samples identified in the associated test report) with the requirements of the

following Recommendation(s) of the International Organization of Legal Metrology

(OIML):

R

edition

for accuracy class (if applicable). This certificate relates only to the metrological and technical characteristics of the

pattern of the instrument concerned, as covered by the relevant OIML International Recommendation(s)

.

This certificate does not bestow any form of legal international approval.

Page 1. This certificate includes pages.

183
Executive Committee

OIML Certificate N

c

The conformity was established by tests described in the associated test report

N° , that includes pages.

Identification(s) and signature(s) or stamp(s), of (as applicable):

The issuing authority The CIML member

Date Date

** *

Identification continued (if necessary)

Important note: Apart from the mention of the certificate's reference number and

the name of the OIML Member State in which the certificate was issued, partial

quotation of the certificate or of the associated test report is not permitted, though

they may be reproduced in full.

Page 2. This certificate includes pages.

184
Executive Committee

.ANNEX 2 (This Annex forms an integral part of this document)

REFERENCE NUMBER OF AN OIML CERTIFICATE

The reference number of an OIML certificate includes three parts: - the number(s) and year(s) of publication^) of the relevant Recommendation(s), as

specified in a separately published list of measuring instruments that are included in the OIML Certificate System,

- a two-letter code indicating the Member State in which the certificate was issued (in accordance with ISO code: see below), and

- the last two figures of the year of issue of the certificate, followed by a sequential

number, restarting from 1 each year for each Member State. Example: reference number "R76/1988 - AA - 91.14" represents the 14th certificate issued in 1991 in the Member State for which the code is AA for the instruments covered by Recommendation R76, edition 1988.

International codes for names of OIML Member States Algeria DZ Japan JP

Australia AU Kenya KE

Austria AT Rep. of Korea KR

Belgium BE Dem. People's Rep. of Korea KP

Brazil BR Lebanon LB

Bulgaria BG Monaco MC

Cameron CM Morocco MA

Canada CA Netherlands NL

People's Rep. of China CN Norway NO

Cuba cu Pakistan PK

Cyprus CY Poland PL

Czechoslovakia CS Portugal PT Denmark DK Romania RO

Egypt EG Saudi Arabia SA

Ethiopia ET Spain ES

Finland FI Sri Lanka LK

France FR Sweden SE

Germany DE Switzerland CH

Greece GR Tanzania TZ

Hungary- HU Tunisia TN

India IN United Kingdom GB

Indonesia ID United States of America US

Ireland IE U.S.S.R. SU

Israel IL Yugoslavia YU

Italy IT

(*) When the years of publication of the French and English versions of a Recommendation are different, the reference number shall mention the year of publication of the French version.

185
Executive Committee

ISO/IEC Guide 2

ISO/IEC Guide 16

ISO/IEC Guide 25

ISO/IEC Guide 28

ISO/IEC Guide 38 ISO/IEC Guide 40 GATT

OIMLD 19

Bibliography

General terms and their definitions concerning standardization and related activities Code of principles on third party certification systems and relat- ed standards General requirements for the competence of calibration and test- ing laboratories General rules for a model third-party certification system for .' products General requirements for the acceptance of testing laboratories General requirements for the acceptance of certification bodies Agreement on technical barriers to trade (the Standards Code).

Other reference documents

Pattern evaluation and pattern approval

186
Executive Committee

Appendix K - USDA Certification Plan

Standardizing Commercial Inspection

Richard Pierce, Leader Type Evaluation Group

Federal Grain Inspection Service The Grain Quality Incentives Act of 1990 was passed as part of the 1990 Farm Bill. The Grain Quality Incentives Act outlines a broad-based approach for addressing grain quality concerns and enhancing the competitiveness of U.S.

grain exports. Specific issues addressed by the Grain Quality Incentives Act include better coordination between

government agencies involved with grain quality, development of grading standards that promote grain cleanliness and

reflect economic value-based characteristics meeting the requirements of the end user, and the need for greater uniformity in commercial grain inspection. Standardization of commercial inspections is specifically addressed in Section 2009 of the Grain Quality Incentives Act which amends the U.S. Grain Standards Act to authorize the Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) to participate in the standardization of commercial grain inspections. Previously, FGIS activities were restricted to the Official Inspection System. SEC. 2009. STANDARDIZING COMMERCIAL INSPECTIONS.

The United States Grain Standards Act (7 U.S.C. 71) is amended by adding at the end the following new section: "SEC. 22. STANDARDIZING COMMERCIAL INSPECTIONS.

(a) TESTING EQUIPMENT ~ To promote greater uniformity in commercial grain inspection results, the Administrator may work in conjunction with the National Institute of Standards and Technology and

the National Conference on Weights and Measures to —

(1) identify inspection instruments requiring standardization under subsection (b); (2) establish performance criteria for commercial grain inspection instruments;

(3) develop a national program to approve grain inspection instruments for commercial inspection; and

(4) develop standard reference materials or other means necessary for calibration or testing of approved instruments.

(b) GENERAL INSPECTION PROCEDURES - To ensure that producers are treated uniformly in delivering grain, the Administrator shall develop practical and cost-effective procedures for conducting commercial inspections of grain with respect to the application of quality factors that result in premiums

and discounts. The procedures shall be made available to country elevators and others making first- point-of-delivery inspections.

(c) INSPECTION SERVICES AND INFORMATION - To encourage the use of equipment and

procedures developed in accordance with subsections (a) and (b), the Administrator shall provide for

official inspection services by the Service, States, and official inspection agencies and provide information on the proper use of sampling and inspection equipment, inspection services, including appeals under

this Act.

(d) STANDARDIZED AFLATOXIN EQUIPMENTAND PROCEDURES - The Administrator shall-

(1) establish uniform standards for testing equipment; and

(2) establish uniform testing procedures and sampling techniques;

that may be used by processors, refiners, operators of grain elevators and terminals, and others

to accurately detect the level of aflatoxin contamination of corn in the United States."

187
Executive Committee

There are two provisions in the amendment concerned with standardizing commercial inspections that should be of

particular interest to the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). First, FGIS has been tasked with developing practical and cost-effective procedures for conducting commercial inspections [subsection (b)]. These

procedures are currently under development, and may be available as early as this spring for use by country elevators and others making first-point-of-delivery inspections. It is important to note that it will not be mandatory that these procedures be followed for commercial inspections, and that FGIS will not be certifying commercial inspection results. The Commodity Credit Corporation (CCC), however, will be required to use these procedures when inspecting and

evaluating the condition of grain it acquires from producers. Even then, it is specifically stated that Official Inspections are not required unless requested by the producer. Thus, it is clearly not the intent of the Grain Quality

Incentives Act that commercial inspection procedures be identical with those used for Official Inspections. The provision of the Grain Quality Act that should have the greatest impact on the NCWM is subsection (a), which

authorizes FGIS to work with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) and the NCWM to test and

approve equipment for use in commercial grain inspection. As with the inspection procedures developed for commercial inspections, it is not anticipated that equipment approval for the commercial system will be identical with

the approval process used for FGIS. FGIS feels that separate systems will be required to address the unique

requirements of the commercial and Official inspection systems. FGIS will continue to evaluate and approve equipment intended for the appropriate groups to regulate testing and approval of commercial grain inspection equipment. Although FGIS does not feel that it is our responsibility to provide approval for equipment used in the commercial system, we do recognize an obligation to participate in this process. Provisions in the Grain Quality

Incentives Act give us the authority to increase our activities in this area. The Grain Quality Incentives Act specifies that development of a cooperative equipment testing program for the commercial system by FGIS, the NCWM and NIST would include identifying inspection instruments requiring

standardization, establishing design and test criteria, developing a national testing program for instruments used in commercial inspections, and , where necessary, providing for the calibration of approved instruments. Again, FGIS

feels that these activities should be carried out within the framework of the NCWM, with FGIS assisting in the development and, possibly, the execution of the testing program. The following working arrangement is envisioned

(1) Identifying equipment requiring standardization.

It is suggested that a committee consisting of NCWM members and NIST and FGIS personnel tx appointed to identify grain inspection equipment requiring standardization for use in the commercia

systems. The committee should also establish a timetable for initiating a testing program for commercia

grain inspection equipment, including the order in which equipment testing needs should be addressed Types of equipment that may require standardization include moisture meters, NIR (near-infrared analyzers (used to measure protein, oil and moisture), dockage testers, test weight apparatus, and aflatoxii

This effort should be coordinated through appropriate technical committees within the National Typ

Evaluation Program (NTEP) and the NCWM. It is anticipated that FGIS and the NCWM will wor

together to develop basic design requirements and tolerances, with each group developing addition; requirements to meet their specific needs. FGIS will support this effort by making available existing FGI

design criteria and performance specifications that can be used as a starting point. FGIS personnel ai also prepared to provide technical input and leadership in the development of design requirements ar tolerances for commercial grain inspection equipment.

| (3) Develop a national program to approve grain inspection instruments for commercial inspection. Rather than developing a new program, it is envisioned that NTEP activities will be expanded to inclu( a wider variety of grain inspection equipment. FGIS would like to limit its equipment approval activiti to those pieces of equipment best meeting the needs of the Official Inspection System. The extent which FGIS can participate as an NTEP approved laboratory in the testing of commercial inspects equipment will depend upon resource availability and our ability to recover the cost of testing. FGIS do

not currently have the authority to charge for testing grain inspection equipment not intended for use

(2)

test kits.

Establish performance criteria for commercial grain inspection instruments.

188
Executive Committee

the Official Inspection System, but is requesting legislative changes which would allow us to recover the

costs of testing commercial inspection equipment for NTEP.

(4) Develop standard reference materials or other means necessary for calibration or testing of approved

instruments. Many types of grain inspection instruments, such as moisture meters and NIR analyzers, make indirect measurements and must be calibrated before a meaningful result can be obtained. When type evaluating instruments that make indirect measurements, a decision must be made on whether to limit testing to instrument capabilities or to also test the performance of the calibration. In addition, ongoing calibration

efforts often far exceed the work required to test and approve an instrument. Extending NTEP activities to include instruments making indirect measurements may require related calibration activities to ensure

consistent results among instrument types. FGIS has requested legislative changes which would allow us

to supply calibration data to instrument manufacturers on a fee basis. Pending approval of this program, FGIS may be able to help address ongoing calibration needs.

; To summarize, the provisions of the Grain Quality Incentives Act provide FGIS with an opportunity for increased

• participation in NCWM and NTEP efforts to standardize commercial grain inspections. We feel that the NCWM and

j NTEP are the appropriate groups to regulate testing and approval of commercial grain inspection equipment, but we

are prepared to contribute to a joint effort by helping to (1) identify equipment requiring standardization; (2) develop

design requirements and tolerances; and (3) participate in testing and calibration efforts as resources allow.

:

ua

I)a

r

V

>«t

189
Laws and Regulations Committee

Final Report of the Laws and Regulations Committee

Allan M. Nelson, Chairman

Director, Weights and Measures Department of Consumer Protection, Connecticut Reference Key Number

200 Introduction

This is the final report of the Laws and Regulations Committee for the 76th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report and the recommendations adopted by the active members at the Annual Meeting are based on the Committee's deliberations at its Interim Meeting, January 13-17

1991, the data and testimony provided prior to, at, and after that meeting, and the deliberations and information supplied at the Annual Meeting.

; Table A identifies items in the Report by Reference Key Number, item title, and page number. The first three digit; of the Reference Key Numbers of the items in the Committee's report are assigned from the subject series liste< below. Voting items are indicated with a "V" after the item number. At the Annual Meeting, voting items wer< grouped into a consent calendar and voted upon as a group. They are marked with a "VC." One item, 232-11, wa

voted upon separately. Items marked with an "I" after the reference key number are information items. The item marked with a "W" were withdrawn by the Committee. Table B lists the appendices. Results of the voting ar reported in Table C. Much of the Report contains recommendations to revise or amend National Institute of Standards and Technolog (NIST) Handbook 130, 1991 edition, "Uniform Laws and Regulations," or NIST Handbook 133, Third Editioi "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods," together with the Supplement issued in 1990. Proposed revision to handbooks are shown in bold face print by crossing out what is to be deleted, and underlining what is to be adde<

Entirely new paragraphs proposed for handbooks are designated as such and shown in bold face print. HANDBOOK 130 210 Series LAWS 220 Series Uniform Weights & Measures Law 221 Series Uniform Weighmaster Law 222 Series Uniform Motor Fuel Inspection Law 223 Series REGULATIONS 230 Series Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation 231 Series Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities 232 Series Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation 233 Series Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary Registration of Servicepersons & Service Agencies

for Commercial Weighing & Measuring Devices 234 Series Uniform Open Dating Regulation 235 Series Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation 236 Series Uniform Regulation for Motor Fuel 237 Series POLICY AND GUIDELINES 238 Series HANDBOOK 133 240 Series OTHER ITEMS 250 Series

190
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Title of Item Page

Uniform Weights and Measures Law (UWML) 194 VC 1.10. Net Weight, 12.(n); Include Services in Definition of Net Weight and in Powers

of Director 194 VC 1.9. Package 195 VC 12. Powers and Duties of the Director - Minimum Training

Requirements 196 VC 18. Sale from Bulk 196 Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation 197 VC 2.1. Change "Commodity in Package Form" to "Package" 197 VC 2.12. Spot Label 198 VC 2.XX. Standard Package 198 VC 6.11.3. Rounding; How to Round for the Net Weight Declaration 199

I 10.5. Combination Packages and 10.6. Variety Packages 199

I 10.X. Mechanical Pump Dispensers 200 Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities 201 VC 1.1. Berries and Small Fruits; Define "Small Fruits" 201 VC 1.2. Bread - Permit 6-Oz Loaves of Microwaveable Bread 202 VC 1.5.2.3. Fresh Oysters, Clams, Mussels, or Other Mollusks Removed

from the Shell 203

I I.5.X. Meat, Poultry, Fish, and Seafood -- Packaged with Other

Packages of Food 204 W 1.7.1. Factory-Packaged Ice Cream and Similar Frozen Products 204 VC 1.9. Advertising and Price Computing of Bulk Food Commodities 205

I l.X. Home Food Service Plan Sales 205 VC 2.4. Fireplace and Stovewood 206 W 2.16. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Cylinder Tare Weights; Acetylene 207 V 2.20. Gasoline-Alcohol Blends; Add Labeling of All Oxygenates 207 W 2.22. Liquid Oxygen Used for Medical Purposes 209 VC 2.X. Wiping Cloths 210

I 2.XX. Glass 210

I 2.XXX. Baler Twine 211

I 2.XXXX. Products Dispensed from Mechanical Devices 212

7 Uniform Motor Fuel Regulation 212

7-1 W Use of Qualitative Terms for Motor Fuel 212

191
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

238

238-1 VC

238-2 117 w

T

1 240

240-1 VC

240-2

240-3 240-4

240-5 240-5A

240-6 240-7 250

250-1

250- 1A I 250- IB I 250-1C I 250-1D I 250-2 VC

Interpretations and Guidelines 212'

Ready-to-Eat Food - Guideline on Selling Whole Chicken by Count 212j

] 2.3.2. Fresh Fruits and Vegetables 211, Typewriter and Computer Printer Ribbons and Tapes 211 Hardwood Labeled by the "Board Foot" 2L

Handbook 133: Package Testing 21J Moisture Loss for Bacon and Luncheon Meats; Definition of "Fresh Poultry" . 21 Moisture Loss for Ice-Packed Poultry 21 Moisture Loss for Pet Foods 21 Moisture Loss for Pasta 21j Polyethylene/Test Methods for Bags 21 MAV's for Polyethylene Bags 2ll Aerosol Products ~ Testing Procedure for Foam and Nonfoam li Moisture Loss for Rice 22 Other Items 22 Enforcement Issues 23 Labeling of Time on Compact Discs 23 Labeling of Products Intended for Wholesale and Retail 2^ Candy Sold to Businesses for Resale 2

Survey on the Use of Codes in Lieu of Actual Price Entry 2

Other Modifications to the Handbook T

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No.

Home Food Service Plan Sales Prohibited Trade Practices Section 3.18 Handbook 133

232-7

232-7

240-1

192
Laws and Regulations Committee

Order of Presentation

"he report was presented to the membership as follows:

. The Consent Calendar was presented and adopted.

. Item 232-11 was presented. An amendment from the floor was made to add to Section 2.20.1. after "...MTBE/ETBE." the sentence "Spark ignition engine fuel containing less than 1% oxygenate may also be labeled." and to add to Section 2.20.2. before the sentence beginning with "This documentation..." the sentence "Spark ignition engine fuel containing less than 1% oxygenate may also be declared." The vote to hear the amendment was passed, but the vote on the amendment (requiring 2/3 of each house to pass) failed. The recommendation proposed by

the Committee was adopted. Additional clarifying language was presented by the Technical Advisor to be added

to the body of the Committee's report on this item. Language added to the report is as follows: "As measurement

capabilities improve, there is nothing to preclude labeling engin fuel less than 1% (but not zero) as containing

oxygenates." \ The report in its entirety was then ratified.

Table C

Voting Results

Reference £<ey No. House of State Representatives House of Delegates Results

Yes No Yes No

-Consent Calendar

"232-11 Motion to

t-aear amendment

35 0

23 9

39 0

40 1

Passed

Passed

232-11 Motion to amend

10 27 11 36 Failed

-232-11 original item

Entire Report

36 2

38 0

42 2

47 0

Passed

Passed

193
Laws and Regulations Committee

Details of All Items

(In order by Reference Key Number)

221 Uniform Weights and Measures Law (UWML)

221-1 VC 1.10. Net Weight, 12.(n); Include Services in Definition of Net Weight

and in Powers of Director

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Background: This was Item 221-1B in the Report of the 75th NCWM, 1990. At the 75th Annual Meeting, the Conference adopted a change to Section 1.2. Weight, clarifying that trade by weight either in services or in commodities requires trade by net weight. For example, if a laundry charges by weight, to be in compliance it may

charge only for the weight of the clothing to be cleaned (and not for the wrapping or bag into which the clothes are

placed). A moving service, when charging by weight, may charge only for the weight of the goods placed into the truck (and not for the tare weight of the truck). Similarly, a shipping or mailing service charging by weight may charge only

for the weight of the package to be shipped. The pricing practices for services are not required to be by weight, measure, or count.

In its study of the UWML, the Committee noted that several of the sections already specifically refer to "service":

Section 11. (b) "...unfair or deceptive dealing by weight or measure in any commodity or service..." Section 12.(j)(l) "...in determining the weight, measure, or count of commodities or things sold..." (2) "...i computing the basic charge or payment for services..." Section 16. "no person shall misrepresent the price of any commodity or service sold, offered,..." Other sections have been interpreted as including service even though service is not specifically mentioned. For

example, Section 18. Sale from Bulk has been used to require a receipt for a waste-hauling service that charges by

weight if neither party to the transaction is present at the weighing. After some discussion, the Committee decided

that no change was needed to the definition of sale from bulk (Section 1.8.) or Section 18. Sale from Bulk, to recognize its application to services. In fact, it is difficult to conceive of a sale of service from a "bulk supply" of

service; on the other hand, sale of a service based on weighing something (person, trash, etc.) is readily conceivable

i !

iA

In contrast, Section 12. Powers and Duties of the Director is silent in subsection (n) concerning the power to prescribe by regulation, methods of sale for services, when those services are priced by weight, measure, or count. In the opinion of the Committee, this subsection should be revised to clarify this application. The Committee also^ *

recommends including time as a unit of measure for service charges. Examples would include car wash timers and*] I* clothes dryers in self-service applications.

Section 1.10. Net Weight also should be revised to recognize the special interpretations for properly applying this section to net weight The term "net weight" in conjunction with services does not mean that a service company (such as a shipper) ma)

charge only for the goods inside a package: the service is the transportation of the total package; that is, the service J ^

includes the shipping of the packing materials. Charging for the total weight of the package does not imply selling ^

a service by gross weight.

194
Laws and Regulations Committee

nmittee Recommendation: Revise the UWML as follows:

.10. Net Weight. ~ The term "net weight" means the weight of a commodity excluding any materials, ubstances, or items not considered to be part of the commodity. Materials, substances, or items not

onsidered to be part of the commodity include, but are not limited to, containers, conveyances, bags, wrappers, ackaging materials, labels, individual piece covering, decorative accompaniments, and coupons, except that,

epending on the type of service rendered, packaging materials may be considered to be part of the service, or example, the service of shipping includes the weight of packing materials.

{ Committee also recommends that Section 12.(n) include time as a unit of measure for service charges. Examples

I ild include car wash timers and clothes dryers in self service applications. Therefore, amend Section 12. Powers

Duties of the Director as follows:

lie director shall:

1'2.(n) Prescribe, by regulation, the appropriate term or unit of weight or measure to be used, whenever he the

)irector determines in the ease of a specific commodity that an existing practice of declaring the quantity of

: commodity or setting charges for a service by weight, measure, numerical count, time, or combination thereof,

' oes not facilitate value comparisons by consumers, or offers an opportunity for consumer confusion.

\ L-2 VC 1.9. Package

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) kground: This was Item 231-1 in the Report of the 75th NCWM, 1990. Section 1.9. of the UWML defines

:kage" using the terms "packaged" and "put up." Both terms need further clarification and definition. Also, the

| nition in the law is not as comprehensive as the definition for "commodity in package form" in the Uniform

kaging and Labeling Regulation (UPLR), which defines a commodity in package form as not necessarily wrapped.

tddition, Section 1 of the UPLR defines certain types of containers as outside the definition of package in that

jlation. In Section 2.1. of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation (which is also being amended - see Item

. -1), an individual item on which there is marked a selling price is also considered a package. This should be added

iefmition for package in the Law. In addition, references to both standard and random packages in the definition

I package (see Item 231-3) should be added, and the phrase "in units suitable for wholesale or retail sale" should

deleted, because the term "suitable" is too subjective and may be questioned as to what units are suitable.

1 nmittee Recommendation: Amend the definition for "package" in the Uniform Weights and Measures Law as ows:

.9. Package. — Except as modified by Section 1. APPLICATION of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling

Regulation. tThe term "package," whether standard package or random package, means any commodity: put

jt p or pockagcd in ony manner

a) enclosed in a container or wrapped in any manner in advance of wholesale or retail sale in units suitable or cither wholesale or retail sole, or

b) whose weight or measure has been determined in advance of wholesale or retail sale.

1 vn individual item or lot of any commodity on which there is marked a selling price based on an established

)rice per unit of weight or of measure, shall be considered a package or packages.

I cussion: The definition exempts from labeling requirements all wrapped or contained commodities exempted in

I tion 1 Application of the UPLR, for example, auxiliary containers, retail tray pack displays, clear overwrap with

printed matter on it, etc. This would exclude lettuce wrapped in a clear bag as being a package.

!

195
Laws and Regulations Committee

The definition replaces "put up or packaged" with "enclosed" or "wrapped." The definition also encompasses ti definition in the UPLR for "commodity in package form," that is, a commodity whose weight or measure has bee determined in advance of sale. Note that subparagraph (b) does not pertain to commodities whose count has be< determined in advance of sale (only weight or measure is mentioned); items sold by count (other than a count

"one") would have to be bundled (enclosed or wrapped in any manner). A commodity sold by "the each" does n

fit the definition of package unless wrapped. Thus, a hammer (unless wrapped) hanging from a hook in a hardwa

store is not deemed to be a package because it is not sold by weight nor measured in advance of sale. See Item 232-1 for parallel recommendations for the UPLR.

The Committee also recommends deleting the phrase "in units suitable for wholesale or retail sale" since the tei "suitable" is subjective and questions may be raised as to what units are suitable. See Item 232-1 for paral recommendations for the UPLR.

s VC 12. Powers and Duties of the Director - Minimum Trainii Requirements a &k (This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Background: There is no authority in the Uniform Weights and Measures Law to set minimum training performance requirements for the State or local field official, nor is it specifically recognized in the Law that trains ^

is a responsibility of the Weights and Measures Director. The Committee believes that adding such requirements v

! <'« upgrade staff qualifications and performance and will promote uniformity and professionalism within jurisdictio Due to concerns expressed at the Southern Weights and Measures Conference that States having limited funds

training may not want to establish minimum training requirements at this time, the Committee has inserted the w<

'may" in front of "...establish minimum training requirements...". In addition, the National Training Program of NCWM will be recognized. At the present time, the standards referenced include the requirements for obtain CEU's and for field certification. A local official expressed concern that a state might abuse its power in setting performance requirements, and a st official expressed concern that the performance standards might conflict with civil service hiring and firing rules Committee did not share these concerns because (1) the recommended language only permits, but does not requ performance standards; and (2) the extent of these performance standards is unspecified; hence they may

customized to conform with existing personnel standards The Committee revised its Interim Report to change "inspector personnel" to "weights and measures personnel". 1 change ensures that the broad range of job titles used to carry out weights and measures activities are covered by

requirement for training. Committee Recommendation: Amend Section 12. "Powers and Duties of the Director," to include authority to ad

rules and regulations to establish minimum training requirements. Add a section (p) to read: The director shall:

(p) Provide for the training of weights and measures personnel and may establish minimum training an

performance requirements, which shall be met by all weights and measures personnel, whether count; municipal, or State. The Director may adopt the training standards of the National Conference on Weigh! and Measures National Training Program. 221-4 VC 18. Sale from Bulk

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Background: During the December 1989 fuel price increases, many fuel customers in North Carolina were cha <« v

more than the rates quoted at the time of placement of the order or delivery. Not until several days or weeks 1; r, when the invoices were received, did customers learn of the higher prices. However, there was no written proof

196
Laws and Regulations Committee

] wer price had been quoted nor what price was in effect when the fuel was delivered. During periods of rapidly

• easing prices, customers may schedule heating fuel deliveries to take advantage of a particular price. Section 18.

; he Law does not now require the unit price to be part of the information supplied on a delivery ticket. The

Timittee recommends that the unit price be part of the information supplied on a delivery ticket. Unless the unit

fee appears on the delivery ticket, customers must wait until receiving the fuel company's invoice before they know

amount charged for fuel. With the unit price on the delivery ticket, customers will know immediately if they are

ig charged the quoted price. The recommendation below would at least provide the customer with the unit price he time of delivery, rather than later.

discussion at the Interim Meeting, the Committee was persuaded that buyer and seller might at times not want the

' very personnel to know the price of the delivered commodity, but might want the billing to be confidential;

-efore, a clause is proposed to exempt the requirement for unit price and total price on the ticket when both buyer

seller consent.

iddition, a clarification is recommended that when a commodity is sold from bulk but delivered in packages, the nber of packages must also be declared on the delivery ticket.

nmittee Recommendation: Amend Section 18. as follows:

•vll bulk sales in which the buyer and seller are not both present to witness the measurement, all bulk deliveries

f heating fuel, and all other bulk sales specified by rule or regulation of the Director, shall be accompanied

t*y a delivery ticket containing the following information:

a) the name and address of the buyer and seller;

b) the date delivered;

c) the quantity delivered, and the quantity upon which the price is based, if this differs from the

delivered quantity, for example, when temperature compensated sales are made: Lei the unit price, unless otherwise agreed upon by both buyer and seller, and W4e) the identity in the most descriptive terms commercially practicable, including any quality representation made in connection with the sale.

i Ji the count of individually wrapped packages, if more than one, in the instance of commodities

bought from bulk but delivered in packages.

1 Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation

1-1 VC 2.1. Change "Commodity in Package Form" to "Package"

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

•Ickground: This item concerns a proposal for a uniform definition of "package" in both the See Item 221-2 for the

fl cussion concerning the Uniform Weights and Measures Law. With the definition proposed for package in the Law,

re is no longer any need to distinguish between "package" and "commodity in package form" in the Uniform

:kaging and Labeling Regulation. Therefore, a single definition is proposed. mmittee Recommendation: Revise Section 2.1. Commodity in Package Form as follows:

2.1. Package. Commodity in Package Form.—A Commodity put up or packaged in any manner in advance

of s ole in units suitable for cither wholesale or retail sale. Except as modified bv Section 1. APPLICATION,

the term package, whether standard package or random package, means a commodity:

197
Laws and Regulations Committee

(a) enclosed in a container or wrapped in any manner in advance of wholesale or retail sale, or

(b) whose weight or measure has been determined in advance of wholesale or retail sale. An individual item or lot of any commodity not in package form as defined in this section^ but on which there ; is marked a selling price based on an established price per unit of weight or of measure, shall be considered [ afl a commodity in package or packages form. Where the term "package" is used in this regulation, it shall mean

"commodity in package form" as here defined* Replace all references to "commodity in package form" with the term "package." 231-2 VC 2.12. Spot Label

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

i

Background: The Conference adopted Section 2.12. at the 75th Annual Meeting. The picture (see belo accompanying the definition shows the spot label with a clearly defined border, but the border is not specifics! B required by the text. The definition should be precise to ensure that a package merely by location of the print information on the package surface would not be exempted from the requirement for the net quantity to appear

the lower 30 percent of the label. (Section 11.32 provides an exemption for spot labels for placement of the contents in the lower 30 percent of the principal display panel.) Committee Recommendation: Amend the definition for spot

label to reflect that it is a clearly defined part of the principal display panel:

2.12. Spot Label. -- A spot label is a label, clearly defined by means of a border, indentation, or other means, that covers only a small portion of the surface of a principal display panel of a package; the entire portion of the principal display panel outside the area of the label contains no printed or graphic matter of any kind. A

spot label may contain all required labeling information on it (identity, responsibility, and net contents), but it must have the identity and net contents. See Section 1132. for net contents placement exemption for a spot

label. Also see figure below. [Editor's Note: This is the

figure shown at right.]

Identity Net Quantity ill

Spot Label

231-3 VC 2.XX. Standard Package

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Background: Although "random package" is defined in both the Uniform Weights and Measures Law and Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation, there is no definition for "standard package." The definition be

contrasts with the definition for random package, and adds examples for clarity. Whole rounded sizes are not requ

to be standard packages; therefore, one of the examples is a weight that is not a whole number of units. Neither Law or Regulation makes reference to "standard package;" hence this definition might not be required. However, Committee believes that a definition for standard package should be in both the Law and the Regulation since ranc package is defined in both places. Therefore, references to both standard and random packages have been adde

the definition of package (see Items 221-2 and 231-1). One of the Committee's recommendations below also ad

reference to standard package to the UWML.

Committee Recommendation: Add a definition for "standard package:"

I|

3!

:

198
Laws and Regulations Committee

2.XX. Standard Package. A package that is one of a lot, shipment, or delivery of packages of the same

commodity with identical net contents declarations. For example, 5-lb bags of sugar, Miter bottles of carbonated soda, or 9.4 oz packages of luncheon meat. ^dd this same definition to the Uniform Weights and Measures Law, since random package is also defined in the Uw.

1.12. Standard Package. - A package that is one of a lot, shipment, or delivery of packages of the same

commodity with identical net contents declarations. For example, 5-lb bags of sugar, 1-liter bottles of carbonated soda, or 9.4 oz packages of luncheon meat.

„dd a reference to standard and random packages in Section 19. INFORMATION REQUIRED ON PACKAGES

l the Uniform Weights and Measures Law:

i

i Except as otherwise provided in this Act or by regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, any package, whether

a random package or a standard package, kept for the purpose of sale... [continue with rest of Section.]

I 31-4 VC 6.11.3. Rounding; How to Round for the Net Weight Declaration

iackground: This was Item 231-11A in the Report of the 75th NCWM, 1990. The last two sentences of Section

.11.3. read "As a general rule, converted values should be rounded down by dropping any digit beyond the first three Example: 196.4 grams becomes 196 grams or 1.759 feet becomes 1.75 feet.)" The Industry Committee on Packaging nd Labeling had supported the truncation of converted values when the original recommendation was written. Since

len, the Food and Drug Administration provided a policy guideline recommending a procedure that rounds down

'hen the final digit is 4 or less, and rounds up when the final digit is 5 or more. Therefore, the Committee ecommends dropping advice concerning rounding, permitting the packager to follow any appropriate procedure.

Nlie weights and measures enforcement officer should test package net quantities according to the largest declaration

n the label.

Committee Recommendation: Revise Section 6.11.3. of the UPLR as follows:

6.113. Rounding. In all conversions for the purpose of showing an equivalent metric or inch-pound quantity

to a rounded inch-pound or metric quantity, or in calculated values to be declared in the net quantity

statement, the number of significant digits retained should must be such that accuracy is neither sacrificed

i nor exaggerated. As a general rule, converted volucs should be rounded down by dropping any digit beyond

the first three. (Example; 196.4 grams becomes 196 grams or 1.759 feet becomes 1.75 feet.) 31-5 I 10.5. Combination Packages and 10.6. Variety Packages

Icf^his was Item 231-12 in the Report of the 75th NCWM, 1990.

fflvn increasing number of packages are being introduced into the marketplace with confusing net weight declarations.

; 'art of the problem seems to be that variety and combination packages (for example, meat products in combination

i it/ith cheeses) are not labeled with separate net weights for the individual items in the package. Such packages are

ot distinctive food items (such as pizza with meat and cheese topping) nor integral packages (such as frozen dinners

di«ith meat in one compartment, potatoes in another, and dessert in a third). The problem arises when two or more

ommodities are separately packaged, but joined together for retail sale.

-ast year, the Committee proposed adopting the requirements promulgated by the FTC concerning variety and

ombination packages because (1) they are more specific than existing requirements in the UPLR; and (2) the FTC

>dd a reference to standard package in the definition for package (see Items 221-2 and 231-1).

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

199
Laws and Regulations Committee

requirements are essentially the same for combination and variety packages. Such a change would consequently

eliminate the need to make judgments concerning packages composed of "dissimilar" (combination) or "similar" (variety) commodities. Unfortunately, the FDA does not have definitions or requirements for combination or variety packages. Thus, consumers see packages of "variety" meats or cereals labeled only with a total net weight; if State requirements tracked the FTC regulations for variety packages, the net weights of each style or type of product in a

variety package would also have to be labeled. The Committee has written FDA for a formal interpretation as tcj whether State regulations patterned after FTC's requirements may be imposed on products under FDA jurisdiction

j

A letter has also been written to the Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, asking for assistance in achieving uniformity of interpretation and requirements. The Committee believes that the purchaser cannot make value , comparisons without a separate declaration for different commodities separately packaged and then joined together

into a combined package. The objective is to reach an agreement among FDA, FTC, USDA, and the NCWM on th< appropriate requirements for variety and combination packages. The Committee has received information from th< Food and Drug Administration that indicates no agency objection to the Committee's proposal, but furthe

clarification of their response will be requested. This item will be carried over.

Nutrition and Food Labeling Act of 1990 Related to this issue, but of broader impact to the entire labeling arena, the Nutrition Labeling and Education Ac

of 1990 will specifically preempt States from net weight, identity, declaration of responsibility, nutrients, serving siz< standards of identity labeling requirements which differ from those in the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act unless th Staie petitions the Secretary of Health and Human Services for an exemption. The Act gives enforcement authorit

to the State of certain sections of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act in the State's own right, even if the State has nc

specifically adopted those sections of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act. The Committee urges every State directc to study this Act to determine if the State should file a petition. Copies may be obtained from the NIST Office < Weights and Measures. The impact of the Act on State regulations is under study by the Committee. 231-6 I 10.X. Mechanical Pump Dispensers

Background: This was Item 231-13 in the Report of the 75th NCWM, 1990. Sealed, non-removable mechanical pumj

are a relatively new dispensing package system for toothpaste and other viscous products, such as honey. The seale head will always retain a small amount of product. Aerosol containers are the only packaging systems that are required to deliver the amount declared on the lab( Therefore, all weights and measures compliance testing procedures for all types of packages, except for aerosols (ai meat and poultry products in "wet tare" jurisdictions), determine the amount of product that was put into the package not the amount that the consumer is expected to obtain under normal usage. Aerosol packages must deliver, not ji?f contain, the amount declared on the label because the consumer is specifically warned against opening the packa

to obtain any remaining product.

Several States volunteered to test commodities with mechanical pump dispensers; data from Illinois, Kansas, Michig

and North Carolina were reviewed at the Interim Meeting. Volunteers were asked to test both mechanical pun

toothpaste packages and tubes of toothpaste. They were asked to determine the amount of toothpaste dispens without breaking into the dispensers - the maximum amount that could be readily obtained by a consumer. They we

also asked to determine the amount of toothpaste that could be removed from the package when cut open and clean out by a compliance testing official. The only product the testing official did not remove was that remaining in t reservoir of the pump head of the mechanical pump dispenser. Thirty lots were sampled: 10 packages were test from each of 24 of the lots; sample sizes of 5 to 7 packages were taken from the other 6 lots. The results are sho

in the figure below. One major brand from each of 4 major manufacturers was tested. Of the 30 lots tested ( pumps, 13 tubes), none delivered 100% of the labeled net contents to the consumer and 8 provided less than 10C of the labeled net contents when the packages were cut open and cleaned out (6 pumps, 2 tubes)

200
Laws and Regulations Committee

W Tests on Toothpaste Pumps and Tubes, Maximum Amount Obtained by Consumer (% "as used") vs. Amount

Determined by Opening and Cleaning Container (% recovered official) f is clear that the 2 lots of tubes that provided less than the labeled net contents actually contained less, hence were

| ut of compliance. It is not clear whether the 8 lots of pumps that provided less than 100% of the labeled quantity

ere out of compliance even when using extraordinary means to remove the maximum amount of product that could

s obtained from these packages. This is of great concern to the Committee. In addition, the difference between the

elivered amount (what the consumer can obtain) and the amount obtained by opening and cleaning out the packages

mged from less than 2% to more than 10% for pumps, and from less than 3% to more than 5% for tubes. This

: idicates that some pumps are much less efficient than tubes in delivering the contained product. I

airness and full disclosure of information to the purchaser are of great importance, and the Committee is committed

) achieving regulatory interpretations or changes that will provide this. A letter to the FDA will transmit the results

f these tests and request (1) a change to the regulations requiring that mechanical pump package systems deliver

ie labeled weight and, in the interim, (2) an interpretation that at least the labeled amount must be obtained when

. Jtting open and cleaning out the package during testing. The Committee is also considering a requirement or testing rocedure that would require at least X obtained from the container following prescribed procedures, where X is

; erhaps 99%; this too is seen only as an interim approach. As a spokesman for one manufacturer said, when product

ispensing is controlled by package design, there is reason to require the labeled net weight to be the amount

elivered. 32 Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities

- 32-1 VC 1.1. Berries and Small Fruits; Define "Small Fruits"

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

ackground: See Item 232-1 in the Report of the 75th NCWM, 1990, pages 92 and 93. Neither "berries" nor "small

uits" is defined in Section 1.1. The Committee was asked whether grapes on the stem were small fruit; there was

o consensus among the Committee members as to whether grapes were or were not covered by this section, herefore, the recommendation below leaves the issue of grapes on the stem subject to interpretation by the

irisdiction. The Western Weights and Measures Association pointed out that the botanical definition of berry is "a imple fruit having a pulpy pericarp in which the seeds are embedded, such as the grape, gooseberry, currant, tomato,

tc." The problem is that grapes on the stem have a size and rigidity that do not permit packing in small measure

ontainers without large amounts of free space left in the containers.

201
Laws and Regulations Committee

Committee Recommendation: Revise Section 1.1. as follows:

1.1. Berries and Small Fruits.

1.1.1. Definitions. - "Small fruits" includes, but is not limited to cherries, currants, and cherry tomatoes.

"Berries" includes all fruit whose names end in the term "-berry."

1.1.2. Methods of Sale. - Berries and small fruits shall be offered and exposed for sale and sold by weight, or by volume. If sold by volume, they must be

(1) if in measure containers that are either open or else covered by uncolored transparent lids or othei wrappings that do not obscure the contents and

(2) have capacities per subsection 1.1 2.(2) (a) or subsection 1.1 2.(2) (b). When selling berries and small

fruits by volume in measure containers, whether or not covered, the measure containers themselves shall not be packages for labeling purposes.

(a) <fe> Metric Capacities - 250 milliliters, 500 milliliters, or 1 liter.

(b) {a} Inch-Pound Capacities - 1/2 dry pint, 1 dry pint, or 1 dry quart.

1.13. Marking Requirements for Shipping Containers. -- If two or more measure containers are placed in a shipping package, the crate or package shall show the number of measure containers and the quantity of contents of each. 232-2 VC 1.2. Bread - Permit 6-Oz Loaves of Microwaveable Bread

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Background: A newly developed partially-baked 6-oz "loaf of bread" is intended to be cooked in the home microwa\

oven. The size is limited to fit the typical microwave oven cavity. Section 1.2. currently requires bread to be sold inch-pound sizes starting at 8 oz, defining products weighing 4 oz or less as "biscuits, buns, or rolls." The Committe

was asked to consider amending Section 1.2. to permit the 6-oz size to adapt to the demographics of smaller consume

households and increased demands for "convenience" foods. The submitted proposal also requested the Conferem

to consider whether this product is "bread," since it is partially baked and not ready-to-eat. The Committee membe

believe that the product is bread and also that a 6-oz size should be permitted. Several years ago, the Committee w

asked to consider adding a 12-oz size because of smaller household sizes. The Committee wanted to remove

constraints against various sizes of bread at that time, but did not completely remove the size requirement becau:

the baking industry had long lobbied individual States to maintain fixed standard sizes. The Committee therefore on recommends deleting standardized sizes under 6 ounces. The Committee cannot define what is meant by a "loaf a "twin or multiple loaf;" hence recommends that these terms should be dropped. In addition, the Committee wan

to prohibit bread sizes between 6 and 8 ounces. The Conference should also note that the Committee is switching tl metric sizes with the inch-pound sizes in order to encourage the shift to metric usage in package labeling. Committee Recommendation: Revise Section 1.2. Bread to read: 12 Bread. This section does not apply to

(1) bread of metric sizes of 200 grams or less. (2) bread of inch-pound sizes of 6 ounces or less.

(3) "stale bread" sold and expressly represented at the time of sale as "stale bread", and when so sold, the

G

wrappers shall not be considered packages for labeling purposes.

202
Laws and Regulations Committee

Bread Each loaf and each unit of a twin or multiple loaf made or procured for sale, kept, offered, or exposed

for sale, or sold, whether or not wrapped packaged or sliced, ond each portion of a loaf that i s prepackaged^

shall have a weight per subsection 12(a) or subsection 12(b): | Provided^ that the provisions of this section

shall not apply to biscuits^ buns» or rolls of inch pound sizes 4 ounces or less or of metric sizes 100 grams

or less or to

" stale bread" sold and expressly represented at the time of sale as such» and when so sold» the wroppcrs shall be deemed not to be packages for labeling purposes*

(a) Metric Weights - 250 grams, 375 grams, 500 grams, 750 grams, or a multiple of 500 grams.

(b) Inch-Pound Weights - 1/2 pound, 3/4 pound, 1 pound, 1-1/2 pounds, or a multiple of 1 pound.

3 2-3 VC 1.5.2.3. Fresh Oysters, Clams, Mussels, or Other Mollusks Removed from

the Shell

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

ckground: At the 1990 Interim Meeting, the State of Maine alerted the Committee that this subsection (in the

)0 edition of the recommended regulation) required fresh mollusks, including scallops, that are removed from the

ell "and placed in a container [to] be sold by fluid volume." This subsection needs to be clarified: it was never the

ent of the Committee to forbid direct sale from bulk of these items by weight. In addition, the phrase "placed in :ontainer" should be clarified to explain that it means packaged in advance of sale. After some discussion, the

iramittee decided that sale by weight should also be allowed, along with sale by volume for all mollusks. The

mmittee recommends that the maximum of 15% free liquid be applied only to oysters; the appropriate amount of

e liquid for such other mollusks as scallops may be much less.

its Interim Report, the Committee recommended that mollusks be permitted to be sold by drained weight when

d from bulk. The Committee has been persuaded since that time that fresh mollusks should be allowed to be sold drained weight, whether from bulk or packaged. In fact, it is probably more difficult to sell mollusks from bulk by

ained weight due to the time needed to drain the product properly prior to weighing. Packaging fresh mollusks and

teling them by drained weight would allow the packager time to drain the product prior to filling and weighing.

" e Committee reminds officials to use a 2-minute drain on a No. 8 sieve, described in Handbook 133 when testing oduct sold packaged or from bulk labeled by drained weight. T

lditional input prior to the Annual Meeting from the Central Weights and Measures Association, the Northeastern

j eights and Measures Association, and California Weights and Measures has led the Committee to the conclusion

it several items of information will have to be determined before recommending a method of sale for all fresh Mlusks removed from the shell. For example: (1) Are any fresh mollusks other than oysters sold by fluid volume?

i If fresh mollusks are allowed to be sold by weight that is not drained weight, what amount of free liquid should

permitted? (If mollusks are allowed to be sold by other than drained weight, then the seller may include any

lount of free liquid.) Weights and measures officials and trade industry representatives are encouraged to share data

th the Conference concerning the appropriate maximum amounts of free liquid in this general category of mmodities.

this Annual Meeting, the Committee recommended addressing only oysters in Subsection 1.5.2.3. this year, the

ues with oysters having been resolved. The recommendation below will eliminate regulation of the method of sale

: all other fresh mollusks removed from the shell. This will effectively permit sale by weight, drained weight, or

lume, the methods of sale proposed in the Committee's Interim Report. The Committee intends to pursue this item

its next year's work.

lommittee Recommendation: Revise Section 1.5.2.3. as follows:

1.523. Fresh oysters, clams, mussels, or other mollusks removed from the shell and ploced in o container

shall be sold by weight, drained weight, or by fluid volume. For oysters sold by weight or by volume, a A

maximum of 15 percent free liquid by weight is permitted.

203
Laws and Regulations Committee

Acidity Test of Oysters

In related discussions, Virginia Weights and Measures alerted the Committee that large amounts of free liquid oyster packages might be due to water added at the time of packing, or due to product decomposing and expellir water. For example, the product might not have been handled properly after packaging. When oysters deteriorat

their pH drops to below 5.8. Virginia Weights and Measures check the pH of the oyster liquor when checking n

contents to determine, when the amount of free liquid exceeds the 15% limit, where the fault may he, that is, wheth

excessive liquid was in the product when packaged or whether the product was mishandled, is at the end of its she

life, and should no longer be sold. This can be done by simply dipping easily-obtainable litmus paper into the liquc

3 The pH test cannot be used in place of an actual determination of the amount of free liquid. If the product is o

of compliance, it may provide additional information concerning the source of the free liquid; industry representative warn that this test can only be used as an indicator. 232-4 I I.5.X. Meat, Poultry, Fish, and Seafood - Packaged with Other Packag

of Food

This was Item 232-3 in the Report of the 75th NCWM, 1990. The Conference requested the U.S. Department

Agriculture (USDA) to revise its regulations to require that packaged meat or poultry be labeled with a separate i weight when packaged with other packages of food. In its Final Rule adopting Handbook 133, USDA responded

follows: "FSIS [Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA] believes this proposed change would set a new precedf

in the direction of labeling products by the percentage of components or contents. Labeling each component ii product has major implications for the regulators, the public, and the industry. Any change in the current FSIS pol on component labeling would warrant a comprehensive evaluation extending beyond the scope of this rulemakirj The Committee will continue to pursue this issue and determine the level of evaluation necessary to prove the ne

for this regulation change. 232-5 W 1.7.1. Factory-Packaged Ice Cream and Similar Frozen Products

Discussion: The Committee considered three proposals:

1. Delete Section 1.7.1. This would allow factory or retail store packages to be sold by any measure. This propc was offered and rejected at the 75th Annual Meeting because industry representatives (of factory-packaged cream) wanted factory-packaged ice cream to be required to be sold by volume.

2. Revise Section 1.7.1. as follows:

1.7.1. Factory Packaged Ice Cream and Similar Frozen Products. - Ice cream, ice milk, frozen yogurt, and simila1' products packaged in advance of sale shall be kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold in terms of fluid volume

j This proposal would reverse the change made at the 75th Annual Meeting. The 1991 Uniform Regulation for Method of Sale of Commodities requires only that factory-packaged ice cream be sold by volume. Store packa ii frozen desserts may be sold by weight, measure, dip, scoop, etc. Weights and measures agencies wanted to per5 frozen desserts to be sold by weight.

3. Revise Section 1.7.1. as follows: f Hi

1.7.1. Factory Packaged Ice Cream and Similar Frozen Products. - Ice cream, ice milk, frozen yogurt, and simik j

I products packaged in advance of sale shall be kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold in terms of fluid volum i or by weight.

This proposal is similar to the one recommended by the Committee to the 75th Annual Meeting, which Ju rejected. The International Association of Ice Cream Manufacturers requested the Conference to mairiB requirements for the sale of factory-packaged ice cream by volume.

204
Laws and Regulations Committee

its 75th Annual Meeting, the NCWM voted to delete the requirement that hand-packed ice cream and similar jducts be sold by volume. For States that automatically adopt this regulation, the new rule became effective January

'I 1991. In these States, only "factory-packaged" ice cream must be sold by volume. 1

*\e Northeastern Weights and Measures Association requested that the term "factory" be dropped from the new

luirement. The issue was said to be one of fairness. They argued that it is not fair to require that a brand of

^: »zen dessert packaged at a factory be labeled by volume but a brand packaged at the retail supermarket not be

quired to be similarly sold by volume. By analogy, retail bakeries selling left-over bread crumbs or packaging their

rkies, brownies, pies, etc., or mall stores that package dinners, salads, meats, etc., are required to sell their products j

weight since "factory" packaged cookies, etc., are labeled by weight. Thus, determining the appropriate method

! sale should not depend on whether the product is "factory packaged." In fact, the term "factory" is not defined. This quirement should apply to all packaged ice cream.

e Committee decided that the new requirements were specifically adopted to permit retail stores to package and

1 frozen desserts by any reasonable units. Many weights and measures officials would like to require all sales by

ight, but as demonstrated in several earlier Annual Meetings, there is by no means a consensus on this issue. Only

t ice cream industry putting up ice cream at "factories" desired the method of sale to be maintained by volume.

i any retailers wanted to package frozen desserts by weight, being unable to package such desserts accurately by

: lume. The issue of whether consumers can make adequate value comparisons with various methods of sale has now

en opened and should be studied over time; however, the Committee recommends that States adopt the new

xquirement and put it into effect and then report to the Conference if problems arise. It is the opinion of a majority Committee members that the requirement is too new to gauge the final effect in the marketplace. The Committee

Ji mid also like to encourage regional weights and measures associations to define the term "factory packaged," which

s been part of this requirement since its addition in 1979.

<2-6 VC 1.9. Advertising and Price Computing of Bulk Food Commodities

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

ickground: This item was Item 232-10 in the Report of the 74th NCWM, 1989, and 232-5 in the Report of the 75th ZWM, 1990. It originated in the State of Utah and was intended to require that the price of bulk food commodities

prominently displayed. The problem stemmed from stores selling cookies by the pound, but not displaying the

ice per pound. Section 1.9.2. requires the price of food commodities to be advertised or displayed in terms of whole

;ight units of kilograms or pounds. Some jurisdictions interpret the subsection as requiring price posting; others

applying only if prices are advertised, but not requiring the display of price at the point of sale. It was therefore commended to make the requirement for posting prices explicit. Lacking consensus within the Committee, it was

cided to leave this section open to interpretation and to propose only editorial modifications at this time.

Dmmittee Recommendation: Revise Section 1.9. as follows:

r! 1.9.1. Total Price Computing. -- The price of btrik food commodities or food commodities not in package form

and sold from bulk by weight shall be computed in terms of whole units of weight (i.e., grams, kilograms. pounds, ounces, grams, kilograms , etc.) and not in common or decimal fractions.

1.9.2. Unit Price Advertising. - The price of bulk food commodities or food commodities not in pockngc form

and sold from bulk by weight shall be advertised or displayed in terms of whole weight units of kilgrams or pounds or kilograms only, not in common or decimal fractions or in ounces. A supplemental declaration is permitted, in print no larger than the whole unit price. This supplemental declaration may be expressed in common or decimal fractions, or in ounces, in print no larger than the whole unit price, i s permitted. 32-7 I l.X. Home Food Service Plan Sales iackground: The home food service industry markets a variety of food products that are not specifically covered by

irrent requirements. Marketing practices in the industry suffer from lack of a clear understanding of what is required

>r full disclosure and from clear prohibition of many disreputable practices. A new section has been proposed to be

205
Laws and Regulations Committee

added to regulate the sale of any food item or items alone or in combination with non-food products or service; I whether or not a membership fee or similar charge is involved. Section 1.11. Sale of Meat by Carcass, Side, or Prim

Cut deals specifically with bulk meat sales; this new section would encompass much more varied "food service" sale

It might possibly replace Section 1.11. The proposal is accompanied by a section on prohibited trade practices th may be more appropriate for recommending for adoption by the State's Attorney General or Consumer Protectio Agencies. The proposal defines such terms as "home food service plan," "contract," "item price," and "service charge Of some controversy is the provision that the item price may exclude the service charge for delivery. The State Vermont asserts that this can amount to 40% of the cost of the item, and that the allocation of charges betwee

service and item is arbitrary, permitting the home food service company to claim competitive item pricing whi

charging very high service fees. The proposal is patterned after the provisions of the Wisconsin Administrative Cod

Freezer Meat and Food Service Plan Trade Practices, and the New York statute dealing with home food service plan The proposal and the section on prohibited trade practices are printed in Appendices A and B. 232-8 VC 2.4. Fireplace and Stovewood

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Background: Based on a review of this section, the Committee believes that the last sentence in 2.4.3. should n

apply to natural wood. During the 60th NCWM, a regulation was developed to require that all fireplace ai stovewood be sold by volume. This section was amended in 1976 at the 61st NCWM in deference to the Federal Tra Commission allowing artificial logs intended for burning to be sold by weight. This has caused some confusion sin the sentence amending the original regulation was added directly to the regulation without specifically mentioni compressed fireplace logs. This amendment was not originally intended to allow natural firewood logs to be sold weight; natural firewood is subject to large amounts of moisture loss. In addition, the regulation needs to specifica address stovewood pellets manufactured for special wood-burning stoves designed to accommodate them and whi

are now sold by weight. Moreover, since natural wood in small packages must be sold by cubic feet, the requireme must specify a limiting size for labeling by fractions of a cord. The requirement needs to set a limiting value wh I packaged natural wood should be labeled by fractions of a cord rather than cubic feet. The Committee revised its Interim Report to clarify that this section applies only to stove wood pellets and chips, not to flavoring chips.

Committee Recommendation: Amend Subsections 2.4.1.1. and 2.4.3. and add a new subsection 2.4.3.1.:

2.4.1.1. Fireplace and Stovewood. - Any kindling, logs, boards, timbers, or other wood, natural or processed,

split or not split, advertised, offered for sale, or sold for use as fuel.

2.43. Quantity. - Fireplace and stovewood Wood, of any type, for use as fuel shall be advertised, offered for

sale, and sold only by measure, using the term "cord" and fractional parts of a cord, or the cubic meter; except

that:

(a) Packaged Natural Wood. -- Natural wood, natural or processed, offered for sale in packaged form ir quantities less than 1/8 cord (16 cubic feet) shall display the quantity in terms of cubic feet, to includt fractions of cubic feet; or cubic meters, to include decimal fractions of cubic meters. A single log s hall be sok ! by weight, and packages of s uch individual logs containing less thon 4 cubic fee (1/32 cord), or less than om

tenth cubic meter, may be sold by weight plus count.

(b) Artificial Compressed or Processed Logs. -- A single fireplace log shall be sold by weight, and packages o such individual logs shall be sold by weight plus count.

(c) Stove Wood Pellets or Chips. -- Not greater than 6 inches in any dimension shall be sold by weight. Thi requirement does not apply to flavoring chips.

206
Laws and Regulations Committee

:32-10 W 2.16. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Cylinder Tare Weights; Acetylene

Oil"his was Item 232-15 in the Report of the 75th NCWM, 1990. A survey was to be conducted to get answers to the

.questions posed in the Committee's final report before any recommendations were made. The Committee has not

ieen able to do the survey and does not intend to pursue this issue further, since no weights and measures jurisdiction

5 ir association has communicated with the Committee that the issue has a high priority and should be pursued. 132-11 V 2.20. Gasoline-Alcohol Blends; Add Labeling of All Oxygenates

(This item was adopted.) background: This subject was Item 232-16 in the Report of the 75th NCWM, 1990, pages 102-103. It was proposed

hat the requirement for labeling the presence of ethanol or methanol (alcohols) in gasoline be broadened to include

ill oxygenates. Other than alcohols, common oxygenates added to gasoline are ethers. At the Interim Meeting in anuary 1990, the Committee received testimony on the need for deleting or expanding motor fuel labeling from the

joints of view of the gasoline manufacturers, oxygenate additive proponents, consumer groups, and motor vehicle nanufacturers. Increasing use in gasoline and higher amounts of an oxygenate commonly known as MTBE (methyl-ti outyl ether), especially in areas mandating the addition of oxygenates to reduce air pollutants, has led a small number

- »f auto manufacturers to set limits in their warranties on the amount of MTBE tolerated by their vehicles. Since this vas and is the reason for requiring gasoline-alcohol labeling, the Committee decided that it appears necessary to

: -e quire the labeling of other oxygenates in motor fuel. tL

\i the January 1991 Interim Meeting, the Committee sought information concerning the impact of any motor fuel abeling of oxygenates on purchasers of fuel for motors used in boats, airplanes, and small engines such as single- Uroke oil-and-gasoline fueled engines. The Experimental Aircraft Association, speaking for the General Aviation

vlanufacturers Association, explained by telephone that the Federal Aviation Administration requires type certification of all aviation motors and motor fuels. The FAA will not approve ethanol in gasoline as a motor fuel for airplane

notors. Sixty-five to seventy percent of the civilian fleet can use 80 octane gasoline. Forty thousand aircraft have been

pven supplemental type certificates permitting the use of 80 octane motor gasoline. This segment of the purchasing

. oublic must be informed as to whether there is any ethanol or methanol in the gasoline. Although not as clear-cut, here appeared to be general concerns still prevalent in the boating community about the long-term effects of ethanol- }lended gasoline in marine environments. Although both pro and con statements were made at the Interim Meeting

;oncerning the drivability of new marine engines using gasoline-ethanol blends, a greater concern is for the potential

reparation of ethanol from a gasoline-ethanol blend in the high-humidity marine atmosphere or when stored for ;xtended periods of time, as often done by recreational boaters.

The Committee also heard from several delegates concerning the impact of the U.S. Clean Air Act Amendments of

1990 on labeling motor fuel. In particular, Mr. James Peeples, Information Resources, Inc., summarized the -equirements and their impact on labeling. Beginning in 1992, in 41 carbon monoxide "nonattainment" areas during

ri^he winter months, gasoline will have to contain at least 2.7% oxygen by weight. If the carbon monoxide standard

s not met by a certain date, 3.1% oxygen by weight must be added to the gasoline in those areas. Beginning in 1995,

n the nine worst ozone polluted areas, a minimum of 2% oxygen by weight must be added. The ordinary 10% by

t_ volume ethanol-gasoline blend contains 3.5% oxygen by weight, far exceeding the 2% minimum. Gasoline must

|di :ontain at least 11% MTBE by volume to have 2% oxygen by weight and 15% MTBE by volume to have 2.7% oxygen

gl 3> weight. Required labeling under the Clean Air Act Amendments for all these oxygenated blends is "with a notice

^r hat the gasoline is oxygenated and will reduce the carbon monoxide emissions from the motor vehicle." Further

regulations may be proposed by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to implement the Clean Air Act Amendments.

li Other information was provided concerning the Clean Air Act Amendments' prohibition of lead or lead additives

in gasoline after December 31, 1995; requiring the registration and test evaluation of additives as lead substitutes for _ reducing valve seat wear or engine deposits; and limiting the volatility of all gasoline to a maximum of 9.0 psi (permitting 10% ethanol blends a 1-psi exemption) by the summer of 1992.

207
Laws and Regulations Committee

Since the boating community and civil airplane pilots using motor fuel must know the presence of even small amounts

of alcohols, it is the Committee's opinion that labeling of ethanol or methanol above 1% must continue, and th blending agent, whether ethanol or methanol, must be identified by name (not just "contains an oxygenate"). At the time of the 1991 Interim Meeting, the Committee believed that labeling all oxygenates above 1% by volume i did not appear to be an appropriate solution, however. Since small amounts of MTBE are added to a large proportior (20% or more) of all gasoline to "trim out" the fuel to meet octane minimums, and since auto manufacturers wan t against MTBE in large amounts, the Committee believed that a "trigger level" should be set, above which MTBE am

other oxygenates should be labeled. The question was to determine the appropriate trigger level. One weights ancrl measures official proposed a trigger of 2% by volume for MTBE since that is the maximum level of MTBE in gasoline

into which blenders can still add ethanol. Data from his State's motor fuel analysis records show that 50% of it premium grades contained 2% MTBE by volume, and that only 6% of its "plus" grades had this level of MTBE. Th(. Committee believed at that time that if they proposed a trigger level of 2% by volume, this would change the purpos'

of the labeling requirement from informing the final user/purchaser of the ingredients of the motor fuel to informin,. the potential blender as to the contents of the motor fuel for blending purposes. Therefore, the Committee rejecte

this suggestion to retain the original purpose of the labeling to provide essential information to the purchaser.

In a few cases the final purchaser is warned about high levels of MTBE. As far as the Committee was aware at th time of the Interim Meeting, two automobile manufacturers (Hyundai and Saab) warrant their cars up to 11% MTB]

by volume; equivalent to 2% oxygen by weight. The Committee believed that the trigger level of 2% oxygen by weigr was an appropriate level for other oxygenates, such as ethyl-t-butyl ether (ETBE) (and others bound to be studie

as potential blending agents). This was the basis for the revision recommended below. Committee Interim Meeting Recommendation: Revise Section 2.20. of the UMSCR and Section 3. of the Unifon Motor Fuel Regulation:

2.20.1. Method of Retail Sale. - All motor fuel kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold, at retail containing

(a) at least one percent by volume of ethanol, methanol, or a combination, or

(b) any other oxygenate or combination of oxygenates in a concentration, combined or singly, equal

to at least two percent by weight of oxygen (for example, this is 11% by volume MTBE^

shall be identified as "with" or "containing" (or similar wording) "ethanol," "methanol," ef "ethanol/methanol," "MTBE". "ETBE". or other identification of the oxygenate or oxygenates contained in the motor fuel on the upper 50 percent of the dispenser front panel in a position clear and conspicuous from the driver's position, in a type at least 1/2 inch in height, 1/16 inch stroke (width of type).

2.20.2. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. ~ The retailer must be provided, at the time

of delivery of the fuel on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation, the presence and maximum amount of: (a) ethanol, methanol, of any combination of ethanol/methanol oi

(b) MTBE. ETBE. or other oxygenate when present in the amounts requiring labeling

(in terms of percent by volume) contained in the fuel. This documentation is only for dispenser labeling purposes;

it is the responsibility of any potential blender to determine the total oxygen content of the motor fuel before

blending. The Committee received considerable input from the Central and Northeastern Weights and Measures Association and affected industries concerning this issue. In particular, the Committee requested input on the ability of weig] and measures motor fuel quality testing programs to enforce such labeling requirements. Consultation with Arizo Weights and Measures indicates that the amount of MTBE can be determined only with a gas chromatographic (G

method, requiring that samples be sent to a testing laboratory or that a gas chromatograph be purchased. Therefo

the Committee was interested in hearing from the six States that automatically adopt the latest version of the Unifo

Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities, and the impact of this revision on their enforcement prograr

Since the January 1991 Interim Meeting, the Committee was persuaded that some motor fuel users (boaters, c

aircraft operators) must be informed whether there is ethanol or MTBE in the fuel. For example, the Fede

208
Laws and Regulations Committee

. nation Administration does not presently approve of the use of gasoline with any oxygenate for general aviation

: ngines (although it is expected that ethers will be approved eventually). In addition, some small engine, motor cycle, nd automobile owner's manuals caution the owner to switch to motor fuels without oxygenates if "driveability roblems" are noticed. The Committee therefore recommends labeling of the presence of all oxygenates over 1%

m y volume (selecting 1% as the amount which can be measured). As measurement capabilities improve, there is i othing to preclude labeling motor fuel containing less than 1% oxygenates (but not zero) as containing an oxygenate r r oxygenates. m

i Committee Recommendation: Revise Section 2.20 of the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of !ommodities and Section 3 of the Uniform Motor Fuel Regulation as follows: TM

m 220. Gasoline Alcohol Oxygenate Blends. -- W

m 220.1. Method of retail sale. - All spark ignition engine motor fuel kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold,

at retail containing at least one percent by volume of any oxygenate or combination of oxygenates ethonol, methanol, or a combination shall be identified as "with" or "containing" (or similar wording) the specific type

of oxvgenate(s) in the engine fuel. For example, the label may read "contains ethanol" or "with MTBE/ETBE."

"cthonor^ "methanol^ or "ctbonol/methanor This information shall be posted on the upper 50 percent of the

ffl dispenser front panel in a position clear and conspicuous from the driver's position, in a type at least one half m inch in height, 1/16 inch stroke (width of type).

wd 2202. Documentation for dispenser labeling purposes. -The retailer must be provided, at the time of delivery

of the fuel, on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other documentation, a declaration the prcsenec - of any oxygenate or combination of oxygenates present in concentrations of at least 1% by volume a»4 maximum amount of ethanol, methanol, or any combination of ethanol/methanol (in terms of percent by volume) contained in the fuel. This documentation is only for dispenser labeling purposes; it is the re- sponsibility of any potential blender to determine the total oxygen content of the engine motor fuel before

blending. 32-12 W 2.22. Liquid Oxygen Used for Medical Purposes

ee Item 232-17 in the Report of the 75th NCWM, 1990, for background on this subject. California Weights and

Measures indicated that the San Luis Obispo County Sealer has found that many home medical devices are not

; alibrated, and that there may be problems not only with liquid oxygen, but other areas as well. No data or statements

f problems have been submitted to the Committee or to a Regional Weights and Measures Association. The

Committee has not moved forward in explicitly requiring a sealed meter to be used to deliver liquid oxygen since

; ommercial exchange by volume would require that Handbook 44 tolerances be met for the accuracy of delivery; the

I Committee is not aware whether Handbook 44 tolerances can be met by other than a sealed meter. However,

squiring a sealed meter does not solve another significant problem raised. It was contended that the actual amount

f liquid oxygen received may be considerably less than indicated by a meter located on a delivery truck if the hoses

arrying liquid oxygen are long enough to permit volatilization of the product from the truck to the receiving tank.

)ther parts of Handbook 44 requirements must be enforced to ensure accuracy of delivered volume in these instances, uch as the G-UR. User Requirements section. The location of the meter and length of discharge hose may be

ritical to the accuracy of the measurement of delivered volume. This may be an issue for the regional weights and

leasures associations to explore in their Specifications and Tolerances Committees. No response or alternative ^commendation has been forthcoming from any party concerning this problem since the Committee pointed it out

r

; i its report to the 75th NCWM. Due to the demands of other work, the Committee does not intend to pursue this

-'>>sue.

(Hfi

209
Laws and Regulations Committee

232-13 VC 2.X. Wiping Cloths

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Background: At the 75th Annual Meeting, the Conference was alerted to the continuing practice of selling and

labeling wiping cloths by gross weight. The Central Weights and Measures Association reported to the Conference ! that packages of wiping cloths have been found in the retail marketplace, such as hardware and paint stores. A letter was transmitted to the International Association of Wiping Cloth Manufacturers voicing the Conference's concern about industry labeling practices that might be interpreted as violations of general packaging and labeling and method I of sale requirements. Section 15 of the UWML prohibits anyone from representing the quantity in any manner

calculated or tending to mislead or in any way deceive another person. Since the only usable quantity of wiping cloths being declared is the net weight, a gross weight on the label could be interpreted as misleading and deceiving.:: Furthermore, there is some concern that net weight is not an appropriate declaration, since wiping cloths are used?) by the "each" or by count and size. Committee Recommendation: Add the following new section to the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities:

2.X. Wiping Cloths. - Wiping cloths shall be sold by net weight or by count plus size of wiping cloths. When

sold by count plus size, and the wiping cloths are of assorted sizes, the term "irregular dimensions" and the minimum size of such cloths must be declared. The gross weight may not be printed on any package, either consumer or nonconsumer. 232-14 I 2.XX. Glass

Background: California Weights and Measures received a complaint from a retailer against a glass fabricator abou

the practice of taking an order for a certain size of glass and calculating the area of the glass upon which the chargi

is based using only even inch increments. For example, someone ordering 10 1/2 by 10 1/2-in glass would be charge< according to the price for a 12 by 12-in sheet. However, when California officials met with representatives of th California Glass Association, they discovered this is a practice nationally. The glass manufacturers supply tables wit prices based on even-inch increments: historically, window glass stock sheets always came in even inches, but this i no longer the case. There are other legitimate reasons for charging for a size larger than that of the finished piece The industry contends that there is no efficient method to calculate area for glass with fractional dimensions; fc example, most calculators use decimals, not fractions. The reason that glass dimensions must be rounded up i because an extra amount of glass is needed as a lever or break-off strip when custom-cutting to the required fm; dimensions. Moreover, there is an analogy with other building supply products: a supplier of wood sells only a fu piece of wood or sheet of material in the available stock sizes. The buyer assumes the responsibility for cutting lo: and spoilage due to miscuts.

Representatives from the Flat Glass Marketing Association, Glass Tempering Association, Laminators Safety Gla

Association, Primary Glass Manufacturers Council, and the Glazing Industry Code Committee met with tl Committee to discuss possible solutions to the issue. According to a California Weights and Measures representativ the glass supplier was charged with the violation that the invoice listed only the requested size of glass (18 7/16 inch x 34 13/16 inches), a calculated area of 4.457 sq. ft. The invoice did not indicate that the buyer was actually charge

for a 5 sq. ft. (20 in x 36 in) piece of glass. It was suggested that a change in the information shown on the invoi might be sufficient. For example, "20 in x 36 in glass cut to customer's dimensions of 18 7/16 in x 34 13/16 in." The Committee does not see any reason to ban the long-standing practice of calculating and charging for the larg piece of glass which is cut to the custom-ordered size. However, full disclosure to the purchaser is mandatory. TI

glass associations' representatives expressed their intent to review their invoicing, price lists, and signage to ensu

that computations and charges are fully disclosed to both retailers and ultimate purchasers. The Committee w

review the industry practices after the industry representatives have had an opportunity to recommend possit improvements to their methods of disclosure and advertising; it may be necessary to establish a method of sale i glass sold from bulk, but the Committee will defer this decision.

a

210
Laws and Regulations Committee

Prior to the Annual Meeting, the Flat Glass Marketing Association submitted proposed language for a glass standard based on "traditional trade practice" of rounding measurements up to the next even or full inch for purposes of

calculating charges for flat glass sheets. The Committee will review this proposal as part of next year's work.

| In addition, Maryland Weights and Measures alerted the Committee that another industry practice indicates a nominal

thickness of glass that is not, in some cases, equal to the declared thickness. This issue will also be included in the

. Committee work on this item. 232-15 I 2.XXX. Baler Twine

tm

. Background: Baler twine, either polypropylene or sisal, is used by farmers in automatic baling machines. The sisal

: product is imported. Prior to the 64th NCWM, a method of sale requirement for baler and binder twine required

its sale by length, net weight, and knot strength. A tolerance of 5 percent of the declared length had been allowed

as part of that requirement. The entire requirement was revoked at the 64th NCWM in order to remove the tolerance

of 5 percent of the declared length.

til There is not a close correlation between the declared net weight and the length. The farmer needs to be assured of

the length and knot strength. Packages of baler twine have been found with net weight declarations and without

length declarations. Instead of length, some packages are marked with a "Model No. 9000," implying 9000 ft in the package. Canadian weights and measures officials conducted a survey indicating a serious shortfall between the actual length and that implied to be in the package or declared to be the length. Several years ago, when the lengths were

tested, weights and measures officials were alerted to probable shortages in these packages. In many instances, the

lengths are no longer declared. Some members of the industry complain that States have conflicting requirements

for what the net quantity statement should indicate. At the 1991 Interim Meeting, the Committee recommended adding the following information as an Interpretation and

Jj Guideline to Handbook 130: i

Subsections 6.4.1. (a) and (b) of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation read:

6.4.1. Combination Declaration. --

(a) A declaration of quantity in terms of weight shall be combined with appropriate

declarations of the measure, count, and size of the individual units unless a declaration of weight

alone is fully informative.

(b) A declaration of quantity in terms of measure shall be combined with appropriate

declarations of the weight, count, and size of the individual units unless a declaration of measure

alone is fully informative.

Neither weight alone nor length alone is fully informative on packages of baler twine. Both weight and length

- , must appear. Knot strength is an element of identity and must therefore appear on the principal display panel, but separate from the net quantity.

Vfekr

' Knot strength as an element of identity is derived from the FTC interpretations on twine and cordage products. The

Committee invited input on whether a new section needed to be added to the Uniform Regulation for the Method

of Sale of Commodities to require that baler twine be sold by weight, length, and knot strength. In addition, the

..- Committee asked for information on the appropriate tension for measuring the length in baler twine. In the absence

:

-\ of such information, it was recommended that weights and measures officials use a tension of 5 kg or 10 lb. At the Annual Meeting, the Committee made this an information item, with the intent to incorporate baler twine requirements into the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities next year. Further work will include determining the appropriate tension to be applied to the twine for length measurement and the appropriate

label declarations. The Committee will consider whether a length declaration alone is adequate or if net weight

should also be required. The Conference will collaborate with Canada's Legal Metrology Branch in this area.

211
Laws and Regulations Committee

232-16 I 2.XXXX. Products Dispensed from Mechanical Devices

See Item 231-6 in this report and Item 232-18 in the Report of the 75th NCWM, 1990, for background on this subject The Committee will focus its attention on Item 231-6 first in its priorities for work. The Committee did not address

this item at the Interim Meeting, but will keep the issue in its work plan for later development.

237 Uniform Motor Fuel Regulation

237-1 W Use of Qualitative Terms for Motor Fuel

I Background: Some States have regulations defining the names that may be used to designate the quality (expressed

as the anti-knock index or octane level) of motor fuel. A proposal was made to add a requirement to the Uniform Motor Fuel Regulation defining customary grades or quality designations of motor fuels; for example, define "regular' for automotive gasolines and gasoline/oxygenate blends as having a minimum octane index of 87 and define "premium'

or any word or term of equivalent meaning as having a minimum octane index of 91. The reason given was that the motoring public needs standardized definitions for clear understanding across State lines.

Title 15 of the U.S. Code Sections 2821-2824, Title II of the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act and regulations undei

the Act, 16 CFR Sections 306.0 - 306.11, require the posting of the gasoline AKI (anti-knock index). All vehicle owne

manuals, foreign and domestic, refer to fuel requirements using the AKI. Since a nationwide reference point (th< octane posting) is already in place, there is no need for standardized definitions recognizable across State lines The Committee is therefore withdrawing this item from its report. 238 Interpretations and Guidelines

238-1 VC Ready-to-Eat Food - Guideline on Selling Whole Chicken by Count

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

This was Item 232-7 in the Interim Meeting Agenda.

Background: The Massachusetts Food Association and Connecticut Food Stores Association requested that Sectio

1.12. Ready-to-Eat Food of the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities be modified so th whole ready-to-eat chickens held in a hot holding unit with or without thermal protection packaging and not intende

for self service be permitted to be sold by weight, measure, or count. They argued that customer convenient demanded that the customer know the cost to feed the family prior to the sale. Permitting the sale of whole chicke only by a specified cost per pound may act as a psychological obstacle to purchasing at the retail food store, whic competes with the fast food restaurant with respect to this product. The Northeastern Weights and Measure

Association did not support the food associations' request. They recommended that whole chicken be labeled as

it were a standard package, for example, "net weight 2 1/2 lb - $3.85 each" as signage adjacent to the product. Tl

majority of the Committee endorses this approach. Committee Recommendation: Add the following guideline: Supermarkets have complained that being required to sell items such as fully-cooked ready-to-eat chickens or

ribs or other "carry-out" items by the pound puts them at a competitive disadvantage to other "fast-food" outlets that can post a final price on a menu board so that the potential customer knows ahead of selection what the final price of the item will be.

It is not necessary, however, to sell these items from bulk and have to individually weigh and mark every chicken or slab of ribs. An alternative method of sale is to weigh the finished, cooked item, say the whole

chickens, determine the minimum net weight, and sell them as if they were "standard" packages, that is, of a

]

212
Laws and Regulations Committee

fixed (the minimum) weight For example, retailers could post a sign "Whole Barbecued Chickens, net weight

2 1/2 lb - $3.85 each/

This would meet the requirement that meat, poultry, fish, and seafood be sold by weight and would permit

stores to compete with fast food outlets while still providing net quantity information to the purchaser.

238-2 W 2.32. Fresh Fruits and Vegetables

•[ . v. Background: It was recommended that the guidelines on the method of sale of fresh fruits and vegetables appearing n the section "Interpretations and Guidelines" of Handbook 130 be updated to address more products and methods

ijbf sale based on current good marketing practices. Input was provided from the Central Weights and Measures

Association, South Carolina Weights and Measures, and Winn-Dixie Stores. Unfortunately, the Committee did not

"iave time to give this item proper study. Because of the press of other high priority issues, the Committee is withdrawing this item from its report. 238-3 VC Typewriter and Computer Printer Ribbons and Tapes

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

-This was listed in the Committee's Interim Agenda under Item 250-1 Enforcement Issues.

Background: Packages of typewriter and computer printer ribbons and tapes have been found in the marketplace

vith no declaration of quantity of any kind. Information on the package about the type of machine the ribbon or tape

s designed to fit is not a declaration of quantity. Purchasers have been misled as a result of the failure of some

nanufacturers to disclose the length; ribbons designated for a particular machine may be sold at a low price, but with

;ubstantially less length than ribbons ordinarily produced for the machine.

The Committee met with Mr. Charles Sabatt representing the Copying Products and Inked Ribbon Association Inc. CPIRA). The association endorsed the requirement to disclose the length of the ribbon. CPIRA also expressed the :oncern of its membership that disclosing ribbon length may not fully inform the purchaser about "character yield", lamely the number of characters that will be produced by a ribbon, or the ribbon life. CPIRA may submit proposals, vhen they have been worked out, that permit labeling by character yield, although at present the concept of character

deld is complex. For example, ribbons with "seamless loop" technology incorporating re-inking systems maybe l/12th

Lt he length of a non-re-inking welded ribbon, yet provide 1 1/2 to 2 times the useful life. In another example, the

- hree basic types of nylon (flat, textured, twisted) used to make ribbons and tapes hold various amounts of ink and ^ provide different terms of life at the same yardage. A third aspect of this issue relates to the width of the ribbon,

especially if it incorporates a moebius loop (a twisted continuous loop), which can dramatically alter the life of a

"ibbon. For one particular machine, some manufacturers provide a 1/8-in ribbon, and others a 3/8-in ribbon that u asts 50% longer at the same length. CPIRA will inform its members that they must disclose ribbon length and, in

•"'addition, may inform the purchaser that character yield may not be related to ribbon length. m

Committee Recommendation: Add the following to the Guidelines and Interpretation section of Handbook 130:

Typewriter and computer printer ribbons must be labeled by length. In addition, character yield information may be disclosed on the principal display panel.

'

| 238-4 I Hardwood Labeled by the "Board Foot"

This was listed in the Committee's Interim Agenda under 250-1 Enforcement Issues.

Background: Mr. Paul Everitt, weights and measures official of Seattle, WA, contacted NIST concerning a complaint

received about the purchase of hardwood lumber. The price of this lumber was quoted as a certain amount per board

* ^oot; however, the actual dimensions of the hardwood lumber were considerably less than the stated amount when

1 Converted to board feet (1 board foot = 12 x 12 x 1 in = 144 cu in). For example, a 6-foot by 7-inch by 3/4-inch

213
Laws and Regulations Committee

board was labeled 4 board feet, an amount corresponding to dimensions of 6 feet by 8 inches by 1 inch. Mr. Everitt contacted a retail wood supply firm as well as Mr. Bob Sabistina, the chief inspector of the National Hardwood Lumber Association. All of those contacted agreed that it was industry practice to declare the number of board feet in a piece of lumber as the dimensions before surfacing the lumber. The Committee recommended in its Interim Report to add the following interpretation to the section on

"Interpretations and Guidelines" of Handbook 130:

Interpretation: In 1977, the National Hardwood Lumber Association collaborated with the National Conference on Weights and Measures in the writing of the following paragraph that appears in the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities as printed in NIST Handbook 130, "Uniform Laws and Regulations." This paragraph reads:

2.12. Hardwood Lumber. ~ Sales of hardwood lumber measured after kiln drying shall be quoted,

invoiced and delivered on the basis of net board footage, with no addition of footage for kiln drying

shrinkage. Sales of hardwood lumber measured prior to kiln drying shall be quoted, invoiced, and

delivered on the basis of net board footage before kiln drying. If the lumber is to be kiln dried at the request of the purchaser, the kiln drying charge shall be clearly shown and identified on the quotation and invoice. Weights and measures laws of all 50 States require that the sale of any commodity by weight or measure be by

net weight or measure, not prior to processing or including the weight or measure of other than the commodity

being sold. Although paragraph 2.12. does not specifically mention subsequent surfacing of the lumber, the

principles of net quantity still apply. Further Discussion: Since Mr. Everitt has found what might be a widespread practice that may be in conflict wit

legal requirements, the association was notified in writing and asked to notify their members. Any quotation, invoice or sale of hardwood lumber must be by net board footage, not by board footage prior to further processing, such a

surfacing. Based on discussions with the hardwood manufacturers before and during the Annual Meeting, th Committee revised its plans to add an interpretation to Handbook 130, and now intends to clarify and broade

paragraph 2.12. in the coming year to include any subsequent processing of the lumber, rather than just kiln drying Members of the trade and retail associations will be invited to comment. The Committee agreed to change this to an information item and carry it over for consideration next year. Sever

issues must be addressed, including development of methods of sale for industrial and retail sales based on the "boar

foot" or actual dimensions. 240 Handbook 133: Package Testing

240-1 VC Moisture Loss for Bacon and Luncheon Meats; Definition of "Fres: Poultry"

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Background: NIST Handbook 133 incorporates the use of "gray areas" for those jurisdictions using wet tare for n weight determinations of meat or poultry products from Federally-inspected packaging plants. There is no gray ar< \ for jurisdictions that employ "used dried tare." The gray area approach has also been adopted by the U.S. Departme I of Agriculture. The magnitudes of the gray areas are based on procedures and pilot studies developed and conduct

under the auspices of the National Conference on Weights and Measures' Task Force on Commodity Requiremen The protocol for the original pilot studies that were conducted to determine the size of the gray areas for meat a j poultry products was designed by first questioning wet tare jurisdictions as to how they would determine the net weig' of packages of bacon or packages of luncheon meat such as bologna. California and Michigan jurisdictions respond

j

214
Laws and Regulations Committee

tat, as long as there was no free-flowing liquid in the packages, they would clean the packages of clinging fat and

:her solids before determining the tare weight.

1 subsequent discussions with the Task Force on Commodity Requirements, representatives of the meat industry and

.S. Department of Agriculture said that there should be no free flowing liquid in packages of bacon. As a result, aeon was excluded from the pilot study with the understanding that jurisdictions that employ wet tare would clean aeon packages of clinging fat (bacon) before determining the tare weights just as jurisdictions that employ dry (used

- unused) tare would do. Bacon was given a gray area of zero because the test methods and tare weights for bacon

ere identical for wet tare and dry tare jurisdictions.

i the pilot study conducted on luncheon meats, sausage, and franks, the data collected by weights and measures

risdictions using wet tare tests indicated that there was no free-flowing liquid in the packages of luncheon meats

sted (including bologna, pimento loaf, sliced turkey, and sliced ham) and in sausage packages. Therefore, these

-oducts too were given gray areas of zero with the understanding that the tare materials for these types of packages

e to be wiped clean of clinging product before determining the tare weight. This is the same procedure employed

i jurisdictions that normally use dry tare (used or unused). This was the intent of the procedures adopted by the

ational Conference and incorporated in Handbook 133.

his year, the American Meat Institute (AMI) conducted a study to determine if there really should be a zero gray

ea for bacon and for luncheon meats for jurisdictions employing a wet tare in their testing. Some wet tare

risdictions have cited AMI member companies in the recent past, and AMI believes that the cited short weights were

je to the techniques these jurisdictions employed that differed from those intended to be used by wet tare

risdictions. AMI contends that the jurisdictions appear to have taken the bacon or luncheon meats out of the tckage and weighed the product, but with no efforts to clean the tare materials and subtract the tare weight from

e gross weight of the package. AMI duplicated this procedure (not cleaning out the package, but only weighing the

•lids that came out of the package) to derive a proposed moisture loss (not actually moisture in the instance of

icon, but clinging fat) of 3 1/2% if bacon packages are not cleaned and wiped before determining the tare weight,

milarly, gray areas of 0.75% for salami to 4% for ham and turkey breast were recommended by the AMI if packages

" luncheon meats are not cleaned and wiped before determining the tare weight. MI simply removed the solids from the packages of bacon and luncheon meats, but did not clean the tare materials any way: a non-zero gray area appears to be warranted if tests are conducted in this manner.

jurisdictions using wet tare do not clean and wipe the tare materials for bacon or luncheon meats prior to ttermining their tare weights, they cannot apply a zero gray area, which applies only if the tare materials are cleaned

id wiped. The original reasoning behind this approach was that, as long as there were no "puddles" of free-flowing

juid in the package, the package could be cleaned before determining the tare weight, similar to cleaning a ketchup

)ttle of clinging ketchup before determining its tare weight.

ie language in Handbook 133 needs to be clarified. The confusion arises because Section 3.18.2. Types of Products,

! ! Bacon, states: "Wet tare and dried used tare are equivalent. Wipe all packaging material dry of fat and clinging

oisture before weighing tare." Section 3.18.2. b. Fresh Sausage and Luncheon Meats, also says "carefully clean and

pe all tare materials. Wet tare and dried used tare are equivalent." However, Section 3.18.3. Procedure, e. Tare

) Wet Tare, states "(a) gross weigh two packages opened for tare, (b) weigh solids inside, (c) get wet tare by

btracting solids weight from gross weight...". Inadvertently, references to 3.18.2. a. and b. were left out of Section

18 3. In addition, Section 3.18.3. e. does not make clear that packages of bacon, sausage, and luncheon meat are to wiped clean before determining their tare weights. Ather problems also need resolution. "Unused tare" and "dried used tare" are equivalent only when there is no

sorption of fat or grease into the packaging material; some bacon, for example, is packaged on paperboard backing

ther than on plastic. In addition, packages that contain a soaker pad (for example, microwaveable bacon) will also

•sorb moisture during distribution; the Committee was asked to address this problem by requiring that the pad be

ied (by "dry tare" jurisdictions) and by establishing an appropriate gray area for these products (for "wet tare"

. risdictions). In the interest of clarifying Handbook 133, the Committee recommends that the gray area of zero for

icon not apply to packages with absorbent materials. Many products are subject to moisture loss without gray areas

215
Laws and Regulations Committee

having yet been established. In those instances, "reasonable variations" must be applied until further data can be

collected and analyzed. The Committee requests jurisdictions that test bacon to report the appropriate time for drying out absorbent materials for dry tare jurisdictions. Wet tare jurisdictions are asked to report the incidence of free-flowing liquid in packages of bacon and luncheon

meats. These jurisdictions are also asked to describe what constitutes "free-flowing liquid": is it a puddle of liquid 01 miscellaneous globules of moisture clinging to the package when the product is removed, but not coalesced into z "puddle"? The Committee recommends that the zero gray area for bacon, sausage, and luncheon meats be limitec

in application not only to packages with no absorbent materials, but also to packages with no free-flowing liquid inside Concerning the definition of luncheon meats, the AMI recommended that luncheon meats be limited to the type o product described in Title 9 of the Code of Federal Regulations, Section 319.180 except for franks and wieners. Th

title of this section is "frankfurter, frank, furter, hot-dog, wiener, vienna, bologna, garlic bologna, knockwurst, an< similar products." This recommendation would therefore limit luncheon meats to bologna, even though the pilot stud was conducted on a broader array of products, including those under 9 CFR Subpart K "Luncheon Meat, Loaves, am

Jellied Products" and sliced ham and turkey. The Committee believes that a better approach is to narrow th application of a zero gray area to all "luncheon meats," as generally understood by a layman, unless there is free flowing liquid in the package; that is, to limit the application of a zero gray area to those products for which no free flowing moisture is found in the packages. The AMI also recommended that the advice in Section 3.18.3. Procedure h. What to Do When the Lot Is in the Gra Area (1) Further Information (b) be modified as follows: "If USDA has data on the specific lot in question or if ther

is an approved TQC or PQC program producing data on the lot, this data may serve is sufficient to substantiate th; the lot complied with net weight requirements when it left the plant." The Committee was not provided th recommendation until after the Interim Meeting, but preliminary discussions have led it to conclude that no changt should be made to permit maximum regulatory flexibility by the weights and measures jurisdiction. The AMI m<

wish to propose this or additional changes for the next work year; the Committee requests that these proposals accompanied by further explanation of the implications of any suggested changes. Now that the U.S. Department of Agriculture has adopted Handbook 133 (HB133), there is an increased interest the clarity of instructions and methodology in Section 3.18. of HB133 covering meat and poultry products fn Federally inspected plants. A letter sent January 4 to State and local Directors in wet tare jurisdictions details tl J'

issue. The substance of this letter appears above. Dry tare jurisdictions are not affected (and do not use the "gr| area" approach for meat or poultry products not subject to evaporation of moisture1 ). As long as dry t jurisdictions dry the absorbent materials and assign any free-flowing liquid to the net weight, they will have account

for moisture loss and will not have to concern themselves with "gray areas" or "reasonable variations." To summarize the intent of the revisions shown in Appendix C: (1) for bacon, sausage, and luncheon meats, the "ze

3

j gray area" can only be applied by wet tare jurisdictions when the tare materials are non-absorbent (all plastic, |

example) and when there is no free-flowing liquid in the packages. Under these circumstances, the tare materials 2 to be completely cleaned of clinging product before making the determination of tare. Since this is the sarj procedure employed by dry tare jurisdictions, there is no need to apply an allowance for moisture loss (hence "ze gray area). (2) When there is free-flowing liquid, or when the tare materials are cardboard or contain a soaker p

the "zero" gray area does not apply for bacon, sausage, or luncheon meats, and "reasonable variations" (undefined HB133 but not zero) will have to be recognized by wet tare jurisdictions. (3) Dry tare jurisdictions will have to ti precautions to dry out absorbent materials when testing other meat packages just as they normally do for poul packages.

In a completely separate issue, it was pointed out to the Committee that the Standards and Labeling Division of F

updated its policy memo on the use of the term "fresh" in labeling meat and poultry products (Policy Memo 02 j, i dated Jan 11, 1989.) This memo permits the term fresh to be labeled on any poultry or poultry part as long as it not or is not frozen at or below 0 °F. Previous labeling policy did not permit the term fresh to be applied to prod

'An example of a meat product subject to moisture evaporation is air-dried sausage.

216
Laws and Regulations Committee

'low 26 °F. After discussions with and advice from the Chief of the Standards Branch at FSIS, the Committee is Commending defining fresh poultry for purposes of net weight and application of the gray area only as that product ove 26 °F.

immittee Recommendation: Revise Section 3.18. as shown in Appendix C.

i >0-2 I Moisture Loss for Ice-Packed Poultry

; e Task Force on Commodity Requirements completed its work at the 73rd Annual Meeting. Ongoing efforts to Ine test methods and defme specific approaches for different commodities subject to moisture loss were left to the

5 !ws and Regulations Committee and the Liaison Committee. The Task Force recommended that the Committee

;e up the issue of moisture-loss for ice-packed poultry shipped in bulk for repackaging by retail stores. Weights

d measures agencies have repeatedly found large shortages in bulk shipments of ice-packed poultry and have been

3 istrated in their efforts to decrease the occurrences of shortages. The Task Force was unable within the time

] otted to it to design a data collection study that would shed light on the shortages caused by the loss of moisture

ring shipping. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA), Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS), volunteered

help in collecting the necessary data.

IS and the NIST Office of Weights and Measures designed a test protocol for weighing cases of poultry on the eking line, in the plant, at the point of shipping, and as received by the purchaser. A pilot study was conducted in

l spring of 1990 with the objective of finalizing the test method prior to asking other States and manufacturing

I ints to participate. The study sought to determine the amount of moisture lost at each point in the manufacturing

d distribution system for a wide variety of products, distribution distances, and times. This study was conducted

the States of Maryland, Delaware, and Connecticut. The Committee expresses its appreciation to these jurisdictions

• their fine work. Moisture loss on whole chicken in a little over 24 hours was as high as 9%.

le Committee's Technical Advisor met with representatives of the National Broiler Council (NBC) to discuss the

dings of the pilot study. The NBC expressed concern because they knew of no members (poultry processors) who

•uld not and do not currently adjust bills to reflect the amount of product received. Retailers who have problems

th their bills, NBC maintained, must be dealing with wholesalers or other middlemen who can adjust their bills with

: poultry processor but who are not allowing the same adjustment to the retailer. Perhaps a more viable solution mid be to help retailers with their contracts with their suppliers, who may be middlemen, not the poultry packagers

imselves. Apparently, good distribution practice in all these instances includes backbilling for shortages at the time

delivery; recognition of moisture loss is therefore inconsistent with current distribution practices. The Committee

1J write weights and measures officials and retailers to determine whether thereported problems can be resolved ough better information, communication, and support from the weights and measures community, the retail food

irket trade associations, and the poultry manufacturers. The Committee affirms its desire to assist retailers with

;ir contracts with suppliers to ensure that they pay only for the net weight of poultry received at the time of delivery.

10-3 I Moisture Loss for Pet Foods

embers of the Pet Food Institute collaborated with selected weights and measures jurisdictions in the conduct of

o studies of moisture loss for dry pet foods. Their objective was to provide moisture loss data that can be used to termine the amount of weight loss that may be experienced from the time of packaging. This would not be a "grayi sa approach," but would, if successful, be a moisture loss tolerance look-up table. All regions of the country, as well

all representative types and sizes of dry pet foods and packaging materials, were represented in the studies. Weights

d measures officials were asked to visit the packaging plants and warehouses where the weight loss studies were

inducted, test the scales used to determine the amount of weight loss, and become acquainted with the net weight

d other quality control aspects of the packager. The first study began in January 1990 and ended in the summer

, 1990; a second study to determine the effects of different seasonal variations began in May 1990 and ended in

nter 1990-91.

217
Laws and Regulations Committee

MOISTURE BY AREA

DOG FOOD N GREASEPROOF/PAPER PACKAGE

23 4 8 12 16 20 24 NUMBER OF WEEKS

MOISTURE LOSS BY AREA

BSCUTTS/TREATS N PAPERBOARD BOX

NUMBER OF WEEKS

MOISTURE LOSS BY AREA

CAT FOOD H PAPERBOARD BOX

2 34 8 12 16 NUMBER OF WEEKS

MOISTURE LOSS BY AREA

CAT FOOD M GREASEPROOF/PAPER PACKAGE

1 2 3 4 8 12 16 20 NUMBER OF WEEKS

Five companies collected data on moisture loss for dry pet food: Alpo, Heinz, Nabisco, Quaker, and Ralston Purii The preliminary results of their work were reviewed at the Interim Meeting in January 1991. Results from the fi 6-month study are shown above. The objective of these data collection studies is to provide moisture loss data t| can be used to determine the amount of weight loss that may be experienced from the time of packaging, rather tt requiring the testing official to perform additional tests at the time of finding shortweight. Mr. Robert Fuenhe, Ralsl Purina Company, presented preliminary results from the second data collection at the Annual Meeting. T

information is shown below.

MOISTURE LOSS BY AREA

DOG FOOD IN GREASEPROOF/PAPER PACKAGE

MOISTURE LOSS BY AREA

BISCUITS/TREATS IN PAPERBOARD BOX
Laws and Regulations Committee

MOISTURE LOSS BY AREA

CAT FOOD IN PAPERBOARD BOX

MJVBEB OK WEEK S

MOISTURE LOSS BY AREA

CAT FOOD IN GREASEPROOF PAPER PACKAGE

.40-4 I Moisture Loss for Pasta

'he National Pasta Association would like to use the gray area approach adopted by the NCWM for flour as a model

or moisture loss in pasta. They have provided the NCWM with a list of all U.S. packagers to act as contacts with

is packaging plant. A round robin will have to be conducted to make sure that all laboratories obtain the same

noisture content on the pasta. The association agreed to sponsor the round robin. The interlaboratory study on

loisture measurement comparison will be conducted immediately after the Annual Meeting. State directors will be

ontacted and asked to participate in this study. The pasta samples have been collected and will be distributed by

\x. James Jacobs of the Northern Crop Institute, Fargo, North Dakota. 40-5 Polyethylene/Test Methods for Bags

ee Item 240-7 in the Report of the 75th NCWM, 1990, page 108 for background on this item. Styrofoam balls are

eing explored as an alternative test material to vermiculite. 40-5A MAV's for Polyethylene Bags

lanufacturers of very thin polyethylene bags showed that their manufacturing process controls could not produce

ackages of bags in the range of 1 mil thickness or less and of low count (low count not defined) so that the MAV

f 4% could be met. They showed data collected on products from several different manufacturers. Several problems

pparent in the data provided will have to be resolved. The repeatability of a dead-weight dial micrometer as rescribed in Handbook 133 is 0.05 mil; the MAV of 4% for 1-mil-thick product is 0.04 mil. This raises the question

f whether the MAV for 1 mil product can be measured using the equipment described in Handbook 133. This also

Jggests that packagers reporting their inability of conform to the MAV of 4% need to investigate the precision and

^curacy of their measuring equipment. Weights and measures enforcement agencies should check the accuracy and

apeatability of their equipment before testing polyethylene of 1 mil thickness. Data submitted by polyethylene bag

lanufacturers indicate that, for example, 40% or more of the packages tested for 3 of 9 brands of tall kitchen twist

e bags ranging from 0.65 to 1.01 mil labeled thickness did not meet the MAV of 4%. Forty percent or more of the packages tested for those same three brands would not have met an MAV of 7% either. (The 7% MAV had been

force until changed by the 74th NCWM in 1989.) The data submitted were not directly comparable to results under andbook 133 sampling procedures; there was no indication whether samples of 10 packages from the same lot or

delivery would have met the average requirement. Further information and data will be necessary to determine

* \ hether changes to the MAV for thin, low count bag products are warranted.

Je Flexible Packaging Association notified the Committee before the Annual Meeting that it is collecting further formation on bags less than 1 mil thick. The purpose of this study is to determine if existing measurement

quipment is suitable for thicknesses under 1 mil and if the MAVs specified in NIST Handbook 133 are appropriate.

219
Laws and Regulations Committee

240-6 I Aerosol Products Testing Procedure for Foam and Nonfoam

Background: A pan spray aerosol is delivered as a foam (Handbook 133 defines a foam as formed at the valve or when the product hits a surface, with its volume not substantially reduced in 20 seconds), but is so composed that it behaves differently from the traditional foam product, such as shaving cream. (Sacramento County reports that it separates into a foam and non-foam when it hits a surface.) At issue initially was the legitimacy of applying the test allowance given to foam products to this new foam pan spray. The test allowance is applied to foam aerosols because

they have a tendency to cling to the walls of the aerosol can and need time to settle to be completely expelled. Since

the test method does not provide for time for the product to settle, and actual consumer usage involves intermittent

deliveries over time, a test allowance is given to foam aerosols to compensate for the difference between the test procedure and actual consumer use. As this foam pan spray is a new product in the marketplace, limited testing has been done to determine how much is delivered under normal customer use and whether or not an allowance for

official testing is necessary. Test results on the new foam pan spray, on a competing non-foam pan spray, and on foam shaving cream were provided by the manufacturer and by Sacramento County CA. See the table on the next- page. Both testing groups tested all products using (a) the procedures from Handbook 133 for foam products (but not applying the test allowance to the results); (b) the procedures for non-foam products; and (c) twice daily small

deliveries of product until the container was empty to simulate consumer usage. Although only a relatively few packages were tested, unanticipated issues were revealed:

1. Six out of nine lots of the foam products tested by Sacramento County (the foam pan spray and the shaving cream)

did not deliver the labeled net weight when tested simulating normal consumer usage. These results were

duplicated by Beatrice-Hunt Wesson.

2. In the tests conducted by Sacramento County, the amount of product (whether foam or non-foam) delivered wher

tested as a foam product was about equivalent to the product delivered when tested as a non-foam product, anc both amounts (except for two lots of shaving cream) were greater than the labeled weight. Beatrice-Hunt Wessoi

results showed larger deliveries by weight for the foam pan spray and for the shaving cream when tested following the foam aerosol test procedures and their delivered weights were all greater than the labeled net weight withou

applying the test allowance. This may indicate that there may not be a need for the foam product allowance in th< test procedures. Committee Recommendation: The Committee encourages other jurisdictions and Regional Weights and Measure

Associations to study the data given in this report and to collect their own data on foam and non-foam aerosc products to determine if test methods for aerosols need to be modified. In order to compare data, it will be necessar

to follow the procedures used by Sacramento County. The report and procedures used by Sacramento County ar available either from Sacrament County or from the Office of Weights and Measures upon request. Packagers of aerosol products are warned that the legal requirements for the labeled net weight are that the containe

delivers the labeled weight to the consumer. If packagers have been designing containers to deliver only under th

test conditions given in Handbook 133, they should conduct their own consumer usage tests to verify that the containers deliver in an as-used condition.

220
Laws and Regulations Committee

Net Weight Data on Aerosols

Product Container Size Ob) Net Weights Ob) from Various Test Methods Foam Non-Foam Consumer

Foam Pan Spray 0.25

0.290 0.276 0.260 0.282 0.284 0.210 0.292 0.288 0.252 Sacramento Co. Average 0.288 0.2827 0.2407 Beatrice-Hunt Wesson Average 0.286 0.2826 0.2467

Foam Pan Spray 0.375

0.404 0.412 0.374

0.404 0.406 0.302

0.398 0.406 0.378 Sacramento Co. Average 0.402 0.408 0.3513 Beatrice-Hunt Wesson Average 0.403 0.403 0.3915

Non-Foam

Pan Spray 0.375

0.406 0.400 0.390

0.408 0.402 0.398 0.402 0.402 0.398 Sacramento Co. Average 0.4053 0.4013 0.3953 Beatrice-Hunt Wesson Average 0.399 0.401 0.4034

Foam

Shaving Cream

0.6875

0.682 0.668 0.678 0.684 0.668 0.684

0.688 0.682 0.668 Sacramento Co. Average 0.6847 0.6727 0.6767 Beatrice-Hunt Wesson Average 0.6975 0.6797 0.6665

240-7 Moisture Loss for Rice

Members of the Rice Millers' Association (RMA) who sell packaged goods have been cited for short weight violations n California, Michigan, Missouri, New Jersey, New York, and Utah within the past year and with an increased requency during the past 6 months. RMA contends that analyses of the packages removed from the shelves by the

weights and measures inspectors and compared to weights and moisture records at time of pack indicate that the

weight loss is due to moisture loss. When relative humidities fall below 55% in heated or air-conditioned stores and

warehouses, moisture loss will occur. RMA has requested the Conference to address the moisture loss of packaged

'ice in a manner similar to flour, that is, to establish a gray area for packaged rice. The Committee's Technical Advisor has communicated with the representatives of RMA and advised that an

nterlaboratory comparison should be conducted to determine if moisture contents reported by RMA members are

equivalent to moisture contents as determined by weights and measures laboratories. A majority of RMA members

Jsed the Motomco moisture meter Model 919 rather than oven drying methods to determine the moisture content

221
Laws and Regulations Committee

at time of pack. Two members use the Dickey-john GAC II. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) calibrates the Motomco; the Dickey-john is checked against the USDA air oven method at 130 °C. The American Association

of Cereal Chemists will administer the interlaboratory exchange. A letter will be sent to weights and measures

directors immediately after the Annual Meeting requesting their participation. No field tests will be warranted if the interlaboratory results show a lack of agreement between laboratory results. Interlaboratory exchanges must show

that different labs can get equivalent results before any further data can be collected. The Federal Grain Inspection

Service (FGIS) of the USDA has volunteered to collaborate in these tests. The Rice Millers Association has surveyed their membership and determined that grain moisture meters are used at rice packaging plants to measure the moisture content of the rice at time of packaging. An interlaboratory study on

moisture measurement comparisons will be conducted. 250 Other Items

250-1 Enforcement Issues

Several individual issues were discussed. The Committee decided to recommend a specific guideline and

interpretation for two items concerning (1) typewriter and computer printer ribbon and (2) hardwood lumber. See i Items 238-3 and 238-4 under Section 238 for a complete discussion. 250- 1A I Labeling of Time on Compact Discs | s The Committee was alerted that many compact disk recordings are not labeled with the playing time and type of I recording, whether analog or digital. Although there are no requirements for the labeling of type of audio mastering, and subsequent recording, the Conference amended Section 11.23. of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation

last year to require labeling playing time of all recorded media:

11.23. Camera Film, Video Recording Tape, Audio Recording Tape and Other Image and Audio Recording Medi

Intended for Retail Sale and Consumer Use. - Image and audio media packaged and labeled for retail sale an

exempt from the net quantity statement requirements of this regulation that specify how measurement

commodities should be expressed, provided that:

(b) Exposed, Recorded, or Processed Media. - The net quantity of contents of exposed or processed film o prerecorded electronic media shall be expressed in terms of the length of time that is of entertainment value

"Entertainment value" is defined as that portion of a film, tape, or other media, that commences with the first framii of sound or picture, whichever comes first after the countdown sequence (if any), and ends with either (a) the las frame of credits; or (b) the last frame of the phrase "The End," or (c) the end of sound, whichever is last. The Committee recommends the adoption of this requirement by the States and enforcement of it by weights an measures officials. 250- IB I Labeling of Products Intended for Wholesale and Retail

Mr. Max Gray, Florida Weights and Measures, alerted the Committee to two issues.

I! jjjj

Nonconsumer packages of paper products, such as toilet paper, very often do not have the net contents on tlj container. Consumer packages must be labeled with number of plies, count, and dimensions of each sheet, and tl ji| total area measurement of the roll. There are no specific requirements for declarations on nonconsumer toilet pap ? packages; however, after consultation with NIST, Mr. Gray informed packagers of nonconsumer products that th(^ must label the number of rolls, the number of plies, and either the length of each roll if unperforated or, if perforateiij the number of sheets and the size of each sheet. They do not have to declare the total area of each roll since that c j be calculated from the sheet size and number of sheets. Mr. Gray transmitted his interpretations to the Commit!

for its endorsement or advice.

222
I

Laws and Regulations Committee

Gray also encountered the practice of selling paper products, for example, toilet tissue, in supermarket

' rehouse" stores by the case, rather than by the individual consumer packages ordinarily inside such cases. The

sumer packages inside these cases are correctly labeled; the multiple packages are in cases with minimal labeling [hem. Such cases have been deemed to be exempted under Section l.(b) of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling

:ulation, which reads:

b) shipping containers or wrapping used solely for the transportation of any commodities in bulk or in quantity

; o manufacturers, packers, or processors, or to wholesale or retail distributors, but in no event shall this exclusion

p pply to packages of consumer or nonconsumer commodities, as defined herein,

.vever, when retail stores sell these cases as the smallest unit available for sale to the consumer, they then become

sumer packages and must be labeled accordingly. Consumer paper products fall under State and local weights measures requirements and under the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission under the Federal Fair kaging and Labeling Act. This issue includes not only paper products, but all products sold at retail that may have

n originally produced for wholesale or institutional (nonconsumer) sales.

kion 2.5. of the UPLR permits the label to be "any written, printed, or graphic matter affixed to, applied to, sched to, blown into, formed, molded into, embossed on, or appearing upon or adjacent to a consumer

modity...." Under FTC rules, the label must be affixed to the package. Since the States are the primary

)rcement agents for the FPLA, FTC representative, Mr. Bret Smart, expressed a willingness to permit adjacent age in this narrow situation where the packager was not aware that the case was to be sold to the consumer,

•e the Interim Meeting, however, certain paper packagers have contacted the technical advisor of the Committee

retermine appropriate labels for their cases since they now know that such cases are sold directly to the consumer.

ie packager noted that he intended to label the cases "24 4-roll packages; each package contains 300 sheets, 1 ply,

:i x 4.5 in, 165 sq ft."

'-1C I Candy Sold to Businesses for Resale

ilandy packager who buys wholesale candy and then repackages it into consumer packages contacted the Office of

ights and Measures because he discovered, when he weighed his incoming product from the candy manufacturers,

they had declared weights that included the candy wrappers, sticks, etc. He had been informed that when he

raged the candy for consumers, the weight inside the packages had to average the labeled weight, but that the

);ht was not to include the candy wrappers, sticks, or other inedible materials. He asked that weights and measures

dais enforce net weight on nonconsumer packages of candy so that businesses might compete on a level footing one another. OWM contacted the National Candy Wholesalers Association to alert it to net weight requirements,

ibghts and measures officials should note that wholesalers may be labeling nonconsumer packages with weights that

.tilde inedible components, and officials need to take enforcement action to correct this problem. -ID I Survey on the Use of Codes in Lieu of Actual Price Entry

inia Weights and Measures representatives shared copies of a "Report of the Department of Agriculture and

sumer Services on the Use of Bar Codes in the Commonwealth to the Governor and the General Assembly of

inia, House Document No. 20" with the Committee and other delegates at the Interim Meeting. This report is 'mprehensive study of the use by retailers (clothing, building, drug, food, convenience, liquor, automotive,

irtment, commissary stores) of the universal product code (UPC) using scanner readable bar code, as well as (1)

al readers reading any digital code to determine the sales price, (2) price look ups (PLU) using manually entered $ s to determine a sales price or price per unit charge, and (3) stock keeping unit (SKU) codes using manually

; iired digital codes. In 1965, it was reported that manual price entries had at least a 10% error rate. The results

irilirginia's study indicated that errors resulting from the use of codes were lowest in the retail food industry (3.73%)

y\ highest in the convenience store category (11%). This report has been used to introduce legislation requiring M pricing or shelf pricing, requiring accuracy of point-of-sale systems, designating the Virginia Office of Weights

jj Measures as responsible for all point-of-sales systems, and adding civil penalties as an alternative means for

223
Laws and Regulations Committee

enforcement. Copies of the Virginia study are available from J. Alan Rogers, Program Manager, VA Office o- Weights and Measures, PO Box 1163, Richmond, VA 23209, telephone 804-786-2476. 250-2 VC Other Modifications to the Handbook

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) The following modifications to Handbook 130 are editorial in nature. The technical advisor wants the Committee an

the membership to be apprised of them.

1. Pictures (see below and next page) will be added to explain Section 8.2. of the Uniform Packaging and Labelii Regulation. Calculating the area of the principal display panel for the purpose of determining the minimum heig

of numbers and letters to use in the net quantity declaration on the package can be shown pictorially to assi packagers:

8.2. Calculation of Area of Principal Display Panel f Purposes of Type Size. - The area of the princij display panel shall be

(a) in the case of a rectangular container, one entire si that properly can be considered to be the princi display panel, the product of the height times the wi< of that side; For Figure 1 shown on the left: 6 in x 8 in = 48 sq in This is the area of the principal display panel

(b) in the case of cylindrical or nearly cylind.j , t . container, 40 percent of the product of the height oi, container times the circumference;

ioii

For Figure 2 shown on the left:

10 in x 2 in = 20 sq in 20 sq in x 0.40 = 8 sq in

area of principal display panel = 8 sq in See also Section 10.7.

01

ft

fcrp

224
Laws and Regulations Committee

For Figure 3 on the left: The area of the principal display panel is the same in both examples. The declaration of net quantity of contents must be of the same height in both cases. It is not the size of the label that is used to determine the minimum type size of the quantity statement, but the size of the surface of the package exposed to view to the customer. The figure on the right is a package with a

spot label; see Sections 2.12. and 11.32.

The list of items in the Unit Pricing Regulation will be reprinted alphabetically:

Wandy

xreals

-heese, Natural and Processed

"offee, Tea, and Cocoa

Cookies and Crackers

'ooking Oils and Shortening

>eodorants, Personal

>ry Detergents, Soap Powders, and Dry Household Cleaners

oil, Film, and Other Rolls of Wrapping (except gift wrap)

ruit and Vegetable Juices and Drinks

ruits and Vegetables

^lair Preparations

ams, Jellies, Preserves, and Peanut Butter

liquid Detergents and Household Cleaners and Disinfectants

iquid Soups and Condensed Liquid Soups

leat, Poultry, and Seafood

et Food

elishes and Condiments

ice

alad Dressings

anitary Paper Products

Price per pound

Price per pound

Price per pound

Price per pound

Price per pound

Price per quart or pound

Price per ounce

Price per pound

Price per 50 sq ft Price per quart

Price per pound or per individual unit, or whole unit of dry measure

Price per ounce

Price per pound

Price per quart

Price per pound or quart

Price per pound

Price per pound

Price per pound or quart

Price per pound

Price per quart

Price per 50 sq ft, or, if by count, per 50

units, including ply

225
Laws and Regulations Committee

Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation (continued)

Shaving Preparations

Soft Drinks

Syrups, Table and Topping

Toilet Water and Colognes

Toothpaste

Price per ounce

Price per quart

Price per pound or quart

Price per ounce

Price per ounce

3. Clarify that the name, address, and telephone number required to be posted in Section 3.3.(c) of the Uniform Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation refers to the party responsible for the machine, not the parties responsible for the packages sold from the machine. 33. Machine Vended Commodities. - All vending machines dispensing packaged commodities shall

indicate:

(a) product identity;

(b) net quantity;

(c) name, address, and telephone number of party responsible party for the vending machine. The requirements for product identity and net quantity can be met either by display of the package or by

information posted on the outside of the machine.

In addition, the next edition of the handbook will be revised to place all metric references ahead of inch-poun

references.

A. Nelson, Connecticut, Chairman

B. Bloch, California

F. Clem, Columbus, Ohio

S. Rhoades, Indiana

L. Straub, Maryland

G. Vinet, Legal Metrology Branch, Canada, Technical Advisor

K. Butcher, NIST Technical Advisor

C. Brickenkamp, NIST Technical Advisor Committee on Laws and Regulations

i;s

226
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix A

l.XX. Home Food Service Plan Sales

.XX.l. Definitions.

is used in this section, the following words and phrases

nail have the following meanings:

. Home Food Service Plan. "Home food service plan"

| leans the offering for sale to a household consumer of ny food item, or food item in combination with any

on-food product and/or services, whether or not a lembership fee or similar charge is involved, for a total rice in excess of $200.

. Seller. "Seller" means any person, partnership, Drporation or association, however organized, engaged

i the sale of food through a home food service plan.

Buyer. "Buyer" means both the actual and

rospective purchaser, but does not include persons

urchasing for resale.

. Contract. "Contract" means all of the collective

•ritten agreements subscribed by a Buyer at the time of

ale relating to the purchase of a home food service

Jan, except promissory notes or other financing greements.

. Food Item. "Food Item" means each edible product

Did as part of a home food service plan, including, but

ot limited to, each constituent part or kind of meat cut 'om a primal source, each kind of whole poultry or

oultry part, seafood products, and other like products. Non-Food Item. "Non-food item" means each

ledible product sold as part of a home food service

lan, including, but not limited to, paper products,

ealth and beauty products, detergents, cleaners and

isinfectants, rolls of wrapping, and like products. The

;rm means "groceries" or "sundries" and does not

lclude food items and durable consumer goods such as

ppliances.

. Item Price. "Item Price" means the price of a food

r non-food item sold as part of a home food service

lan, computed to the nearest whole cent and exclusive

f the service charge and expressed in relation to the

ppropriate unit of weight, measure, or count of the em.

Service Charge. "Service charge" means the

ggregate price for the additional features, services, and

processing associated with the purchase of a home food

service plan, including, but not limited to, cutting, wrapping, freezing, delivery, and membership fees.

i. Primal Source. "Primal source" means the following

cuts: (i) for beef, the primal sources are the round,

flank, loin, rib, plate, brisket, chuck, and shank; (ii) for veal and lamb or mutton, the primal sources are the leg, flank, loin, rack (rib), and shoulder; and (iii) for pork,

the primal sources are the belly, loin, ham, spareribs, shoulder, and jowl. 1.XX.2 Contract and Disclosure

Requirements

At the time of sale,

a. The Seller shall provide the Buyer with a

single document, referred to in this subsection as the

"written agreement", which shall clearly and

conspicuously disclose the following:

(i) The name and address of the Seller and the Buyer;

(ii) The date of the contract;

(iii) A statement that no item ordered by the Buyer may be substituted after time of sale without the Buyer's consent, and that any such substitution made

will be of comparable price to the item substituted;

(iv) A statement that the Buyer is not obligated to:

(1) enter into any additional home service plan

contract or automatically renew the existing contract,

(2) purchase any appliance, including, but not

limited to, freezer, refrigerator-freezer, or microwave

oven;

(v) The price of the food and non-food items of

the home food service plan;

(vi) The price of the service charge associated with

the home food service plan;

(vii) The total price of the home food service plan

including the price of the food and non-food items, and

the price of the service charge; and

227
Laws and Regulations Committee

(viii) A statement that the Buyer shall have the

right to cancel the home food service plan contract until midnight of the third business day after the date on

which the Buyer executed the contract or after the day on which the Seller provided the Buyer with a fully executed copy of the contract, whichever is later, by

giving written notice of cancellation to the Seller. Compliance with requirements of Federal statutes, rules or regulations governing form of notice of right of

cancellation shall be deemed satisfactory notice of the requirements of this regulation.

b. In addition to the above disclosures required on the single document or written agreement, the

following disclosures are required to be given to the Buyer in additional contract documents at the time of

sale:

(i) A written list of all food and non-food items

to be sold, which shall include:

(1) An accurate description of each item and, where applicable, the USDA quality grade of the

item, if so graded; the primal source; and the brand

or trade name;

(2) The estimated net weight of each meat,

poultry and seafood item offered for sale under the home food service plan, provided, however, that such

estimates shall not differ from the actual weight at the time of delivery by more than 5 percent, and that the dollar value of the meat, poultry and seafood

items delivered is equal to or greater than that represented to the Buyer; and

(3) The weight, measure or count of all other food and non-food items offered for sale;

(ii) A current item price list stating in dollars and

cents the price per pound or other applicable standard

of measure, of each food item to be delivered and, where applicable, its grade, net weight or measure, brand or trade name. This price list shall clearly, conspicuously and accurately make reference to the fact that there are additional costs disclosed in the written

contract relating to any "service charges" associated with

the purchase of the home food service program;

(iii) The price of any durable consumer goods

sold as part of a home food service plan, which shall be

separately itemized in the contract and not merely

included in an item price list. In addition the terms and

conditions, including price, of any service agreement sold or offered for sale in conjunction with any durable consumer goods; and

(iv) If a membership is sold, a written statement

of all terms, conditions, benefits, and privileges applicable to the membership.

At the Time of Delivery -

a. Except where preempted by applicable i Federal packaging and labeling law, the Seller shall : provide a receipt, for signature by the Buyer, disclosing

f

the following information, or shall clearly and conspicuously state on the outside of the package ol each food item sold in package form, the following information:

(i) The name and address of either th< manufacturer, package, or distributor, as required b

applicable law;

(ii) The identity of the item, and the net quantit of the contents in terms of either weight, measure, o

count, as required by applicable law. The weight of eac food item delivered shall be within the toleranc

specified in Section l.XX.2b(i)(2); and

(iii) The item price and total sales price of th food item. The item price shall be the same as th; specified on the item price list given to the Buyer at th time of sale.

228
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix B

1.XX.3. Prohibited Trade Practices

'his recommendation accompanies Appendix A and is intended either to be added to proposed Section 1.XX. on Home

'ood Service Plan Sales or to be transmitted to the State's Consumer Protection Agency or Attorney General's Office.

person advertising, offering for sale or selling a home

2od service plan shall engage in any unfair, deceptive or raudulent methods of competition or trade practices, deluding, but not limited to:

. Bait Selling

i) Disparaging or degrading any item advertised or

•ffered for sale by the Seller, or displaying any item or

epiction thereof to any Buyer in such a manner as would

- likely to discourage the sale of the advertised or

ffered item in order to induce the purchase of another

:em, or representing that an item is for sale when such

epresentation is used primarily to sell another item;

3Jai) Substituting any item for that ordered by the ~Juyer without the Buyer's consent; or

iii) Failing to have available a sufficient quantity of ny item represented as being for sale to meet reasonably

nticipated demands, unless the available amount is learly and conspicuously disclosed.

Price Concessions and Special Offers

i) Misrepresenting to the Buyer that he is being given an

ntroductory, confidential, close-out, going out of business,

actory, packer, special or wholesale price or discount, jand opening or any similar price concession;

ii) Offering any gift or prize, without clearly and

onspicuously disclosing all terms and conditions of the

>ffer, including the expiration date of the offer;

iii) Failing to provide a qualified recipient with a gift

>r prize as set forth in the offer, as soon as practicable

ifter such recipient is identified;

iv) Misrepresenting the terms, conditions, limitations

jr availability of insurance or other forms of protection;

v) Misrepresenting the terms, conditions, benefits ind/or privileges available to a buyer in exchange for payment of a membership fee or similar charge.

c. Savings Representations

(i) Misrepresenting that the Seller is offering any

savings to a Buyer by using or referring to any item price

list related to the Seller's home food service plan which

contains prices other than the Seller's current prices;

(ii) Misrepresenting that a Buyer will realize certain savings with the purchase of a home food service plan. Nothing contained herein shall prevent a Seller from

accurately representing any opportunity for savings a Buyer may have by taking advantage of the features of a home food service plan, provided that the Seller has

available written materials documenting any such

representation;

(iii) Misrepresenting the Seller's prices by comparing its prices with items which are not of the same or higher grade or quality; or

(iv) Misrepresenting to the Buyer that a specified amount of food items or the cost thereof is sufficient to meet the food requirements of the Buyer. Any

computation as to amount of food required shall be

determined solely by the Buyer. Nothing contained herein

shall preclude the Seller from furnishing current official government data on average food consumption and costs, and/or from conveying to the Buyer a suggested serving

size or factor (the amount of food commonly consumed

per eating occasion) with respect to the food items sold, provided the serving size or factor represented is not less than any established by the federal government.

d. Guarantees

(i) Making any promise either to exchange

unsatisfactory food items or to give a refund therefor, which expires in less than 60 days from the date of

delivery of such products, or failing to honor such

promise, where through no fault of the Buyer, said food does not meet minimum standards of quality expected by

the ordinary customer;

(ii) Providing a Buyer with a guaranty or warranty with

respect to any item or durable consumer good with regard to a Home Food Service Plan which is not clear and specific or with which the Seller is unable to comply,

or misrepresenting that someone else is the guarantor or warrantor of any product or service;

229
Laws and Regulations Committee

(iii) Failing to provide a Buyer with a copy of any

written guaranty or warranty; or

(iv) Misrepresenting the date of performance of any

contract.

e. Identity of Seller

(i) Misrepresenting that a person is, or that the Seller will provide the service of, a nutritionist or home economist;

or

(ii) Misrepresenting that the Seller, his products or

service have been approved by any Better Business Bureau, Chamber of Commerce, service club, financial

institution, government agency or any other commercial

or civil organization, or any official or employee thereof, or that the Seller is a member of such organization.

f. Price and Financing

(i) Misrepresenting or failing to clearly and conspicuously

disclose at the time of the sale, if known, the name of the

financing institution or contract assignee, if any;

(ii) Misrepresenting the assignability of any contract

or failing to advise the Buyer before signing any contract

that the contract may be transferred or assigned to a

financial institution or other third party and payment

enforced by them;

(iii) Misrepresenting the total amount that the Buyer

will be obligated to pay;

(iv) Misrepresenting that the offer of sale or any part thereof is made on a trial basis without obligation;

(v) Failing to orally inform a Buyer who places an

order by telephone subsequent to the signing of a

contract, the current price of each item ordered and to mail to such Buyer a current item price list within 2

business days of the placement of the order;

(vi) Charging a Buyer for items at any price other than those contained in the price list provided pursuant

to paragraph 1.13.3.(b)(iv) or the price orally disclosed pursuant to paragraph (c)(ii);

(vii) Misrepresenting or failing to disclose the existence or amount of any service charge and/or failing to clearly and conspicuously disclose the fact that a Buyer must pay

a membership fee or similar charge and the amount

thereof in conjunction with the purchase of any item. In

the event a membership is sold for a period of greater than 2 years, and the home food service plan is canceled

or terminated by the Buyer within 2 years of the date the membership was sold, the Seller shall refund to the Buyer

a prorated share of the price of the membership pai> based upon the total period of membership; or

(viii) Misrepresenting that the Seller will pay o reimburse the Buyer for the expenses of delivering c moving a freezer or any other product for the Buyer.

j g. Product Representation

(i) Misrepresenting the cut, grade, brand or trad , name, or weight or measure of any food item or ttf brand or trade name or weight or measure of any noi food item;

(ii) Misrepresenting that items are "USDA or Sta ' inspected." Nothing contained herein shall prohibit

Seller from describing an item as "U.S. or Sta ' Inspected" when such foods are inspected at the point processing or fabrication as well as slaughter;

(iii) Misrepresenting a food item through the use of a

term similar to government grade or failing to clearly aj 1 conspicuously disclose the correct government grade f

: any food item if such item has been graded;

(iv) Advertising or offering free, bonus, or an ext

1 food product or service combined with or conditioned

the purchase of any other food product or service unit such additional product or service is accurately describ

including, whenever applicable, grade, net weight I measure, type and brand or trade name. The wor

"free," "bonus," or other words of similar import, shall r be used in any advertisement unless the advertisemo

clearly and conspicuously sets forth the total price amount which must entitle the Buyer to the additio . food item or service and the stated price of the prim | product does not exceed the price at which the Sel offered the item within the previous 90-day period;

(v) Misrepresenting the breed, origin, diet, yield, tr or hormonal or chemical content of slaughtered anim

or parts for sale. Sellers making such claims shall h

1 written records available to substantiate such fact; 1

(vi) Misrepresenting the breed, origin, diet, yield, tr I hormonal or chemical content of a food item or items I use of any misleading trade name or brand name I i does not in all respects accurately reflect the item " items, unless a written disclaimer is provided at the t:

j; of sale; or

(vii) Misrepresenting the price or quality of any dun J consumer goods or failing to clearly and conspicuo y disclose the brand or trade name, model number i i year, and size of such goods. In the case of a refriger; r or freezer, the disclosure shall include the cap< y thereof expressed in cubic feet.

230
Laws and Regulations Committee

i Appendix C

ection 3.18. of Handbook 133 is reprinted in its entirety below for ease of study. Material recommended to be added

, shown underlined. Material to be deleted is shown crossed through.

.18. Meat and Poultry from Federallynspected Plants

.18.1. Background for Administrator and

nspector

"hese test procedures are for meat and poultry coming

-om Federally-inspected plants. If inspectors check

,iese packages at wholesale or retail, and use Category

[1 sampling plans from H-133 and either unused or ^ ried used tare (see Section 3.18.3.5. for defmition), the

i ;sted packages are either in or out of compliance:

1 nere is no gray area. If a jurisdiction uses wet tare (see

ection 2.11. Tare, for definition), there is a "gray" or ^ao-decision" area. The gray area is not a tolerance. If ^ackages are found in the gray or no-decision area,

I ley neither automatically pass nor fail the test. If lots re tested and found inside the gray area, they are not

ecessarily in compliance. The jurisdiction will have to x

o more work to find out the final status of the lot. life-'.

, urisdictions wishing to perform wet tare tests upon

products for which no gray area has yet been deter-

. lined will need to permit "reasonable variations" until 1 gray area has been determined for that product. New

^ray area determinations will be printed in this ,.[andbook_and in the Federal Register. Contact the

, JSDA Regional Office for a listing of the products that T

ave gray areas, as well as the size of their gray area

.percentages. mhe size of the gray area is defined as a percentage of

le labeled weight that extends downward from the

. ibeled weight. u

Jf, Enforcement action inside and outside the gray

(Tea. - The overall objective is to test packages as

losely as possible to a routine test. However, one

difference will immediately be apparent.

j .ategory A (Table 2-2) sampling procedures must be

. .mployed at retail or wholesale locations when testing ackages put up in a Federally-inspected plant. (This is ecause a test similar to a Category B test has already een run on the packages at the plant level.)

i -ategory B (Table 2-5) sampling procedures may be

. sed when testing at the packaging plant. "Dry Tare" Jurisdictions. - For jurisdictions that ormally utilize unused tare to test meat and poultry

packaged at a retail store, it will be necessary to simulate unused tare for packages from Federally- inspected plants by drying out absorbent materials (if any) comprising the used tare and to determine a "dried used tare". No additional information will be needed other than the

results of a Category A test using "dried used tare" before taking enforcement action on lots.

c. "Wet Tare" Jurisdictions. - For jurisdictions that normally use wet tare, if the package lots are found

short weight with wet tare tests, but fall in the "gray

area", it is necessary to collect additional information to determine whether or not the lot complies with net weight requirements.

If the package lots are found short weight using a Category A sampling plan and wet tare, it will first be

necessary to determine whether the lot is inside or outside the gray area. If the lot falls in the gray area, additional information will have to be collected before reaching a final determination whether the lot is in or out of compliance. Of course, nothing additional will be needed for lots that fall outside the gray area. Appropriate enforcement should be taken on packages found short weight and outside the gray area. A "hold" or a "stop sale" order should be put on

packages found short weight, but inside the gray area,

until their status can be determined. If this is not possible, the strongest legal remedy should be sought if the product cannot be held and subsequent tests or infor- mation indicates that the lot is out of compliance.

d. Which packages to consider as part of the lot being tested. - Ordinarily, an inspector taking a sample from retail will record lot codes, but will not select the

lot for test by sorting the packages by lot code. He or she will simply select a sample from all packages of the same brand and style and size on the shelf or in the

stock room. If short weight is found and the results are

in the gray area (wet tare only), follow-up investigation requires sorting the lot codes at this point.

e. Category A sampling plans must be used for all tests. - See Section 3.18.3. for details. The discussion below is based on using these procedures and on

recording the "package errors"-how much and in what

direction the actual package weight differs from the labeled weight. Thus, if a package labeled 2 lb actually

231
Laws and Regulations Committee

weighs 2.010 lb, its package error is +0.010 lb. Similarly, the "average package error" is the difference between the average weight of the sampled packages and the labelled package weight. If the average of 10 package weights is 1.994 lb, the average package error

is (1.994 -2.000 lb) = -0.006 lb.

f. Package lots must meet the average requirement and

the individual requirement. - When checking packages

not subject to possible moisture loss and using Category A sampling plans, two requirements must be met:

(1) The average net weight of the sample must equal

or exceed the labeled net weight minus an adjustment

factor called T,

1 which represents the possible deviation between the sample average and the actual lot average.

If a jurisdiction applies either unused or used dried tare

to meat and poultry packages, this is sufficient to determine whether the average requirement has been

met. See Figure 3-15.

If a jurisdiction uses wet tare, an amount defined by the gray area must be considered before determining non- compliance of the lot under test without further infor- mation or data collection. See Figure 3-16. The size of the gray area has been set at 3% of the average labeled weight for raw, fresh poultry, and 2-1/2% of the labeled weight for franks and hot dogs

(whether made from meat or poultry.

(2) The number of packages that may fall below the MAV is specified in Category A sampling plans ac- cording to the sample size. Ordinarily, the inspector uses Table 2-8 to look up the MAV for packages labeled by weight. USDA Meat and Poultry Inspection uses a set of MAV's for products under its supervision. These are given in Table 2-12. Use Table 2-12 for all products coming from a Federally-inspected plant. The size of the gray area must be added to the indi- vidual package limits specified in Table 2-12 when the jurisdiction uses wet tare.

g. What to do when the lot is in the gray area ("Wei Tare" Jurisdictions Only). - Contact the USD/

Regional Director or the Inspector-in-charge at th< packaging plant (see Section 3.18.3.h.) to determint what information (either USDA's or the plant's) i available at the plant to clarify the status of the lot ii question. General guidelines are given in Sectioi^

3.18.3.h.

la According to the location of the plant, either visit thii |j plant, or call and ask the weights and measure. Jj authorities where the plant is located to visit and test. J |

I

j No Gray Area for Meat or Poultry

from a Federally Inspected Plant

If Category A Sampling Plan (or 100% Test)

and Used Dry Tare Are Employed

Labeled Weight

Less than the labeled weight * Out of Compliance

Greater than the labeled weight In Compliance

Average Net Weight of the Lot

* When following a Category A Sampling Plan, the sampling factor T must be computed and

applied to the average error of the sample. Figure 3-15.

'See the general discussion of T in Chapter 2 and in NCWM Training Module 10.

ifoi Use

232
Laws and Regulations Committee

Gray Area for Poultry or Hot Dogs from a Federally Inspected Plant

Using Wet Tare

Labeled Weight

Less than the labeled weight *

Out of Compliance

Gray Area

J.

Greater than the labeled weight

In Compliance

Av/rage Net Weight of the Lot

2 1/2% of labeled weight for hot dogs 3% of labeled weight for poultry

* When following a Category A Sampling Plan, the sampling factor T must be computed and

applied to the average error of the sample.

Figure 3-16.

18.2. Types of Products and Size of Gray

- jeas

|

. Bacon. - The gray are is zero for bacon if there is no

if ee-flowing liquid or absorbent materials in contact with e product, and the package is cleaned of clinging iuaterial prior to tare weight determination; when there

! There should be no free-flowing liquid or absorbent

\ laterials in packaged baco^r-Wwet tare and dried used

ire are equivalent.

/nether you are following wet tare or dry tare rocedures. Wwipe all packaging materials 4ry clean of

it and clinging moisture before weighing tare. There

no gray area for bacon. Fresh Sausage and Luncheon Meats. - Luncheon

teats comprise any cooked sausage product, loaves,

•Hied products, cured products, and any sliced meat

vied for placing on bread or similar products. This

ategory of product does not include whole hams,

riskets. roasts, turkeys, or chickens requiring further reparation to be made into readv-to-eat sliced product.

/hen there is no free-flowing liquid and no absorbent

laterials used in the package. T-there is se zero gray

rea for fresh sausage or luncheon meats (for example,

ologna) . Whether you are following wet tare or dry

ire procedures. Ccarefully clean and wipe all tare

laterials of fat and clinging moisture. Only when there no free flowing liquid inside the package and there

re no absorbent materials in contact with the product. Vwet tare and dried used tare are equivalent.

c. Franks/Hot Dogs. - A gray area of 2-1/2% of the labeled weight is to be applied when wet tare tests are conducted.

d. Fresh Poultry. - For net weight determinations

only, fresh poultry is defined as poultry above 26 °F. This is product that yields or gives when pushed with a person's thumb. A gray area of 3% of the average

labeled weight of the sample is to be applied to raw,

fresh poultry in retail packages when wet tare tests are conducted.

3.18.3. Procedure

a. Field Equipment. - Use Scales and Weights recommended in Section 3.1.

b. Report Forms. - Use either the Standard Pack- Weight Only-Report Form (page A-2) or the Random

Pack Report Form (pages A-3 and A-4). Record the

official establishment number from the USDA logo in the space provided underneath name and address.

c. Selection of Lots. - Refer to Section 2.3. for defining and selecting the inspection lot. The lot codes

are the packer's own identifying marks, not the universal product code (UPC). In many instances, the lot code may be represented by a "pull" or "sell by" date. Record

the lot code on the report form.

d. Sample Size. - Select the sample according to the

size of the inspection lot following a Category A

sampling plan (Table 2-2, page B-3). Do not sort ran- dom-pack packages from lightest to heaviest as recommended in Section 3.8.1., step 2.

233
Laws and Regulations Committee

e. Tare. Select the tare sample as given in Table 2-2.

(1) Unused or Dried Used Tare. - Unused tare material is rarely available at retail or wholesale locations for package lots packaged at Federally inspected

plants. The tare weights printed on the shipping

containers may not be accurate. Therefore, it is necessary for the inspector to reconstruct an unused tare weight by drying the used tare and weighing it. If the

tare is composed of nonabsorbent materials, it can be

cleaned and wiped in order to obtain a "dried used tare." The following technique should be followed to get "dried used tare" when absorbent materials are involved. Absorbed fats as well as absorbed water-based fluids must be dried out of these materials: A fresh poultry package will be used as the example.

Shrink Wrap. - Open package shrink wrap, remove

wrinkles from heat-seal area as much as possible, and

wipe or pat dry with paper toweling or other suitable material. These procedures can be considered the model for how to clean any nonabsorbent tare materials.

Tray. - If tray is foam or plastic, rinse tray and wipe or

pat dry. If tray is paper or cardboard, pat dry between

sheets of toweling and lay tray on heating element of prepack scale or heat in microwave oven to dry. Depending on the power of the oven, total times between 2 and 5 minutes may be necessary. Frequent

short bursts of power (30-sec intervals), checking after each cycle, are better than a single 5-minute run. (The

trays can burn if too long a cycle is used to dry.) Let

the tray cool and become dry to the touch before final weighing. Soaker Pad. - Many soaker pads are composed of plastic sheets laminated with fibrous paper tissue. Peel the

plastic sheeting away from the tissue (if possible), press

the tissue between sheets of paper toweling, and dry the

tissue on the heating element of the scale or in a microwave as described above for a paper tray. Wipe

or pat the plastic sheeting dry and weigh it with the cooled tissue pad, tray, shrink wrap, and label. Do not attempt to rinse soaker pads-they will often disintegrate

if loaded with water. Depending on the surface area of the microwave oven

tray and the size of the soaker pads, do not load more

than two to five tare pads in a microwave at one time and do not stack them. Stacking or loading too many

pads at one time will take more oven time and power,

increasing the possibility of burning or charring the

pads.

(a) What a package should weigh using unused or dried used tare. - Add the average "dried" tare weight

to the labeled net weight to determine what the package is supposed to weigh-the "nominal gross

weight".

average tare weight + labeled weight = nominal gross weight

(b) Package errors using unused or dried used tare. - Use the package checking scale to compare the packages in the sample with the nominal gross weight

I

A package that weighs more than the nominal gross weight is overweight and has a "plus package error"; s

,

package that weighs less than this is underweight an< has a "minus package error".

j package error = package gross weight - nominal gross weight

i Go to Section 3.18.3.f. on the average requirement,

j

(c) Packages opened for tare determination may b rewrapped by the supermarket provided that th USDA logo does not appear on the package. Th

supermarket should contact the original packager if i intends to leave the brand name on the product whe

repackaging.

(2) Wet Tare.

(a) When there is no free-flowing liquid or absorbei

materials in contact with the product.Gclean the tai materials of all clinging

product and wipe dry. Weig

the wiped tare materials for the number of packag<

indicated in the sampling plan. Average the tai l weights. Add the average tare weight to the labeh

net weight to obtain the nominal gross weight.

I! average tare wt + labeled wt = nominal gross wt Use the nominal gross weight to compare with t) gross weights of all the packages in the sample

determine their package errors.

package gross wt - nominal gross wt = package error

I (b) Determining the Net Weight when there is fr flowing liquid or absorbent packaging materials contact with the product. - All free liquid is part the wet tare. To avoid destroying too many packag

(i) gross weigh two packages opened for tare,

(ii) weigh solids inside,

(in) get wet tare by subtracting solids weight fr< gross weight,

(iv) average wet tare wt + labeled wt = nominal gross

3

234
Laws and Regulations Committee

j Use the alternative tare procedure (Section 2.11.4.) to determine whether to open more packages (i.e., whether

the tare is too variable).

i (Packages opened for a wet tare test may be rewrapped

by the supermarket as long as the USDA logo does not go on the package. The supermarket may wish to contact the original packager if it intends to leave the crand name on the product on it when repackaging.)

; (c) Determining Package Errors.

: package net weights were measured:

If individual

Package error = package net weight - labeled net weight A package that weighs more than the labeled weight is overweight and has a "plus package error". A package

hat weighs less than the labeled weight is underweight

and has a "minus package error".

:If an average tare weight and nominal gross weight were

determined:

Package error = package gross weight - nominal gross weight The Average Requirement. - Compute the average

rror for the sample. Sum all individual package errors

j and divide by the number of packages in the sample.

| Record the average package error in box 18 on the ^Uandard pack report form or box 20 on page 2 of the ^'andom pack report form.

^'f the average error is zero or plus, the lot complies with

j: he average requirement.

Bf the average error is minus, first compute T

1 (see

Section 2.7. in this handbook and Chapter 6 of the In- jector's Manual in Module 10 for further instructions

f this procedure is unfamiliar to you). Record T on the j/eport form, and continue with subsections (1), (2), or below as appropriate.

II) Unused or Dried Used Tare or Bacon, Sausage. ^uncheon Meats with No Free-Flowing Liquid or Absorbent Materials . - With dried used tare, il f the

jrjhverage minus error is larger than T, the lot does not

ii!:omply with the average requirement; enforcement

r uction should be taken. Also, follow the process

. . outlined in Section 3.18.3.g.

There is space below column 8 of the Random Pack

Report Form to compute the average labeled weight of

the sample.

(b) Record this in the comments section as "gray

area."

(c) If T was computed, add the gray area to T, calculated and recorded on page 2 of the random pack

report form. Record in remarks section as "gray area +

T".

(d) Compare value in box 20 with "gray area + T".

(e) If the value in box 20 is larger than the "gray area + T", the lot fails to comply. (Since box 20 will always have a minus value-or else you would not have

calculated T-disregard the sign when comparing with gray area + T.) If the value in box 20 is between T and

the gray area + T, go to Section 3.18.3.L If the value

in box 20 is less than T, the lot complies.

(3) Wet Tare - Hot Dogs or Franks.

(a) Compute 2-1/2% of the labeled net weight re- corded in box 1 of the standard pack report form.

(value in box 1) x 0.025 = gray area (lb or oz)

(b) Convert to dimensionless units by dividing by the

unit of measure in box 2.

gray area (lb or oz) t box 2 = gray area (dimensionless units) Record this in comments section as "gray area".

(c) Continue with (c), (d), and (e) as for Subsection

(2), Wet Tare - Fresh Poultry.

g. The Individual Package Requirement. - Table 2-12

gives the limits for individual package errors for packages produced at Federally-inspected plants. Use

this table instead of Table 2-8 for looking up the MAV.

The number of individual minus package error permitted to be larger than the "lower limit for in- dividual weights" (see the righthand column of this table) is given in Table 2-2 (page B-3). Convert this value (or values if a random pack lot falls between

groups) to dimensionless units and record on the report form.

(t»'.2) a) 4

Wet Tare - Fresh Poultry. Compute 3% of the average labeled weight.

average labeled weight x 0.03 = gray area

' Unless the lot is so small that the inspector is testing all packages in the lot (100% test). If this is the case, and the average error is minus, the lot fails if it is a dried used tare test; the lot may be in the gray area if it is a wet tare test.

235
Laws and Regulations Committee

(1) Dried Used Tare or No Free-Flowing Liquid. When conducting a dried used tare test or testing bacon,

sausage, or luncheon meats with no free-flowing liquid or absorbent tare materials, compare the value(s) from

Table 2-12 (converted to dimensionless units) with the minus package errors. If the number of minus package

errors that exceed the limits of Table 2-12 is more than allowed by the Category A plan being followed, the lot does not comply.

(2) Wet Tare. - When conducting a wet tare test on

hot dogs or fresh poultry, the size of the gray area must

be added to Table 2-12 value(s) before counting the number of packages that exceed the MAV. In Section

3.18.3.f. the size of the gray area (in dimensionless units) was recorded in the comments area of the report form. The values from Table 2-12 are recorded in boxes 10 and 11 on the random pack report form and box 4 on

the standard pack report form. Add the size of the gray

area to the value(s) from Table 2-12 (converted to

dimensionless units) before comparing with the minus

package errors.

If the number of minus package errors that are greater than (Table 2-12 + the gray area) exceeds the number

permitted in Category A plans, the lot does not comply.

If minus package errors fall between the Table 2-12

value and (Table 2-12 + the gray area), they place the

lot in the gray area if the number of these types on minus package errors exceeds the number permitted injj Category A plans.

h. What to Do When the Lot Is in the Gray Area. Although the following discussion is intended primarily

for those jurisdictions using wet tare for meat anc

poultry, any jurisdiction is encouraged to follow these procedures when product from Federally-inspectec

plants fails to comply with net weight tests. The "Meat and Poultry Inspection Directory" is availablt from the USDA Regional Offices listed below. USDA Regional Offices States or Territories Western Regional Office 620 Central Avenue, Bldg. 2C

Alameda, CA 94501

415/273-7402

Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana,

Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota, Samoa, and Guam

Southwestern Regional Office 1100 Commerce Street

Dallas, TX 75242

214/767-9116

Arkansas, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, Texas, and Oklahoma

North Central Regional Office 607 E. Second Street Des Moines, IA 50309

515/284-4042

Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, Wisconsin, and Ohio

Southeastern Regional Office 1718 Peachtree Street, NW

Atlanta, GA 30309

404/881-3911

Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, | South Carolina, Tennessee, West Virginia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands

Northeastern Regional Office 1421 Cherry St., 7th Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19102

Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Delaware, New

Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, and the District of Columbia Meat and poultry packaging plants are listed by plant and the appropriate USDA official for the plant "establishment number". Use the establishment number question, on the package to look up the location and telephone number of the plant. A separate number is sometimes Contact the appropriate USDA official to determi provided for the USDA Inspector-in-charge. If the what information is available on the lot in question (s establishment number is not listed in this directory subsection (1) below). If a lot of hot dogs or fresh po

(since new businesses, established after the directory was try has been tested using wet tare, any average pack*

published, may not be listed in the directory), call the error that is minus and larger than T may place the Regional Office to get the telephone number(s) of the in the gray area.

236
Laws and Regulations Committee

! (1) Further Information. - Ask the USDA official:

(a) Whether the plant is operating under a Total or

: Partial Quality Control Program" (TQC or PQC). N

Some plants operate under a Federally approved Total

S or Partial Quality Control Program". If such a program

ip is in place, records on the lot in question will be main- I tained by the establishment, not by USDA. If the "establishment is not operating under a TQC or PQC

Program, USDA may or may not have tested the lot in question. The USDA official will be able to tell you

what information he has, as compared with information

that may be available from the plant personnel. U

(b) What information is available from USDA

- concerning the particular lot in question.

- How many packages are tested at what time i intervals?

: - How many packages are produced in that time

interval?

- What criteria are employed to decide when

adjustments to the net weight are required?

- What were the net weight checks on the lot in question?

- What adjustments were made to the target weight?

1 If USDA has data on the specific lot in question or if there is an approved TQC or PQC program producing

data on the lot, this data may serve to substantiate that

the lot complied with net weight requirements when it left the plant. If data on the specific lot in question

""were not collected by USDA or under an approved QC

program, the weights and measures test results are the

only regulatory agency data on the lot. In this instance,

the weights and measures authority should take what- ever action is deemed appropriate; USDA has no data

to dispute the weights and measures findings.

(c) What scale maintenance and testing program is f. in place in the plant.

' •f (d) What tare verification system is in place in the

plant, including how the tare is determined, how often

it is monitored, how it is verified when new tare materiI

: als are delivered.

flfe) What kind of net weight verification or testing (and how often) the USDA official conducts.

(f) Who are the establishment personnel to contact to review estabhshment-maintained records on the lot in question.

(2) Test Packages and Scales at the Packaging Plant. -Optionally, make arrangements to visit the plant or call the weights and measures jurisdiction where the plant is located. Discuss the net weight control program with

plant quality control personnel, check their scales (if possible), and test packages. Even though it is not

possible to test the lot in question at the plant, it may be

possible to establish confidence in plant process and

weight control procedures. Note the type of scales used to monitor the fill weights

of the packages. Ask to test the scales. (This may be

disruptive during a production run.)

Test a sample of packages from the line or storage area

using H-133 Category B sampling procedures plus the Table 2-12 values for individual packages. Since you are

at the packaging plant and no distribution has occurred, there is no gray area to consider at this point. Due to the large number of packages in the lot when testing at the plant, the sample size will usually be 30 packages. Ask the USDA inspector if he will conduct a test using

his procedures and equipment on the same lot.

(3) Other Optional Information That May Be

Available from the Packer. - When testing at the packaging plant, this is the appropriate time (or it may

be necessary to explore the issue by telephone) to get some optional information. The information below may

be proprietary and not available to the inspector.

- How many packages are produced in a single production run? How much of the plant's production does each lot code represent (a single line's run, 8 hours/24 hours production, etc.)?

- What is the target weight for each label? How is this value set? (This will be considered confidential infor- mation.)

- What scales or other measuring equipment and proce- dures are used to measure or control the package net weights (checkweighers; line supervisor weighs a package every hour, etc.)?

- How quickly can adjustments be made to package fill targets that are found out of bounds?

- How often are the scales tested; who does the testing (yearly service call; quality control supervisor on a

daily basis, etc.)?

237
Laws and Regulations Committee

- How does the plant determine the tare weight, how

often does the plant change the tare weight, what

does the plant do with tare information?

- (For example: actual tare unit used and changed whenever new shipment of tares sent; average weight

to closest 0.01 lb is added to target weight; etc.)

- Does the packager report different tare weights to different areas of his market? (For example: wet

tare values, unused tare values, something in between.) How are these determined?

- What variation in package weights from the labeled

declaration does the line or plant normally encounter? (Ask them to show you or send copies of their records. These records are proprietary and may be

available only for viewing.)

- What are the details of the PQC or TQC program if they are operating one? (Again, this may be

proprietary information.)

238
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Report of the

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

James C. Truex, Chairman

Weights and Measures Inspection Manager

Ohio

ieference

ley Number

00 Introduction

"his is the Final Report of the Specifications and Tolerances Committee for the 76th National Conference on Weights od Measures. This report is based on the Interim Report offered in the Conference "Program and Committee

leports" (NCWM Publication 16), the Addendum Sheets issued at the Annual Meeting, and actions taken by the nembership at the Voting Session of the Annual Meeting.

'able A identifies the items in the Report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The item umbers are those assigned in the Interim Meeting Agenda. Voting items are indicated with a "V" after the item umber. Items marked with an "I" after the reference key number are information items. The items marked with "W were withdrawn by the Committee. Items marked with a "W" generally will be referred back to the regional

eights and measures associations because they either need additional development, analysis, and input, or did not ave sufficient support of the Committee to bring them before the NCWM. Any new items were assigned the next umber in sequence to maintain a correlation between the Interim Meeting Agenda and this Report.

he attached Report contains many recommendations to revise or amend National Institute of Standards and

echnology (NIST) Handbook 44, 1991 Edition, "Specifications, Tolerances, and other Technical Requirements for /eighing and Measuring Devices." Proposed revisions to the handbook are shown in bold face print by crossing out

hat is to be deleted, and underlining what is to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are

rinted in italics. Entirely new paragraphs or sections proposed for addition to the handbook are designated as such

nd shown in bold face print. Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

eference

ey No. Title of Item Page

General Code

^0-1 V G-S.l. Identification; Marking All Equipment and Visibility 244

-0-2 V G-S.8. Provision for Sealing; Features to be Sealed 246

0-3 I G-S.8. Provision for Sealing; Audit Trails 248

0-4 W G-S.8. Provision for Sealing and Scales Code S.l.ll. Provision for Sealing; Nonretroactive Dates 250

0-5 I G-T.l. Acceptance Tolerances 250

0-6 VC G-UR.2.3. Accessibility for Testing and Inspection 250

' 0-7A V G-UR.4.1. Maintenance of Equipment 251

0-7B I G-UR.4.1. Maintenance of Equipment; Guidelines 252

239
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page !

Scales Code

T?n 1 jZXj-L T1 lift 1 vr

IV JiU J vrV \^ vc

320-7 I

320-8 I

320-9 I 320-10 I 320-11 w

320-12

320-13 w

320- 14A I 320- 14B

320-15 w

320-16 w

320-17 w

320-18 vc

320-19

320-20

320-21 320-22

320-23 320-24

320-25 V

321-1 w

321-2 w

321-3 VC

322 VC

S.1.12. Manual Weight Entries 252

S.2.4. Level-Indicating Means; Wheel-Load Weighers and Portable Axle-Load Scales 253

1

5.6.3. Marking Requirements; Temperature Range 254 f 5.6.4. NTEP Logo or Certificate of Conformance Number 255

N.l.3.4. Shift Test; Livestock Scales 256 ^ N.4. Coupled-in-Motion Railway Track Scales; Use of the Term "Test Cars" 257

Guidelines to Determine When Coupled-in-Motion Scales Should be Tested "As Used" 258 Railroad Coupled-in-Motion Weighing of Individual Cars in Mixed-Merchandise Trains

for Custody Transfer 258

Railroad Coupled-in-Motion Weighing of Liquids in Individual Tank Cars for Custody

Transfer 259

Notes; Establish Procedures for Testing Uncoupled-in-Motion Railway Track Scales 259 Reweighing a Unit Train 260

T.1.2. Postal and Parcel Post Scales 260

T.N.3.1. Tolerances for Class III L Scales 260 UR.l.X. Selection Requirements; Suitability of Equipment 261 UR.l.X. Selection Requirements; Suitability of Equipment 263 UR.1.2. Selection Requirements; Postal and Parcel Post Scales 264 UR.2.9. Accessibility for Sealing 265 UR.10. Records 265

Definition of Concentrated Load Capacity 265

Specific Criteria for Unattended Vehicle Scales 266 Unattended Recycling Devices 266 Substitution and Strain-Load Test Procedures 26*3 Separate Code for Scales Used in Law Enforcement 26' Weigh-in-Motion Scales for Law Enforcement 26£ On-Board Weighing Systems; Solid Waste Management and Recycling 26*

S.l.ll. Provision for Sealing; Nonretroactive Dates 26£ Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems

N.3.2. Material Tests; Test at Two Flow Rates 26< UR.5. Records 26< Official with Statutory Authority 26< Automatic Bulk-Weighing Systems

UR.4. System Modification 27(

iH

240
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

; 330-1 VC S.l.6.5.1. Money Value Divisions, Analog 270

j 330-2 VC S.l.6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price 271

i 330-3 VC S.2.2. Provision for Sealing Measuring Elements 271

pj 330-4 VC S.3.4. Discharge Lines and Valves; Exceptions 272

: 330-5 V S.4.5. NTEP Certificate of Conformance Number 272

' 330-6 VC N.4.1. Normal Tests; Tolerance Application 274

330-7 I T.2.4. Tolerances for Lubricating Oil Meters 274

I330-8A I UR.1JC. Selection Requirements; Suitability of Equipment 276 330-8B I UR.lX. Selection Requirements; Suitability of Equipment 277

> 330-9 VC UR.2.4. Diversion of Liquid Flow 280

330-10 I UR.3.2. Unit Price and Product Identity 280

[ LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

I 332-1 VC T.3. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems 282

332-2 VC UR.1.2. Length of Discharge Hose 283 Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor-Measuring Devices Code

i

: 333-1 VC Recognize Mass Flow Meters 283

333-2 VC N.4.2.2. Low-Flame Test and T.l.l. Low-Flame Test 285 Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

134-1 VC S.2.4. Automatic Temperature or Density Compensation 285

•34-2 VC S.2.4. Automatic Temperature or Density Compensation 286

134-3 I Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices 286 Milk Meters Code

35-1 VC S.3.2. Intake Hose 287

st35-2 I UR.2.3. Ticket in Printing Device 287 Taximeters Code

54-1 VC T.l.2.2. Tolerance on Average Time Interval Computed After Excluding the Initial Time

Interval 288

.54-2 VC UR.4. Reinspection 288

241
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

Grain Moisture Meters

Establish a Type Evaluation Program for Grain Measurement Equipment

Other Items

356

360-1 360-2

360-3 V Draft Mass Flow Meters Code

I Appendices B and C of Handbook 44

I OIML Report

28

28

29

29

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Pag A Substitution and Strain-Load Test Procedures 320-21 B Tentative Code for Mass Flow Meters 360-1

242
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table C

Voting Results

.eference ey No. House of State Representatives Yes No

House of Delegates

Yes No

Results

30 - Consent

I KM

.0-2

.0-7A

•0-4 22 13 22 17

Motion to consider amendment to change the effective date to January 1, 1993.

.0-4 36 3

otion to amend the effective date to January 1, 1993. 33

0-4 13 26 22 24

otion to adopt item as amended to change the effective date to January 1, 1993.

C-25

.-0-5

0-1

0 (in entirety)

37

3

39

40

Passed

Passed Passed

Passed

Passed

Passed

Failed

Passed

Failed Passed

Passed

243
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Details of All Items General Code

310-1 V G-S.l. Identification; Marking All Equipment and Visibility

(This item was adopted.) Recommendation; The Committee recommends that, as described below, the marking requirements of G-S.l. provid an exception for individual parts of a system that do not have any metrological effect. The Committee recommenc

amending the beginning of G-S.l. to read:

G-S.l. Identification. - All equipment, except weights and separate parts necessary to the measurement

process but not having any metrological effect, shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purposes

of identification with the following information...

Discussion; This issue is discussed at great length in an effort to provide a thorough understanding of the positk of the Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee and because the marking requirements have been the subje of extensive debate. The objective is to provide device manufacturers with some relief (within the scope of oth Handbook 44 requirements and definitions) from the marking requirements of G-S.l. for those devices that have i metrological effect in a weighing or measuring system. A device in a system is considered to have a metrologit

effect if it is capable of affecting the validity or accuracy of a measurement, compliance with Handbook 44, or tl suitability of equipment for a given application (See Item 310-2, 320- 14A, 320- 14B, 330-8A, and 330-8B). Changing technology and different designs of equipment result in reduction of size of many devices. Moreover, ma

parts of a weighing or measuring system are placed in separate modules or enclosures that are cable-connected

the other parts of the system. These separate parts are normally necessary to the system, but some have

metrological effect on the measurement process (i.e., they do not affect the accuracy or the integrity of t transaction). Some parts are made so small that the information required by G-S.l. cannot be readily marked to

visible after installation.

Several device manufacturers have stated that meeting all Handbook 44 marking requirements for some lesser pa

of a measuring system has become a significant cost consideration. The cost arises from the actual marking proce the time and documentation to monitor the production for marking considerations, and incorporating changes

marking purposes into production when the same module is used in different systems. For example, one type of c

register keyboard may be used in several different cash register systems and may carry different model numbers

correspond to the specific system with which it is to be used. Device manufacturers have requested that mark

requirements be revised as they apply to equipment not having a significant effect on the measuring process, p| though the equipment may be essential to the system. For example, separate keyboards for computer input, separ simple printers, remote scale indicators other than the primary display, and separate card readers necessary to activ unattended measuring systems could be exempted from some of the marking requirements of Handbook 44 with

affecting the regulatory control and metrological integrity of the complete system. The S&T Committee agrees that equipment needed for a system to function, but not having any metrological eff does not have to be marked with all the requirements of G-S.l. However, although small weight or volume disp

f may not have any significant electronics or "intelligence," they must still be marked with all the information requi 1 by G-S.l. and the marking requirements contained in the specific codes of Handbook 44. The primary indica ", element of a system that serves as the only indicating element for a weighing or measuring system must meet all applicable marking requirements. The indicating element is a main element of a system; it is considered to 1 metrologically significant part of the system in terms of complying with numerous Handbook 44 requirements

specific requirements apply to the marking of indicating elements (e.g., Scales Code Tables S.6.3.a. and S.6.3.b definitions of indicating element and primary indicating element specifically relate to the quantity display.

244
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee is sympathetic to the scale industry difficulties in marking indicating elements, but did not find a

satisfactory alternative to the current marking requirements. The problem is to distinguish which indicating elements need markings and how the enforcement official can tell when a marking requirement should be applied to one

indicating element and not to another. The weights and measures official cannot know whether or not a weight

display (or other quantity display) has metrologically significant components based upon its external appearance.

Consequently, the Committee has no alternative but to continue to apply all applicable marking requirements to

quantity displays when they are the only indicating element for a system. The National Type Evaluation Program has been clarifying the scope of devices that must be submitted for type

evaluation. It can be concluded that if a device falls within the scope of type evaluation, then it must meet all of the

-narking requirements of Handbook 44. The scope of type evaluations is defined as follows: Type evaluations will be conducted on all equipment to the point of the first indicated or recorded

representation of the final quantity on which the transaction is based.

Device manufacturers are reminded that, although a device may be exempted from the marking requirements of G-

>.l. if the proposed change is adopted, the components of a weighing or measuring system still fall under weights and

neasures regulatory control and must comply with the remaining applicable requirements of Handbook 44.

t is the position of the Committee that the following equipment does not have to be marked to meet the equirements of G-S.l.: computer keyboards, remote keypads, receipt printers and journal printers intended for use

.n point-of-sale systems, and other printers that do not have "intelligence."

t is the position of the Committee that the following equipment must be marked to meet all applicable marking

equirements of Handbook 44: separate weighing elements, indicating elements (including simple weight displays and

ideo displays that provide the first representation of the final quantity of the transaction), data processing systems

hat fall within the scope of type evaluation, and indicator electronics boxes. Indicator electronics boxes are generally

eparate enclosed cases that contain the electronics, microprocessor(s), and "intelligence" that receive the signals from

ae measurement transducers, process the information, and send the information to quantity displays for either perator or customer indications. Scale manufacturers are reminded that note 16 in Table S.6.3.b. of the Scales Code

xempts only secondary weight displays (not weight displays that are the only indicating element) from the marking

f the serial number and its associated prefix.

he following points reflect some of the devices that must be marked according to G-S.l.: Remote weight displays for point-of-sale scales which are the only weight displays for the system are required to have the marking information, including n^, although the weight display does not have any "intelligence". As

specified in note 16 of the Scales Code Table S.6.3.b., the serial number is not required on secondary displays.

Digital indicating elements without analog-to-digital converters (i.e., they are connected to load cells or weighing

elements with digital output) must be marked with all of the applicable marking information required by Handbook 44. From external appearance, it is not possible to tell whether or not an indicating element has the

analog-to-digital converter or if the indicator electronics is located in the housing of the weight display. Consequently, the marking requirements of G-S.l. must be applied to the weight display.

Simple but separate quantity displays which are primary indicators for a device but separated from the indicator

electronics must be marked with the information listed in G-S.l; however, the marking requirements in Tables

S.6.3.a. and S.6.3.b. of the Scales Code apply to weight displays.

tie following guidelines are listed to identify specific types of equipment that must meet the marking requirements

G-S.l.:

Separate Devices: Devices capable of operating as weighing or measuring devices without being interfaced with

or connected to other equipment must be marked according to G-S.l.

245
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

2. Separate Main Elements: Any remote quantity display that is the only primary indicating element must bt marked according to G-S.l. If a device is a major element in a weighing or measuring system (that is, it L« metrologically significant to the operation and/or performance of the system and interfaces with differen compatible main elements), then it must be marked with the information specified in G-S.l. Examples

Indicating elements, weighing elements, meter registers, meter measuring elements (vehicle tank meters an< loading rack meters).

3. Components: If a device is a component in a system, may be used in different models of devices, and i sufficiently complex to warrant a separate evaluation and a separate Certificate of Conformance (e.g., load cell and vapor recovery nozzles), then it must be marked with the information specified in G-S.l. Such a device ma

or may not be placed in an enclosure with other components of the system. When installed in an enclosure, th complete device must be marked with a serial number and that serial number will suffice for the entire collectio of components. If not placed in an enclosure with other components, a serial number must be marked on th component. 310-2 V G-S.8. Provision for Sealing; Features to be Sealed

(This item was adopted.)

Discussion: The range of features to be sealed has been disputed since G-S.8 was amended in 1989 to permit tli use of audit trails as a method of sealing and to expand the requirement of provision for sealing to include "ar change that affects the metrological integrity of the device."

Discussions with the Legal Metrology Branch (LMB) of Consumer and Corporate Affairs-Canada and with Weighing and the Measuring Sectors of the Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation have led to a guidelii and examples of features to be sealed under G-S.8. The guideline to determine those features, parameters,

characteristics that affect metrological integrity is as follows: Only metrological parameters that can affect the measurement features that have a significant potential for fraud, and features or parameters whose range extends beyond that appropriate for device compliance with Handbook 44 or the suitability of equipment, shall be sealed. The judgment as to whether or not a method of access to an adjustment represents a "significant potential for frau and will normally require sealing for security will be made based upon the application of the following philosophi

I. The need to seal some features depends upon: A. the ease with which the feature or the selection of the feature can be used to facilitate fraud; and

B. the likelihood that the use of the feature will result in fraud not being detected.

II. Features or functions which are routinely used by the operator as part of device operation, such as setting unit prices on gasoline dispensers and maintaining unit prices in price look-up codes stored in memory, do

have to be sealed.

III. If a parameter (or set of parameters) selection would result in performance that would be obviously in error, si as the selection of parameters for different countries, then it is not necessary to seal the selection of th features.

IV. If individual device characteristics are selectable from a "menu" or a series of programming steps, then access the "programming mode" must be sealable.

V. If a device must undergo a physical act, such as cutting a wire and physically repairing the cut to reactivate parameter, then this physical repair process would be considered an acceptable way to select parameters with requiring a physical seal or an audit trail.

246
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Examples of adjustments, parameters, and features to be sealed were agreed upon by the Technical Committee

Sectors as "typical" or "normal," recognizing that it may be possible for a manufacturer to demonstrate that in certain designs the parameter or feature may not fall within the above definition of features to be sealed. The Weighing Sector identified the following parameters or features that typically require sealing: Coarse zero Span

Linearity correction values Motion detection (on/off) Motion detection (number of divisions and speed of operation)

' Number of samples averaged for weight readings Averaging time for weight indications Selection of measurement units (if internally switched and not automatically displayed on the indicator) Division value, d Number of scale divisions, n Range of over capacity indications (if it can be set to extend beyond regulatory limits) Automatic zero-setting mechanism (on/off) for bulk-weighers and hopper scales Automatic zero-setting mechanism (range of a single step)

V*- and !/:-lb pricing capability or multiplier keys

"he following are examples of scale features and parameters that typically do not have to be sealed: Automatic zero-setting mechanism (Selection of total range, e.g., 4 percent or 100 percent of capacity) Display update rate Weigh-in/weigh-out operation (on/off) Stored tare weight capability (e.g., computing scales and vehicle weight by information number)

Selection of tare feature operation, e.g., keyboard or push-button tare (on/off) Product codes Commodity unit prices Discounts Baud rate for electronic data transfer

he S&T Committee made only one change to the list developed by the Measuring Sector. The S&T Committee

;lieves that adjustments or parameters that control the octane blend setting for gasoline dispensers must be sealed nee the blend settings could affect the quality of the product. If manipulation of the settings does not have sufficient ifeguards, tampering with this setting could facilitate fraud. The Committee does not intend that the octane blend

tttings at the wholesale level must be sealed since the quality of the blended product at the wholesale level can be

mtinely checked through other enforcement programs. With this one change, the list prepared by the Measuring

idustry Sector has identified the following features and parameters of liquid-measuring devices that typically require

aling: Measuring element adjustment (both mechanical and electronic) Linearity correction values Measurement units (e.g., gallons to liters) Octane blend setting for retail motor-fuel dispensers Any tables or settings accessed by the software or manually entered to establish the quantity (e.g., specific gravity, pressure, etc.) Density ranges

Pulsers

Signal pick-up (magnetic or reluctance) Temperature probes and temperature offsets in software

Pressure and density sensors and transducers Flow control settings, e.g., flow rates for slow-flow start, quantity for slow-flow start and stop Temperature compensating systems (on/off)

1

247
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Differential pressure valves As a point of clarification, the flow control settings referenced above are those controls typically incorporated into the installations of large-capacity meters (wholesale meters). The reference does not include the point at which retail motor-fuel dispensers slow product flow during a prepaid transaction to enable the dispenser to stop at the preset amount. The following are examples of liquid-measuring device features and parameters that typically do not have to be sealed

Analog-to-digital converters Quantity division value (display resolution) Double pulse counting Communications Recommendation; The philosophies used to determine if certain features shall be sealed and the list of features tha would normally be sealed will not appear in Handbook 44, but will appear in NCWM Publication 14, "National Type

Evaluation Program: Administrative Procedures, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures" and in NCWM

Publication 3, "NCWM Policies, Interpretations, and Guidelines." It is recommended that the philosophy used determine which features are to be sealed be included in the EPOs. To aid the enforcement official, the Committee recommends that the specific features to be sealed on a device be listed on the NTEP Certificate of Conformance

It is expected that the device manufacturer will provide the list of features that are scalable as part of the NTE1

application for type evaluation. The S&T Committee recommends that the NCWM endorse the philosophy and the lists of typical features to sealed to serve as guidelines for the National Type Evaluation Program. 310-3 I G-S.8. Provision for Sealing; Audit Trails

Discussion; Paragraph G-S.8. was amended in 1989 to recognize the use of an audit trail as an alternative to the of a physical security seal. Device manufacturers and National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) laboratories nee

guidelines to determine what constitutes an adequate audit trail. In an effort to harmonize weights and measure

requirements, the Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) has been working with the Legal Metrology Branc (LMB) to develop acceptable criteria for audit trails. If acceptable criteria can be developed, then the LMB wi consider recognizing audit trails as an acceptable method of sealing electronic devices in Canada. The LMB and OWM have discussed criteria for audit trails. The criteria have been reviewed by the Weighing Sect( and the Measuring Sector of the NTEP Technical Committee, and the S&T Committee. The LMB has prepared number of discussion papers on audit trails to facilitate the development of this issue. The latest paper is availab from OWM upon request. The discussion paper is a joint OWM/LMB product. The S&T Committee has not takeii a final position on the audit trail format. Two main forms of audit trails have been discussed: an event counter and an event logger. The event logger retail significantly more information on the changes that occurred when parameters were changed, whereas an event count simply counts the number of times the "calibration mode" is entered and changes made. It appears that the concej and details related to the event counter have general acceptance; however, considerable differences of opinion ex

regarding the event logger. Some of the main aspects of the audit trail contained in the most recent discussion paper are reported below. T

information is presented for further study and development before the Committee takes a final position on th points.

1. The objectives are to permit the use of an audit trail while providing adequate safeguards to weights and measui

officials to control the easy access to the configuration parameters and accuracy adjustments. Different for of the audit trail are considered necessary depending upon the design and sophistication of the device.

248
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The criteria that identify the acceptable form of the audit trail are summarized below.

a. No Remote Communication. The device accuracy and adjustment parameters must be input through the device itself, i.e., the device does not have the capability of remote configuration or adjustment of metrological parameters.

b. Remote Communication with a Sealable Switch. The device has the capability of accepting changes to accuracy or configuration parameters, but the device has a switch that can be physically sealed in a

position to inhibit the capability to accept parameter changes from remote devices.

c. Remote Communication without a Sealable Switch. Devices are capable of accepting changes from a remote device with only a password to limit access to the calibration/configuration mode (i.e., no sealable switch to inhibit remote adjustment or configuration of the device).

2. The minimum form of the audit trail for each category of device listed above is summarized below.

a. No Remote Communication. A physical security seal may be used or two event counters; one on the accuracy adjustments and the other on the sealable configuration parameters.

b. Remote Communication with a Sealable Switch. The minimum audit trail is a physical security seal on

the switch and two event counters; one on the accuracy adjustments and the other on the sealable configuration parameters.

c. Remote Communication without a Sealable Switch. The audit trail must be in the form of an event

logger. The event logger must include an event counter (at least 000 to 999), the identification of the parameter that was changed, the new value of the parameter, and the time and date of the change, all in an appropriate readable format. Whenever a device has a sealable switch that provides access to the calibration/configuration mode, the device

shall provide a clear indication if it is in this mode. This indication may be accomplished by either:

a. inhibiting transactions when in this mode; or

b. providing a readily visible indicator on or near the display to indicate this condition and recording a message

to this effect on any recorded ticket. The different levels of security in an audit trail are considered necessary to address the increased flexibility permitted through remote communication. If a device is not sealed or if the physical seal is broken, the weights and measures official needs the event counters to indicate how frequently the device parameters have been

changed. Since the use of audit trails and remote calibration/configuration are new to commercial devices, these

additional safeguards are considered appropriate and necessary. For any devices without a sealable switch (to limit access to the calibration/configuration mode) that are capable

of receiving metrological parameter values entered from an external means, such as floppy disks, cassettes, through a modem, etc., the event logger is the only acceptable form of an audit trail. An event logger is an

electronic record that includes an event counter, but also documents the parameters that have been changed and

the new values that have been entered. Any device is permitted to have an event logger. Consideration will be

given to determine if additional devices should be required to have an event logger. Examples of devices falling into the different categories have been developed and are available from the Office of Weights and Measures. As the minimum level of security, access to the calibration mode shall require the use of a password.

Information contained in the audit trail shall be readily available to the weights and measures official without

entering the calibration mode. It shall be in a "read only" form so that operating parameters are not inadvertently

249
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

changed. The cooperation and assistance of industry to promote standardized means to access audit tr

' information for particular types of devices are requested.

6. The event logger information shall be downloadable (or available in hard-copy form) for extensive review withou

the official being exposed to the elements or taking a device out of service for long periods of time. 310-4 W G-S.8. Provision for Sealing and Scales Code S.l.ll. Provision

Sealing; Nonretroactive Dates

(This item was withdrawn.) The proposal was to reinstate the 1979 requirements of both G-S.8. and S.l.ll. This item has been with withdraw

because the cited problem appears to be limited to scales. Consequently, a change to the General Code was

considered necessary. See Item 320-25 for the scale portion of this issue. 310-5 I G-T.l. Acceptance Tolerances

Discussion; There have been instances where NTEP and state type evaluations have extended significantly beyon

the 20- to 30-day permanence test period specified in the type evaluation procedures. Because some devices ha\ received very heavy use during this period, the manufacturer believes that maintenance tolerances should have bee

applied.

Several proposals were submitted in an effort to respond to this problem, including deletion of part (e) of G-T

limiting the application of acceptance tolerances to 30 days in the type evaluation process, limiting the Handbook

language to type evaluations conducted by the National Type Evaluation Program, and establishing minimum

values for the "normal use" of a device during type evaluation. The S&T Committee decided not to change Handbook 44 due to an occasional need to extend the application acceptance tolerances beyond 30 days when a device does not receive adequate use. The Committee is aware th the Measuring Sector of the Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation has established minimum use levc for liquid-measuring devices, and that acceptance tolerances apply until that level of use has been achieved. The S<& Committee recommends that the Weighing Sector of the Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation devel

similar minimum use criteria for scales. It is the position of the S&T Committee that acceptance tolerances shoii apply to a device undergoing type evaluation until the minimum use value is reached, even if the time extends beyoi 30 days. Acceptance tolerances must apply to any device for 30 days even if the minimum use value was exceed

before the 30-day period ended. However, if the minimum use values are significantly exceeded and the time pen

exceeds 30 days, then maintenance tolerances should be applied to the device. 310-6 VC G-UR.2.3. Accessibility for Testing and Inspection

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Discussion; Some devices are so designed that the part with the provision for sealing is not readily accessed eitl to seal the device or to inspect for the presence of an intact security seal. For example, one scanner/scale used

a checkout stand in supermarkets cannot usually be sealed unless the scanner/scale is lifted out of the checkout sta or access is provided through a door panel. Weights and measures officials do not want to lift a device fron checkout stand due to the potential for damage to the device and the associated liability to the enforcem

jurisdiction.

In addition, G-UR.2.3. could be narrowly interpreted to require assistance by the device owner only for movem

of test equipment to the device to be tested. Fortunately, device owners have taken the common sense approach

this requirement and have provided all needed assistance to test the device.

250
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Recommendation; The Committee believes that the accessibility issue goes beyond just moving test equipment to the

device and providing access for sealing, but must also include accessibility for inspecting (i.e., performing the

jaspection activities listed in the Examination Procedure Outlines) and testing the device. The testing of hopper scales

s one example where assistance in the test of the scale is needed in addition to moving the test equipment to the

.scale. The Committee believes that these considerations apply to all types of devices (e.g., taximeters and timing

devices), hence a change to the General Code is appropriate. The Committee recommends amending G-UR.2.3. to read: G-URJ3. Accessibility for Inspection. Testing, and Sealing Purposes. - A device shall be located, or such

facilities for normal access thereto shall be provided, to permit:

(a) inspecting and testing the device;

(b) inspecting and applying security seals to the device; and

(c) so that readily bringing the testing equipment of the weights and measures official to the device by customary means and in the amount and size deemed necessary by such official for the proper conduct

of the test; may readily be brought to the device by customary means.

Otherwise, it shall be the responsibility of the device owner or operator to supply such special facilities, including such labor as may be needed to inspect, test, and seal the device, and to transport the testing equipment to and from the device, as required by the weights and measures official. 10-7A V G-UR.4.1. Maintenance of Equipment

(This item was adopted.)

iscussion: The basic concept and design of many businesses have changed over the years. For example, the local rocery store has evolved into an extended supermarket with as many as 30 or more checkout lanes. Similarly, some

cal gas stations have expanded from only a few dispensers to as many as 200 dispensers. The manner in which the ^curacy of many devices in one location can be manipulated to the benefit of the device user exceeds the simple

( djustment of all devices to near the tolerance limit. ame jurisdictions are encountering difficulty in the enforcement of the provisions of this paragraph due to the

lalifying phrase for errors found "near the tolerance limit." One method used on occasion to take advantage of the

lerance is to adjust the high volume gasoline dispensers to deliver within tolerance, but near the tolerance limit in vor of the user, while low volume dispensers may be adjusted to underregister within tolerance. The enforcement

ficial needs more flexibility in applying G-UR.4.1. without being constrained by the phrase "near the tolerance limit."

iragraph G-UR.4.1. is intended to apply to devices that are not maintained properly and to those devices adjusted

take advantage of the tolerance limits. The enforcement official must be aware that some devices tend to wear

one direction over time. This wear does not necessarily imply that the device user is taking advantage of the

_ lerance; however, the device user must also be aware of this bias and regularly maintain the equipment to keep

j vices performing within acceptable limits. The weights and measures official must use judgement when applying

-UR.4.1. in those cases where the official weights and measures seals are on devices that have worn in the direction arable to the device user. commendation: The Committee recommends that G-UR.4.1. be amended to read:

G-UR.4.1. Maintenance of Equipment. - All equipment in service and all mechanisms and devices attached

thereto or used in connection therewith shall be continuously maintained in proper operating condition throughout the period of such service. Equipment in service at a single place of business found to be in error predominantly in a direction favorable to the device user and near the toleronce limits shall not be

considered "maintained in a proper operating condition."

251
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

310-7B I G-UR.4.1. Maintenance of Equipment; Guidelines

Discussion: Some jurisdictions are encountering difficulty in the enforcement of the provisions of this paragraph

Guidelines have been requested to aid in enforcement and to promote a more uniform approach to defining specifn requirements for "Equipment in service at a single place of business found to be in error predominantly in a directioi favorable to the device user and near the tolerance limits..." is not easy due to the many variables and circumstance

that may be found. The Committee has reviewed the policy guidelines used by the few states that submitted information. Achievinj agreement on guidelines for applying G-UR.4.1. appears to be a difficult task. The Committee would like to provid guidance to jurisdictions having difficulty enforcing G-UR.4.1. and offers the following policy guidelines for meterin

devices for study and comment over the next year in an effort to develop this issue. Maintenance of Equipment Policy for Metering Devices

I. Multiple devices (five or more) in service at a single place of business shall not be considered maintained proper operating condition under any of the following circumstances: A. All devices are found to be in error in a direction favorable to the device user.

B. The calculated average error of all devices is in the favor of the device owner/user by more than 1/3 of acceptance tolerance.

C. Sixty percent or more of the devices are found to be in error in favor of the device owner/user by more th 1/3 of the acceptance tolerance.

II. If it is determined that the highest volume devices or islands or the highest priced product meters are operat

in error in favor of the device owner/user, they shall not be considered maintained in proper operating conditio even if the circumstances in (I) do not exist in the installation.

Note: Weights and measures officials should take test method uncertainties into consideration when implemen

this policy.

Scales Code

320-1 I S.1.12. Manual Weight Entries

Discussion: The use of manual gross weight entries is increasing in various applications; however, the potential fraudulent use of this feature is great unless proper safeguards are incorporated into the weighing system. Mam

weight entries are permitted on point-of-sale systems when credit is given for a weighed item and on postal and par post scales to generate manifests when the package is to be picked up at a later time. In both cases the mani

weight entry must be identified as a manual weight entry and the scale must be at zero when the manual weight en

is made; a manual gross weight entry shall not override a non-zero weight indication on the scale. Manual gr weight entries are permitted on weighing systems, such as livestock scales, that generate weight tickets to corn erroneous tickets provided that the following conditions are met:

a. The erroneous ticket must be printed.

b. The erroneous ticket must be voided and so marked on the ticket. The erroneous weight information must removed from the memory or, if retained in memory, the weight information must be identified as being v

252
r

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

A conspicuous message indicating that the weight has been corrected must be printed on the ticket in clear terms. "Manual Wt" or "Manual Weight" are recommended. Abbreviations such as

MM", "keyed" or "MW" are not

| acceptable.

J equirements limiting the use of manual weight entries are needed to safeguard against fraud and abuse. Based upon

le comments received, the Committee does not believe that this issue has been adequately developed to present it )r a vote. Consequently, the issue is being returned to the regional weights and measures associations for review, ome of the questions that should be addressed are listed below:

!

i Which applications are appropriate for the use of manual gross weights?

i . Will manual net weight entries also be permitted?

Keyboard tare entries have for years been accepted by weights and measures officials without requiring an

identification of these values as manual weight entries. As the item was originally proposed (that is, all manual

weight entries must be identified), how are predetermined tare weights distinguished from tare weights stored

in memory for repeated use over time?

1

fcis issue requires thorough study before manual gross weight entries are accepted in many applications. The

ational Type Evaluation Program will continue to address devices with manual gross weight entry capability on a

lse-by-case basis.

) 20-2 VC S.2.4. Level-Indicating Means; Wheel-Load Weighers and Portable Axle- Load Scales

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

iscussion: Paragraph S.2.4. states that a portable scale shall either be accurate when out of level by 5 percent or

^all be equipped with a level-indicating means. The use of a level-indicating means is not realistic for wheel-load

3 jighers or portable axle-load scales because the scales cannot be leveled once they are set in position. Consequently,

e scales must be accurate when out of level up to and including 5 percent.

] nce NTEP was initiated, wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load scales submitted for type evaluation have been

quired to be accurate when placed out of level up to 5 percent. Consequently, requiring scale accuracy in the out-

-level condition will not change how Handbook 44 has been applied to these scales in recent years. It is not

cessary to conduct the out-of-level test every time the scale is tested. The out-of-level test is usually conducted only

jing the type evaluation of a particular model; however, the test may be conducted whenever it is deemed necessary d is appropriate on a periodic basis. commendation: The Committee recommends amending S.2.4. to require wheel-load weighers and portable axleid scales to be accurate when out of level up to and including 5 percent (approximately three degrees). The

^mmittee recommends amending S.2.4. to read:

J S2A. Level-Indicating Means. - Except for portable wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load scales, a A

x portable scale shall be equipped with level-indicating means if its weighing performance is changed by an

$ amount greater than the appropriate acceptance tolerance when it is moved from a level position and

s rebalanced in a position that is out of level in any upright direction by 5 percent (approximately 3 degrees). The

ft level-indicating means shall be readable without removing any scale parts requiring a tool.

[This requirement is nonretroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 1986, for prescription, jewelers', and dairy- product-test scales and scales marked I and II.]

\ [Note: Portable wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load scales shall be accurate when placed out of level

j up to and including 5 percent (approximately three degrees).!
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-3 I S.6.3. Marking Requirements; Temperature Range

Discussion; Paragraph S.6.3. requires class III and III L devices not marked with a temperature range to be accurate over a temperature range of 14 to 104 °F (-10 to 40 °C). The selection of 14 to 104 °F was based upon industr standards and normal practices. The temperature range is typical of many outside environments. Many people interpret the language of S.6.3. to mean that if a scale has no temperature markings, then it is suitabl

for use only in environments where the temperature range is between 14 and 104 °F. Devices without a temperature range marking are expected to perform within tolerance over the temperature rang of 14 to 104 °F. Although these limits are specified in Handbook 44 and used for type evaluation, devices must sti be accurate in the environment in which they are used, even if the temperatures of the environment exceed th temperature range of 14 to 104 °F (T.N.3.2.). Some devices may be accurate over a wider temperature range, bi

j the device has not been tested over a wider range during type evaluation. If a device is marked with a temperatur | range greater than 14 to 104 °F, then the device is tested over the wider range during type evaluation.

If a device does not have a wider temperature range marked on the device, there is no assurance that a device wi be accurate over a temperature range greater than 14 to 104 °F. It may be necessary to adjust a scale for accurac when used at temperatures outside the marked or implied limits. When a scale is adjusted near one of the temperature limits, it is logical to expect the scale to perform accurately wii a sufficient range about that point. The expected accuracy is a result of the broad compensation range (14 to 104 °I and because the compensation is generally a continuous functional relationshipwith temperature. Hence, adjustme - shifts the compensation range to a more optimum position relative to the temperature limit. A device marked with a temperature range smaller than 14 to 104 °F, but used in an environment in which tl temperature exceeds the marked temperature range, is not suitable for use in that environment. A device with i operating temperature range of at least 14 to 104 °F must be used in an application in which the temperature of tl environment varies at least from 14 to 104 °F, since other scales are readily available for such an application. Seal marked with a temperature range less than 14 to 104 °F are designed to be accurate only within the range mark< on the scale. Recommendation; The Committee is not recommending any change to Handbook 44, but is providing explanatic of the proper interpretation of temperature ranges whether or not they are marked on scales. The discussi addresses class III and III L scales, but the concept is applicable to scales of other classes.

It is the intent of the requirement that any operating temperature range designated by the manufacturer thatf different from 14 to 104 °F (-10 to 40 °C), either larger or smaller, be marked on the device. The different cases i| marking and not marking temperature ranges are addressed. The followinginterpretationsof the temperature ranf>; for scales should be added to the appropriate training modules, such as Module 5 on vehicle scales. Case 1; Temperature range of 14 to 104 °F

This case has two parts. The conclusion is the same whether or not the temperature range is marked on

device. A. If temperature range is not be marked on a scale, the device must be accurate over the range of 14 to 104

If a temperature range is not marked on a device with an NTEP Certificate of Conformance, it was tes over a temperature range of 14 to 104 °F. The device may be used outside the specified temperature ran 1 but the device must be accurate in the environment in which it is used, since T.N.2.3. applies.

If a device is marked with a temperature range of 14 to 104 °F, the marking is not considered to b limitationon its application. The device may be used outside the specified temperature range, but the dev

254
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

must be accurate in the environment in which it is used, since T.N.2.3. applies. The marking of the temperature range of 14 to 104 °F is optional.

.ase 2: Marked temperature range is less than 14 to 104 °F

If a device is marked with a temperature range less than 14 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 is greater than 14 to 104 °¥

If a device is marked with a temperature range greater than 14 to 104 °F this indicates 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, n^. A scale marked with a wider temperature range is tested during type evaluation over

the marked temperature range. V S.6.4. NTEP Logo or Certificate of Conformance Number

(The item was amended to make the effective date January 1, 1993. This voting item failed.)

scussion: An increasing number of states require that devices have NTEP Certificates of Conformance before they

e placed into commercial service. It has been proposed that devices be marked with the number of the NTEP

irtificate of Conformance issued to them. This would assist the field inspector to determine the NTEP status of

device and would readily identify to potential purchasers those devices that have received an NTEP certificate. Unless in competition would be promoted among device manufacturers since the marking requirement would tend

force manufacturers to undergo NTEP evaluation, particularly in those jurisdictions that require an NTEP

rtificate before devices may be used commercially.

i number of manufacturers have opposed placing the NTEP Certificate of Conformance number on devices on the

•»es that:

i It will create an administrative problem for the industry in the production process. The marking will have limited benefit, since each device must be checked for consistency with the Certificate of Conformance and for suitability of equipment.

i The Certificate of Conformance marking by itself does not assure that a device meets all the requirements of

I | Handbook 44 or that it is suitable for the application for which it has been installed.

I d The delays in obtaining a type evaluation can interfere with the marketing of a device.

e S&T Committee agrees with the device manufacturers and has concluded that the primary interest of weights

I measures officials is that devices designed to comply with Handbook 44 be marked in a manner that identifies m as "Legal for Trade." Consequently, the S&T Committee recommends that models of specific types of scales

I i; I liquid-measuring devices that have received NTEP Certificates of Conformance be marked with the NTEP logo.

i marking of the Certificate of Conformance number is not required, but the clearly identified Certificate number

»n acceptable alternative to the marking of the NTEP logo. If a manufacturer chooses to mark the NTEP

. Rtificate number on devices, to simplify the marking and reduce the administrative burden of maintaining the

j ^rect Certificate number on a device, the Certificate number may be marked without the suffixes that identify that

- \ Certificate is either an addendum, a Provisional Certificate, or a Pre-NTEP Certificate. The statement of the uirement indicated that the NTEP logo must be placed only on those devices that have received an NTEP

i:ificate, but does not mandate an NTEP evaluation for all devices. The marking of the NTEP logo will assist the

j^rcement official in determining whether or not a device has received an NTEP certificate. Furthermore, the logo

\

t\ constitute a positive statement by the manufacturer that the device has been evaluated and found to comply with idbook 44.

255
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The marking of the NTEP logo or certificate number will not eliminate the need for the weights and measures offici to inspect a device thoroughly. In addition to checking the performance, the weights and measures official will have to determine if the devices installed in the field are consistent with the device identified in the Certificate Conformance. The device must be inspected to determine that it is the correct model as listed on the Certificate Conformance and that its features were evaluated in the type evaluation. The inspector must also still determine

the device features, division value, accuracy, and other characteristics are suitable for the application. Even if a devi has a Certificate of Conformance, new production devices must comply with any new or amended requirements

Handbook 44 when the date of manufacture is after the effective date of the new requirement. The inspector

also verify that the device has not been modified from the original design.

In the case of software packages that receive an NTEP Certificate of Conformance for use in devices for th applications proposed to be marked with the NTEP logo, the software must state either "NTEP Evaluated" or displ the NTEP logo on the same screen that displays the software name. The software name must be displayable at son time for weights and measures officials to verify the package of software being run. The display of this informati may be part of the boot-up operation or shown on a menu screen that can be called up on the display. Recommendation: The Committee recommends that a new paragraph be added to the Scales Code to require certe types of devices that have received an NTEP Certificate of Conformance to be marked with the NTEP logo

Certificate of Conformance number. (See item 330-5 for the equivalent requirement as it would apply to liq measuring devices.) The Committee recommends adding a new paragraph S.6.4. to read:

S.6.4. NTEP Marking. -If a load cell, scale in a single enclosure, separate indicating element, or scale without

indicating element has received an NTEP Certificate of Conformance, the NTEP logo or the NTEP Certificate number snail be marked on the device. [Nonretroactive and effective as ofJanuary 1, 1993] 320-5 VC N.l.3.4. Shift Test; Livestock Scales

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Discussion: Prior to the 1989 amendment of N.l.3.4., corner tests were required to be conducted on two-sect

livestock scales. Reinstatement of the corner test for two-section livestock scales has been requested. The ratior for the reinstatement is that livestock have a natural tendency upon entering a scale to go to and stand in a con At that time the load and weight indications stabilize and the printed weight is obtained. More than 4000 livestock scales are subject to Packers and Stockyards Administration (P&SA). One of the common scales is 10,000 x 5 lb with two sections and a deck size of 8' x 14'. These scales are frequently used to wt one to several head of cattle. The P&SA studies shows load concentrations on livestock scales typically r 110 lb/ft

2

. A 4' x 6' area of the deck (corner) can be used to weigh 2640 lb of cattle. The change to N.l.3.4. wo

permit a corner test at one-quarter of scale capacity, which is 2500 lb. This test would more closely dupl

conditions of actual use. The Committee has concluded that it is appropriate to conduct corner tests on two-section livestock scales, recommendation is to change the heading of N.l.3.4. so that it applies to livestock scales with more than two secti After the change, N.l.3.4. will not apply to two-section livestock scales; consequently, the two-section livestocksc

will fall under the test described in N. 1.3.7. Because two-section livestock scales will be exempt from N.l (assuming that the recommendation is adopted), the corner loading limitationof N.l.3.4. (b) will not apply. There!

a corner load of one-quarter of the scale capacity will be specified for two-section livestock scales.

This exemption is not extended to livestock scales with more than two sections since the platform will then be lai the scale may have a greater capacity, the scale is designed to distribute the load over more sections, and n animals will be weighed at one time, thus distributing the load over a larger area. Consequently, the test descr

in N.l.3.4. is considered acceptable for livestock scales with more than two sections. Recommendation: Change the heading of N.l.3.4. and amend the beginning of N.l.3.4. to read:

256
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

N.l.3.4. Vehicle Scales, Axle-Load Scales, and Livestock Scales With More Than Two Sections. - A shift test shall be conducted with at least two different test loads and may be performed anywhere on the load- receiving element using the prescribed test patterns and maximum test loads specified below. (Two-section

livestock scales shall be tested consistent with N.l.3.7.) S20-6 VC N.4. Coupled-in-Motion Railway Track Scales; Use of the Term "Test Cars"

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

discussion: Handbook 44 contains the following definitions.

test car. A railroad car weighed on a reference scale for use in a test train.

-

test train. A train consisting of cars weighed on a reference scale and used to test coupled-in-motionrailway

track scales. The test cars may be placed consecutively or distributed in different places within a train.

Railroad test cars typically have specific designs, such as a self-contained composite car, a self-propelled car, or a tandard rail car. They are designed to be stable masses and are used as mass standards. The only reference to "test

•ars" in the Scales Code is in paragraph N.4.3.1.3.(b), but the reference to test train is frequent. The cars used in the

esting of coupled-in-motionrailway track scales are usually the types of railroad cars designed to carry the products

>r commodities normally weighed on the scale. They are usually weighed on a railway track scale that has been tested

I short time before use to establish the weights for the cars used in the coupled-in-motion(CIM) scale test. The cars

ised in the CIM scale test are "temporary" or "transfer" standards, that is, they are used as reference standards for

i short period of time and used only while the value assigned to the car is believed to remain constant; the car is not

lesigned or intended to maintain stability as a mass standard for an extended period of time.

The definition of the term "test car" must be changed to properly reflect the rail cars used in these tests. The

Itommittee is recommending definitions to correct this inconsistency with the industry term of "test car." The

Ibmmittee requests that the railroad industry, industry associations, the Railroad Advisory Committee, and the American Railway Engineering Association Committee 34 review the proposed definitions to determine if they are ppropriate and correct. If better definitions can be developed, the industry is requested to advise the S&T

- Itommittee of the definitions so they may be considered before a vote is taken on this item in July. Recommendation: To recognize that test weight cars may be used in place of reference weight cars, the Committee ecommends adding the following as a footnote to the heading of N.4.: A test weight car that is representative of one of the types of cars typically weighed on the scale under test may be used wherever reference weight cars are specified.

lie Committee recommends that the term "test cars" contained in N.4.3.1.3.(b) be replaced with "reference weight

ars." The Committee recommends that the current definitionof test car be deleted and the following two definitions dded.

test weight car. A railroad car designed to be a stable mass standard to test railway track scales. The test car may be one of the following types: a self-contained composite car, a self-propelled car, or a standard

rail car.

reference weight car. A railroad car weighed on a scale for temporary use as a mass standard over a short

period of time (typically, the time required to test one scale) as part of a test train.

Tie Committee recommends that the definition of test train be amended to read as follows:

257
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

test train. A train consisting of cars weighed on a reference scale or including reference weight cars and

used to test coupled-in-motion railway track scales. The test reference weight cars may be placed

consecutively or distributed in different places within a train. 320-7 I Guidelines to Determine When Coupled-in-Motion Scales Should b< Tested nAs Used"

Discussion: The cost of conducting "as used" tests on coupled-in-motion (CIM) scales is very high and the decisio

to conduct "as used" tests cannot be taken lightly. On the other hand, the use of the minimum 10-car/5-times tes does not always indicate the accuracy of the scale when weighing longer trains. Guidance is needed to aid ij determining when to test a scale with the "as used" test procedures. The Committee wants to develop guidelines to assist weights and measures officials to determine when the "as used

test procedures are appropriate for testing a specific scale installation. The recommendations of the America

Railway Engineering Associationfor the site selection of a CIM scale and recommendations for the proper installatio of CIM scales are the starting point for the development of the guidelines.

It is important to know the characteristics of an ideal scale site, installation,and approach and exit track to gain sor understanding of the effects on the weighing accuracy caused by deviations from the ideal installation. The dynamic

of the weighing process are complex and the potential for car interaction must be controlled. It is critically importai

to strive to minimize coupler interference as the cars being weighed pass over the scale. The objective is to avoi changes in coupler forces from tension to compression as the cars are weighed. Due to the interaction of forces, throughout the length of the train, it is necessary to examine the profile of the track for a distance at least equal t the length of the train on both the approach and exit of the scale. Although the Committee will try to develo

guidelines to aid in the decision for the method of test that is most appropriate for a CIM scale, the Committee

convinced that guidelines cannot replace experience, a thorough understanding of the weighing process and th dynamics of train interaction, and good judgement.

Installation characteristics have been extracted from the AREA Committee 34 report of Sub-Committee D-l-8

"Criteria for Location of Coupled-In-Motion Weighing Systems". Included with this list are general principles th; apply to CIM weighing. The list, available from the Office of Weights and Measures, is merely an initial list ( discussion items that can be reviewed by all interested parties. Comments, additions, and revisions are requested I assemble a more extensive list of guidelines that can ultimately serve to aid in the process of determining tl procedure to be used to test a CIM scale. It is emphasized that this list does not provide the criteria for j of when "as used" test procedures should be applied to a scale: it is only intended to generate discussion ar development of the issue. The Committee believes that the experience in the industry can lead to the developme

of suitable guidelines.

ing tl udgir m ar r

The Committee requests the assistance from the railroad industry, users of CIM scales, and associations to develc these guidelines. 320-8 I Railroad Coupled-in-Motion Weighing of Individual Cars in Mixe<

Merchandise Trains for Custody Transfer

Discussion: A number of companies would like to use (and some are using) individual car weights obtained fro CIM scales for custody transfer. The NCWM has not taken a formal position on this issue, but the S&T Committ

believes that it is not appropriate to use the weights of individual cars in mixed merchandise trains for custody transl when the weights are obtained from CIM scales. See the S&T reports in the Report of the 74th NCWM 1989 ai the 75th NCWM 1990 for additional information on this issue. The Committee would like data on other scales before it makes a recommendation to the Conference on this issi; The Committee plans to coordinate a study with railroads, scale owners, users of CIM scales, and weights a: measures officials to collect more data on this issue. The Committee will distribute a plan to industry and indus

associations to obtain advice and assistance in conducting this study.

258
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee again extends its appreciationto the members of the railroad industry, industry associations, and users

pf CIM scales for their assistance and advice regarding this complex issue. Weights and measures officials are encouraged to contact the railroads and users of CIM scales in their area to witness the test of CIM scales to gain

i better understanding of the test processes and the constraints on the process to test these scales.

ij320-9 I Railroad Coupled-in-Motion Weighing of Liquids in Individual Tank

Cars for Custody Transfer

i| discussion; A number of companies would like to use (and some are using) individual car weights for liquids in tank

i ars obtained from CIM scales for custody transfer. The S&T Committee has reviewed data that show sufficient iccuracy can be achieved when the CIM scale is tested as used and the weighing process is continually monitored.

Jee the S&T reports in the Report of the 74,h NCWM 1989 and the 75th NCWM 1990 for additional information on

!' his issue.

Tie Committee observed the testing of one CIM scale used to weigh liquids in tank cars. Although the site for the

cale installation was not ideal, after proper installation of the scale and maintenance of the railroad track on both

nds, the scale passed the test when the distribution of errors applicable to individual cars as stated in T.N.3.6.2. was

Ipplied. This test and the detailed test data submitted last year indicate that it is possible to meet the current performance requirements when weighing liquids in tank cars.

1 Tie Committee would like additional data on other scales before it makes a recommendation to the Conference. The

-Committee plans to coordinate a study with railroads, scale owners, users of CIM scales, and weights and measures

fficials to collect more data on this issue for the custody transfer of liquids in tank cars. The Committee will

istribute a plan to industry and industry associations to obtain advice and assistance in conducting this study.

Tie Committee again extends its appreciation to the members of the railroad industry, industry associations, and users

f CIM scales for their assistance and advice regarding this complex issue. Weights and measures officials are ncouraged to contact the railroads and users of CIM scales in their area to witness the test of CIM scales to gain

} better understanding of the test processes and the constraints on the process to test these scales.

11 20-10 I Notes; Establish Procedures for Testing UncoupIed-in-Motion Railway

Track Scales

i 'iscussion; It has been suggested that specific procedures to test uncoupled-in-motionrailway track scales be added

) Handbook 44. Many uncoupled-in-motionrailway track scales are in use, but Handbook 44 has no test notes

^plaining the minimum test for these scales. The test procedures already established by the Associationof American

.ailroads (AAR) and the American Railway Engineering Association (AREA) were reviewed and appear to be a Dod foundation for Handbook 44 procedures. 'ncoupled-in-motion(UCIM) railway scales are of two types: scales weighing in a single draft and those weighing

i two drafts. The industry practice has been to use three reference weight cars to test both single-draft scales and

^vo-draft scales. The UCIM scale is to be tested statically and then the railway cars are weighed statically on the

f CIM scale to establish the reference weight of the cars. If empty and loaded cars are weighed, three cars are

elected for the test with one near the low end, one of intermediate weight, and one near the maximum load weighed

Sfn the scale. The cars used for the test shall be assigned a reference weight value and meet the following criteria aken from the AAR Scale Handbook): The cars should have a range of gross weights similar to the weight of cars used in the normal operation of the

scale. The cars should be free of defects. The test shall not be conducted or continued if rain, snow or other unusual

conditions alter or affect the weights of the cars before the motion test is completed.

When loaded cars are used, the contents of the loading should be stable.

259
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

4. The reference weight value shall be obtained by weighing the car, preferably on a single draft static scale.

5. The static scale shall be tested as specified in AAR Scales Handbook 1.8, Definition of a Standard Test of a Stati< Railway Track Scale, using appropriate test equipment.

6. In addition to the usual test, the scale shall be strain tested, if possible. The Committee recommends that the procedure below be studied for another year before adding it to Handbook 44 The Committee suggests the following language for a Note to be added to the Scales Code: N.X. Uncoupled-in-MotionRailway Track Scales. - The uncoupled-in-motionscale shall be tested statically before being tested by passing railroad reference weight cars over the scale for the in-motiontest. When an

uncoupled-in-motionrailway track scale is tested, the car speed and in the direction of travel shall be the same as when the scale is in normal use. The minimum in-motion test shall be five reference weight cars passed over the scale five times. 320-11 W Reweighing a Unit Train

(This item was withdrawn.) A proposal was submitted to prohibit the reweighing of a unit train on another CIM scale for the purpose c identifying overloads or establishing freight charges. The rationale for the proposal is that the error distribution fc individual cars specified in T.N.3.6.2. is not applicable to a unit-train-only CIM scale. Consequently, the errors fc : individual cars are not controlled and should not be subjected to reweighing for individual car weights.

It is the position of the S&T Committee that this is not a Handbook 44 issue. The reweighing of a train may

necessary to ensure consideration of safety in transporting railcars. No requirement in Handbook 44 prohibits reweighing of a train (or any vehicle) on another scale, nor should there be such a requirement. This issue shoul be resolved by the parties involved in the transactions.:

I T.1.2. Postal and Parcel Post Scales

Discussion: The Committee has reviewed a proposal to delete the unique tolerances applicable to postal and pa

post scales on the basis that they are confusing and difficult to use. It is claimed that there are relatively fe unmarked postal and parcel post scales in use; consequently, changing the tolerance would affect a relatively sma number of devices. The Committee has been advised that there is still a need for the postal scale tolerances for postal scales design<

to weigh loads less than 12 oz. The Committee has also been advised that two or three states perform tests c unmarked U.S. Postal Service scales using the Handbook 44 tolerances. The S&T Committee is opposed

completely removing the postal scale tolerances from Handbook 44; the Committee does not have sufficie justification to implement a* partial change to these tolerances. 320-13 W T.N.3.1. Tolerances for Class III L Scales

(This item was withdrawn.)

Discussion; The performance requirements at the low end of class III L scales with more than 5000 divisions a J extremely tight relative to the tolerance at the upper end. The proposal was to change the acceptance ai.j maintenance tolerance of 0.5d and Id for loads from 0 to 500d to Id and 2d, respectively. This would have made

acceptance and maintenance tolerances from 0 to lOOOd to be Id and 2d. The Committee did not support this proposal because these tolerances are considered to be too large for small loa placed on class III L scales. Furthermore, class III L scales (and, subsequently, class HI L load cells) with less th

j 5000 divisions do not need such a large tolerance.

260
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-14A I UR.1.X. Selection Requirements; Suitability of Equipment

Recommendation: The Committee recommends establishing a suitability of equipment table based upon the commodity being weighed, the range of loads being weighed, the maximum division values, and the accuracy required

for the commodity and transaction. Based upon the comments received, the Committee decided to make this an

information item. The Committee recommends the continued development of the following amendments to UR.1.1.

y for consideration next year.

UR.1.1. General.

(a) For devices marked with a class designation, the typical class or type of device for particular weighing

applications is shown in Table 7a.

II (b) Devices marked with a class designation and used in the applications listed in Table 7b shall comply with

the parameters listed in Table 7b to be suitable for the application. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1992.

]

(b) (c) For devices not marked with a class designation, Table 7* 7c applies.

u Die following table should be reviewed as part of the change to UR.1.1. C. Discussion: The suitability of equipment is critical for device manufacturers, device users, and the enforcement

ifficial There appears to be considerable support among weights and measures officials to establish more definitive

Titeria on the suitability of equipment for various applications in order to minimize user and enforcement problems.

, \lthough objections have been expressed about putting the table in Handbook 44, it appears that most weights and

..neasures officials want a suitability of equipment table in Handbook 44.

Tie Committee recommends the addition of a new table to the User Requirements of the Scales Code containing

inly those applicationswhich the Committee believes are non-controversial or already specified in Handbook 44. The

Committee expects that this table will be expanded in the future and eventually may replace tables 7a and 7b and ome of the user requirements described in text.

Tiis table is proposed as a nonretroactive user requirement. If a weights and measures jurisdiction has accepted

I urrently installed devices with scale divisions larger than those in the table and considers them acceptable, this table

/ill not change their acceptability. This table is a further definition of the suitability of equipment categories listed

a Table 7a. Exceptions for specific installations with special circumstances would be at the discretion of the

jurisdiction with regulatory authority over the device.

"his table establishes the suitability of scales for specific applications based upon the loads that are weighed in the

Application and the accuracy that has customarily been required for these applications. The categories of devices for

tie table and the values defining the suitability of the scale are, in many cases, based on existing requirements in the

cales Code. The major aspect of this table is to state the maximum value for a scale division that is acceptable in n application. The accuracy required for the scale is based upon the categories listed in Table 7a. The values for

le minimum load are based upon existing user requirements and Table 8.

.xamples ^he maximum value of a scale division for a given application depends upon the range of loads weighed on the scale, or example, if a livestock scale is used in applications where the minimum load is greater than or equal to 10,000 lb, ie scale cannot have a scale division larger than 20 lb or weigh loads less than 500d. Similarly, if the scale is to weigh

':>me loads less 10,000 lb, but the minimum load is at least 5,000 lb, then a scale division of 10 lb or smaller may be

sed; the minimum load in this case is still 500d. These values are based upon and consistent with UR.3.8. The other

J

ntries for livestock scales are consistent with the entries in Tables 7a and 8 for livestock scales.

261
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table 7b. Suitability of Equipment Criteria for Scales Marked with an Accuracy Class

Application, Device, or Commodity Loads Weighed

Maximum

Division Value

\ amax) Minimum

Net Load

Accuracy

Required

(Equivalent to) Digital computing scale or POS scale *50lb 0.01 lb 20d Class III Animal scale * 2,500 lb lib 20d Class III Livestock Scales

(Smallest load weighed) 2 10,000 lb * 5,000 lb 2 250 lb z 100 lb

20 lb 10 lb 5 lb 2 lb

500d 500d

50d 50d

Class III L

Grain hopper scales (Largest load)

(Smallest load) * 50,000 lb > 20,000 lb 10 lb 20 lb 20d

20d

Class III Hopper scales (other than grain hopper)

(Largest load weighed)

* 1000 lb * 2,000 lb z 5,000 lb * 10,000 lb z 20,000 lb £\J,UUV ID1 lb 2 lb 5 lb 10 lb 20 lb JU lU

50d

50d

50d 50d

50d

JUU son

Class III L

Grain-test scale (Largest load)

(Smallest load) z500g

> 500 g

0.2 g

0.5 g

20d

20d

Class III

Railway track scales z 50,000 lb 2001b 50d Class III L

Vehicle scales

Grain

(Largest load)

(Smallest load) z 100,000 lb > 100,000 lb 20 lb 50 lb 50d

50,000 lb Class III L

Sand and

gravel z 1000 lb 100 lb 50d

Class III L

Solid waste z 1000 lb 100 lb 50d Class III L

[Nonretroactive as of lanuary 1, 1992.

J

In the case of hopper scales (other than grain hopper), the order of the "loads weighed" is from the smallest to

largest in order to correspond to the entry in Table 7b that states the maximum value for scales not otherw

specified shall not exceed 0.1 percent of the scale capacity. Therefore, if a scale is used to weigh loads less th 1000 lb, the maximum value of the scale division for these applications is 1 lb. If the scale weighs loads up to 2000

but the loads are always greater than the minimum load of 50d, the scale may have a scale division as large as 2

This process continues through the values of loads weighed until a scale weighing loads greater than 20,000 lb m

have a 50-lb scale division or smaller. Cost of Commodity Argument Some people have objected to establishing suitability of equipment on the basis of commodities, claiming that t changes Handbook 44 from a technology-based handbook to one that relies more heavily on classification based up commodity. It has been claimed that the cost of a commodity should not be a basis for determining the suitabi of the equipment used to measure the commodity.

262
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Handbook 44 currently has requirements that result from cost considerations. For example, grain hopper scales are

required to be class III devices, whereas other hopper scales may be class III L. The grain industry is required to lave 20-lb scale divisions on vehicle scales, but larger scale divisions are permitted on vehicle scales used exclusively

:o weigh sand and gravel.

320- 14B I UR.1.X. Selection Requirements; Suitability of Equipment

Discussion: The factors to consider when determining the suitability of equipment are complex. The objectives of

jstablishing suitability of equipment criteria are to:

I. assure that purchasers obtain the proper equipment for the application;

i. encourage fair competition among companies by having the applicable criteria understood by all parties so they compete under the same conditions;

». promote uniformity in the application of suitability of equipment criteria;

.. reduce enforcement problems caused by placing inappropriate equipment into service where it is not suitable for the application; and

>. facilitate different types of equipment to be used in different applications where the equipment accuracy and

performance meets the needs of the application.

Dbviously, many devices may comply with the requirements of Handbook 44, but not all equipment that complies with iandbook 44 is suitable for use in all applications. The suitabilityof scales for various applicationsdepends on many

actors, including device design, capacity, number of scale divisions, accuracy required for the application, range of

Dads weighed - which is associated with the minimum load limitation of the scale (accuracy class and scale division),

; he features available on the device, as compared with the features needed for the application.

n many cases, device design indicates the appropriate application of a device, such as a computing scale used in elicatessens and the typical retail motor-fuel dispenser used in retail service stations. A trend has developed over

he years where devices have crossed technology lines to be used in applicationswhich had been the exclusive domain

f a specific device-based technology. For example, scales or mass flow meters may now be used to measure liquids; n-board weighing systems are recognized as acceptable for measuring cryogenic liquids; and bulk milk may be

teasured using scales, positive-displacementmeters, or mass flow meters. Additionally, as manufacturers seek new

tarkets for their products and changing times dictate control over materials that were not measured to a significant

stent in the past (e.g., recyclable material and billing according to the amount of solid wastes sent to landfills), this end is likely to increase. The Committee believes it necessary to establish more definitive criteria for the suitability

f equipment and to have a mechanism to permit device technology to cross traditional technology lines and be used

l other applications.

"he following concepts should be considered to develop this issue:

i '. The codes in Handbook 44 establish performance requirements (tolerances) for the device technology. I u The "suitability of equipment" tables will establish the accuracy required for a particular commodity and the

1 ' (minimum) quantity. Any device, regardless of technology, may be used to measure the commodity and quantity,

1 * provided that the device can meet the applicable accuracy requirement and resolution for the transaction.

ill A device should not be constrained in its application by the tolerance established in the code. If a device manufacturer has developed a device model of higher accuracy than required by the code, then it should be

permitted for use in applications where tighter tolerances apply and which can be met by that device.

ii j To be suitable for an application, a device must meet both the requirements of its technology (Handbook 44

s > device code requirements) and satisfy the accuracy and division requirements for the commodity and quantities

i ' being weighed (suitabilityof equipment).

enain questions must be addressed, particularly as they relate to liquid-measuring devices. (See Item 330-8A). How

in a manufacturer demonstrate that a device meets a tolerance tighter than that stated in Handbook 44? Is the type

263
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

evaluation of one or two devices sufficient to demonstrate that a particular family of devices can meet the tolerance Should uniform categories of accuracy be established within each code and devices be marked with the accurac category that they can meet? If marked with an accuracy designation (class or category), then all devices marked wit a given accuracy must meet the tolerance, regardless of the product being measured. How can weights and measun

officials assure that production devices meet the specified accuracy if they cannot test the device in the field over range of parameters that affect device performance, e.g., temperature? The Committee believes that this area should be developed. At the Interim Meeting the Committee hear

presentations regarding the practical limitations of weighing bulk recyclable on vehicle scales with the minimum

load requirement of 50d. The NCWM must provide leadership to those municipalities and companies interested weighing solid waste sent to landfills in an effort to promote the recycling of aluminum, glass, plastics, paper,

ferrous and nonferrous materials. The Committee provides the following table of suitability of equipment criteria generate comments and discussion of issues that have been brought to the attention of the Committee. Addition

categories of devices have been submitted to the Committee, but were not be adequately reviewed at the Interii Meeting. The information will be sent to the regional weights and measures associations for review. As progress made to establishing appropriate criteria, the Committee plans to present new additions to the table presented in Itei 320-14Afor inclusion in Handbook 44.

Suitability of Equipment Criteria for Scales Marked with an Accuracy Class

Application, Device, or Commodity

Loads Weighed

Maximum

Division Value (d^)

Minimum

Net Load

Accuracy Required

(Equivalent to) Scrap and Ferrous material ? Class III L

Recyclable

material Nonferrous material Aluminum cans Bulk aluminum

Copper

Brass Paper

Glass Other nonferrous

20d

? 20d 20d

?7

?

Class III Class III L

Class III Class III ?

7Class HI L

White goods

(Discarded appliances)

7 Class III L

320-15 W UR.1.2. Selection Requirements; Postal and Parcel Post Scales

(This item was withdrawn.) A proposal was made to require that all scales used for postal and parcel post applications be weight classifiers, weight classifier is ideal for postal and parcel post applications because it rounds up weight values, following the by which postal rates are defined. If all companies or mailing services used weight classifiers, the number of confl with the scales used by the U.S. Postal Service would be reduced. The S&T Committee does not believe it appropriate at this time to mandate that only weight classifiers be use weigh letters and packages to be submitted to the U.S. Postal Service for delivery. It is a fact that a "round-off sc introduces a source of conflict with the results indicated by the weight classifiers used by the U.S. Postal Serv However, even if all scales used to weigh letters and parcels were weight classifiers, the problem of conflict indications would still exist due to the tolerances applied to scales. Bulk mail shippers are alerted to the fact that accurate "round-off scale may indicate that a letter or package may be shipped at one rate, while an accurate wei

classifier may show the next higher rate for the letter or package. Bulk mail companies should consider this fact wl purchasing a scale to weigh letters prior to taking them to the U.S Postal Service for delivery.

264
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

420-16 W UR2.9. Accessibility for Sealing

« (This item was withdrawn.)

til t Tiis item was withdrawn since it is covered as part of Item 310-6.

H 20-17 W UR.10. Records

(This item was withdrawn.)

"his item proposed certain information and documentation on scale damage, maintenance, and repair to be available

1 1 the scale site to assist the weights and measures official in the evaluation of the device and the service technician

l its maintenance. Although the Committee believes that this would be useful information to the service technician

1 ad the enforcement official, there was a lack of support by the Committee to make this a Handbook 44 requirement.

if 20-18 VC Definition of Concentrated Load Capacity

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

'iscussion: The term "concentrated load capacity" (CLC) is not being used consistent with the intent of the NCWM.

l the case of vehicle scales, the term represents the maximum axle-load concentration for which a scale is to be used

nd tested. A scale must weigh accurately when loads equal to the CLC are placed on the scale in a single test attern as specified in N. 1.3.4. or in multiple loading patterns that reflect the axle positions of the types of vehicles eighed on the scale.

. number of manufacturers claim a large CLC for testing purposes, but state that device use is limited to weighing

verified axle loads. From an engineering point of view, if the CLC is interpreted to represent only an occasional test

>ad, then the CLC rating may be significantly larger than the axle loads to be applied to the scale in normal use.

I appears that several companies rate their scales to reflect only occasional loads up to the CLC. In these cases, if

le scale were routinely used for loads with this high CLC, the life of the scale would be greatly shortened. It was

le intent of the S&T Committee that the CLC represent the normal loads for which the scale can be used.

.dditionally, the vehicle configuration, including the number of axles in tandem (two or more axles), must be

)nsidered when a weighbridge is designed. A scale may be loaded to the CLC and weights placed in the prescribed

'ading pattern wherever the axles of the vehicles being weighed may be located. Any vehicle scale can be expected

i accurately weigh any legally configured highway vehicle up to the CLC and capacity of the scale (consistent with

R.3.3.). When vehicles of different axle configurations are weighed, the scale may be tested for the "worst case" of

le axle configurations.

he current definition of CLC specifies that its value is for both testing and use; however, it is believed that a change

i the definitionwould eliminate the practice of declaring a large CLC but stating another value as the maximum axle- ad rating for the scale. The proposal is consistent with the original intent of the declaration of the CLC.

"

i i a related matter, the formula to verify the relationship of the CLC to the nominal capacity of the scale is also being

'

I lisused. A scale manufacturer must first establish the CLC needed for the intended application of the scale, then

;e the formula to arrive at the maximum value that is appropriate for the nominal capacity of the scale. Apparently, me companies are using the formula backwards: they establish the nominal capacity and divide to establish the

LC. Consequently, some scales have CLC ratings that are below the axle-loads of the vehicles weighed on the scale,

le scales with CLCs lower than the axle-loads of the weighed vehicles are not suitable for their application.

'jne Committee recommends that the definition of the concentrated load capacity be revised as stated below to

, 'Commodate livestock scales, where an axle-load rating is not applicable. Jurecommendation: The Committee recommends the definition of concentrated load capacity (CLC) be amended to

ad:

265
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

concentrated load capacity (CLC). A capacity rating of a vehicle, axle-load, or livestock scale, specified by th manufacturer, defining the maximum load concentration for which the weighbridge is designed. In the cas of vehicle and axle-load scales, it is the maximum axle-load concentration for which the weighbridge is designe

as specified by the manufacturer. This capacity rating is for both test and use. 320-19 I Specific Criteria for Unattended Vehicle Scales

Discussion: There are an increasing number of unattended vehicle scales used for commercial transactions and

determine the axle loads of highway vehicles. Many jurisdictions are faced with applying current Handbook

requirements to these devices and apply different requirements. A uniform set of criteria to be applied nationally]

desirable.

Several criteria have been applied to existing installations, but the criteria should be reviewed and developed furthei The following criteria have been suggested by the regional weights and measures associations.

1. There must be a continuous indication of zero (S.l.l.). The concern with unattended, money-operated scalt

is to permit a scale to indicate zero, but not allow a vehicle to be weighed. A scale may indicate weight valu< to a low weight value, say to only 200 lb, to permit the balance condition of the scale to be determined, but n( so far as to allow the scale to be used to weigh vehicles. Once payment has been made, the weight display allowed the full range of indication to display the actual weight of the vehicle.

2. The range of AZSM must be less than or equal to 3d (S.2.I.3.).

3. In a card-operated system, there must be a means for the card holder to set zero (S.2.1.1.) or the scale shou

be equipped with a mechanism that disables scale operation if the scale is not at zero at the start of tl operation. For example, there may be a zero push button in front of the scale so the truck driver can set zer or the scale may automatically set zero if a card reader is located ahead of the scale before the driver moves tl truck onto the scale.

4. When an unattended scale is used for custody transfer in Canada, the scale is required to have gates or oth means to assure that vehicles are properly located on the scale platform. Canada does not require these locatii devices on scales used only to determine axle-load weights, which may be of interest only to the driver of tl vehicle.

5. A printer is recommended, or perhaps should be required. If a printer is provided, it should be located so th the driver can take the ticket before leaving the scale. The ticket should be available to the truck driver, perha

by pushing a button to obtain it, i.e., the printed ticket is not automatically generated. If the ticket printer is %

at the scale, then instructions at the scale must inform the driver where the ticket can be obtained. Instruction must also be on the printer as to how to obtain the ticket. It has been suggested that the printed ticket sta "Weight determined on an unattended scale", and that the tickets be numbered consecutively.

Since the Scale Manufacturers Association has appointed a task force to develop criteria for these devices, tl^ information is provided for further review and development. The assistance of the Scale Manufacturers Associate

to develop this issue is appreciated. The Committee recognizes the need to change the reference to a continuous indication of zero in point 1 above

a reference to no-load condition. Additionally, a regional weights and measures association has recommended tl the time and date be required on the printed ticket. The Canadian requirements will be sent to the Sa

Manufacturers Association and the regional weights and measures associations for further development of the issi 320-20 I Unattended Recycling Devices

Discussion: The application of existing Handbook 44 requirements is nonuniform. Some manufacturers are r designing their recycling devices to meet all the requirements that some weights and measures officials believe mi be met. A clear statement of the requirements and the features a device must have are needed.

266
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

f The S&T Committee believes that more study and review of the requirements applicable to these devices are needed.

J Two issues are (1) whether or not these devices must have a continuous weight display and (2) specification of what

B a machine must do with the rejected cans. The Committee believes that if these devices were required by weights and measures officials to have NTEP

evaluations, significant improvement in the design of some devices would result. Strong weights and measures

enforcement would also provide good control of these devices.

t- To assist in the review of this issue and promote enforcement, the Handbook 44 requirements applicable to these

I devices as identified in Item 301-9 in the 1984 Report of the NCWM are repeated below for reference. The

references were (Scales Code numbers have been updated):

i General Code

G-S.l. Identification G-S.6. Marking Operational Controls, Indications, and Features

G-S.7. Lettering G-UR.1.2. Environment

G-UR.2.1. Installation G-UR.2.3. Accessibility for Testing Purposes G-UR.3.1. Method of Operation

G-UR.3.4. Responsibility, Money-Operated Devices G-UR.4.4. Assistance in Testing Operations

Scales Code

N.1.8. Material Test

T.N.3.9. Material Test on Customer-Operated Bulk Weighing Systems for Recycled Materials

i Note that paragraph G-S.5.1. Indicating Elements - General was not included in the list. Whether or not G-S.5.1. should be applied or if the money payment or money indication is sufficient has been argued over the years.

* 320-21 I Substitution and Strain-Load Test Procedures

li?

*' Discussion; The proper conduct of these tests and the proper application of the tolerances to the test loads is not

universally understood. The State metrologists have prepared a paper describing the test procedures and the proper

tolerance application. The paper is contained in Appendix A of this report.

1 The Committee recommends that the paper be used as a training and a reference document for these tests. The

Committee is sending this document to the Education Committee to be incorporated as appropriate in the training modules. T

320-22 I Separate Code for Scales Used in Law Enforcement

Discussion; Many court cases result from actions taken by State and local police enforcing highway weight laws. The

sourt arguments are often jeopardized because lawyers confuse the requirements for commercial weighing with those

or law enforcement scales, particularly UR.3.3. and UR.3.4.

-.1 it is believed that a separate code would be of considerable help to weight enforcement agencies and to the

ransportation industry. A separate code or a separate report should contain a full discussion of acceptable weighing

3rocedures, reasonably attainable scale accuracies, sources of potential weighing errors and instructions to minimize

hese effects, and allowable tolerances for these scales. This information should address permanently installed scales, )ortable axle-load weighers, wheel-load weighers, and weigh-in-motion equipment. The discussions should cover

ietermining wheel, axle, and gross weights, and single-draft and split-draft weighing.

rhe Committee will review the requirements that would apply specifically to law enforcement scales to determine if he best approach is to create a separate code or a separate section in the Scales Code to contain the unique

equirements applicable to law enforcement scales. This issue will be studied over the next year.

267
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-23 I Weigh-in-Motion Scales for Law Enforcement

Discussion: Over the years the reliability, durability, and accuracy of weigh-in-motion (WIM) equipment has improved. This equipment is already being used in many states, Canada, and the United Kingdom. The American

Society for Testing and Materials has published ASTM standard E 1318-90, "Standard Specification for Highwa>

Weigh-in-Motion (WIM) Systems with User Requirements and Test Methods." The S&T Committee has been asked to establish appropriate requirements in Handbook 44 for WIM scales for the purposes of screening overweight trucks and for writing citations based upon the use of WIM scales. The Committee

believes that more information is needed on these systems and their performance potential before Handbook 44 requirements can be developed. The Committee encourages the Federal Highway Administration to contact the highway law enforcement agencies in various States to determine their estimates of tolerances needed to enforce the highway weight laws. The State weights and measures agencies are encouraged to cooperate with their highway lav enforcement agencies in the conduct of tests to collect information for the Committee to review. 320-24 I On-Board Weighing Systems; Solid Waste Management and Recycling

Discussion; The trends toward recycling and for charging businesses and residents for solid waste disposal appea

to be increasing. It is important that appropriate specifications, performance requirements, and test procedures b( developed so that equipment developed for on-board weighing systems complies with weights and measure; requirements. If businesses and municipalities are not aware of the specific criteria applicable to commercial scales then inappropriate equipment will become entrenched in these applications and make enforcement much mon

difficult.

It has been, and still is, the position of the NCWM and the S&T Committee that on-board weighing systems mi

be class III scales. The Committee is willing to consider various approaches to address industry needs, including thl

possibility of using class IIH scales, but is not receptive to creating a separate category of tolerances for wast management systems. Weights and measures officials are encouraged to work with their municipalitiesand companie I involved in solid waste management and recycling to determine industry needs and to develop possible criteria fo these scales. 320-25 V S.l.ll. Provision for Sealing; Nonretroactive Dates

(This item was adopted.)

This item was added as a consequence of withdrawing Item 310-4.

Discussion: The original S.l.ll. required the sealing of electronic adjustment mechanisms affecting the performane

of a scale on a nonretroactive basis effective January 1, 1979. The definition of performance requirements limite i the scope of sealing to those adjustments that affected requirements specified in the Tolerance Sections of the code* When G-S.8. and S.l.ll. were amended to recognize audit trails and expanded the scope of the sealing requiremen

to include any change that might affect the metrological integrity of the device, the nonretroactive requirements th; were in effect since 1979 were dropped from the paragraphs. The reasons the previous requirements were droppe

were: (1) it was thought that stating both requirements would be too confusing, and (2) it was thought that any devia

in the field would already comply with the 1979 requirements.

It has been discovered that scales that were used in noncommercial applications are now being placed into servi( in commercial applications,specifically for use as shipping scales for parcels. Some of these scales do not comply wi

the 1979 requirement. Consequently, it appears to be necessary to restore the 1979 language in S.l.ll. so that acce

to the adjustment for accuracy on these scales can be required to have provision for sealing. In the specific ca( presented to the Committee, the scale has keyboard calibration capability without any provision for sealing. Recommendation: The Committee recommends reinstating the original 1979 requirement with its origin: nonretroactive date into S.l.ll. The Committee recommends that S.l.ll. be amended to read:

268
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

S.1.11. Provision for Sealing.

(a) Except on Class I scales, provision shall be made for applying a security seal in a manner that requires the security seal to be broken before an adjustment can be made to any component affecting the performance of an electronic device. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1979.]

(b) Except on Class I scales, a device shall be designed with provision(s) for applying a security seal that must be broken, or for using other approved means ofproviding security (egn data change audit trail available at the time of inspection), before any change that affects the metrological integrity of the device can be made to any electronic mechanism.

[Nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1990.]

Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems

E 321-1 W N.3.2. Material Tests; Test at Two Flow Rates

(This item was withdrawn.) A situation was reported in which a scale was tested and adjusted to be accurate at the maximum flow rate over the

scale, but due to a mistake in the installation of a load cell, the scale had extreme nonlinearity and was inaccurate I at any flow rate other than where the scale was adjusted. The simulated load test recommended by the scale manufacturer did not detect the problem.

.:

;( The proposal was to require conduct of material tests at two rates of flow for a belt-conveyor scale. There was

- considerable concern whether or not the cost of this testing could be justified by the number of problems that might

be found. The Committee did not receive any information on scale performance at different rates. This item was

withdrawn since there was insufficient justification for the proposal and it lacked support by the Committee. 321-2 W UR.5. Records

(This item was withdrawn.)

This item proposed certain information and documentationon scale damage, maintenance, and repair to be available

..at the scale site to assist the weights and measures official in the evaluation of the device and the service technician

n its maintenance. Although the Committee believes that this would be useful information, there was a lack of

j support by the Committee to make this a Handbook 44 requirement.

-:t 321-3 VC Official with Statutory Authority

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) 1

discussion: Last year the Committee made several changes to the requirements for testing coupled-in-motionrailway

rack scales, in particular, changing the reference of "certifying authority" to "official with statutory authority" to ndicate clearly that the enforcement official has the authority specified in the requirements. This proposal is to make

he same changes to the Belt-Conveyor Scales Systems Code to be consistent with weights and measures law and with

he changes to the Scales Code adopted last year. ILRecommendation: The Committee recommends editorially changing the references from "certifying authority" to

official with statutory authority" in N.I.2., N.3.2.I., N.3.3., UR.1.2., UR.3.2., UR 4. and the definition of certifying mthority.

269
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Automatic Bulk-Weighing Systems

322 VC UR.4. System Modification

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Discussion: Last year the Committee modified the requirements for testing coupled-in-motionrailway track scales, changing the reference from "certifying authority" to "official with statutory authority" to indicate clearly that the enforcement official has the authority specified in the requirements. This change will clarify the reference to "authority" in UR.4. of the Automatic Bulk-WeighingSystems Code, to be consistent with weights and measures law and will make the language consistent with the changes made to the changes adopted last year to the Scales Code. Recommendation: The Committee recommends editorially changing the reference to "authority having jurisdiction over the scale" to "official with statutory authority having jurisdiction over the scale." Amend UR.4. to read: UR.4. System Modification. - The weighing system shall not be modified except when the modification has been approved by a competent engineering authority, preferably that of the engineering department

of the manufacturer of the scale, and the official with statutory authority having jurisdiction over the

scale.

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

330-1 VC S.l.6.5.1. Money Value Divisions, Analog

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Discussion: The original language of S.l.6.5.1. (formerly S.l.4.4.1.) stated that the money values now listed in Table

1 were maximum values. At that time, the maximum allowable variation in the money computation was limited to one-half the money-value division. The maximum allowable variation was later changed to be no greater than the

specific money values stated in Table 1. As part of the editorial rewrite of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

1990, the language was unintentionallychanged to specify that the money values had to be the values stated in Table

1. It is proposed to return the language to its original statement that the money values shall not be greater than the values stated in Table 1. The original language of the 1988 paragraph S.l.4.4.1. is given below for reference:

S.l.4.4.1. Money-Value Divisions, Analog. - The value of the graduated intervals representing money values on

a computing type device with analog indications shall be as follows:

(a) not more than 1 cent at all unit prices up to and including $1.00 per gallon or $0.25 per liter;

(b) not more than 2 cents at unit prices greater than $1.00 per gallon or $0.25 per liter up to and includin| $3.00 per gallon or $0.75 per liter;

tat

(c) not more than 5 cents at all unit prices greater than $3.00 per gallon or $0.75 per liter. Recommendation: The Committee recommends editoriallyamending S. 1.6.5. 1 . to indicate that the money values listec in Table 1 are maximum values for the stated unit prices, rather than specific values. It is recommended thai paragraph S.l.6.5.1. read:

::

270
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

S.l.6.5.1. Money-Value Divisions, Analog. - The values of the graduated intervals representing money

values on a computing type device shall be no greater than those in Table 1.

130-2 VC S.l.6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

)iscussion: Some truck stops offer diesel fuel at as many as 18 different unit prices. The dispensers currently

I vailable for these installations permit the user to select one of two unit prices; primarily for either cash or credit, paragraph S.l.6.5.4. was added in 1989 to require customer-activated controls on the dispenser to ensure that the

' ustomer or device user is aware of the unit price at which the dispenser will compute. The variety of unit prices at

j ruck stops was not specifically considered when this issue was reviewed. Currently available dispensers are unable

d offer a choice of more than two unit prices from one dispenser. .^though the effective date of S.l.6.5.4. was delayed to January 1, 1991, to allow time for pump manufacturers to

i corporate the necessary changes into production, device manufacturers did not realize the need for user-activated

ontrols to select from more than two unit prices. Since there does not appear to be a strong demand for user-

! ctivated controls on dispensers installed at truck stops and since equipment does not have the capability to provide

; lis feature, it seems practical to exempt truck stops from the requirements of S.l.6.5.4.

Tiis exemption is intended to apply only to those dispensers used exclusively for truck refueling. If dispensers at truck ops are used to refuel both cars and trucks, then user-operated controls to select the unit price are needed on the

ispensers. ecommendation: The Committee recommends that S.l.6.5.4. be amended as shown below to exempt dispensers used

delusively for truck refueling from the requirement for customer-activated controls to select the unit price:

S.l.6.5.4. Selection of Unit Price.- Except for dispensers used exclusively for truck refueling (e.g.. truck stop

dispensers used only to refuel trucks), when a product or grade is offered for sale at more than one unit price through a computing device, the selection of the unit price shall be made using controls on the device or other

user-activated controls. (Effective and nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1991)

' 30-3 VC S.2.2. Provision for Sealing Measuring Elements

I, (This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

iscussion: The General Code paragraph G-S.8. allows a data audit trail to be used as a security seal. However,

ie specifications of a specific code supersede those of the General Code. Since paragraph S.2.2. of the Liquidleasuring Devices (LMD) Code requires measuring elements to have provision for sealing with a security seal, it

1 i)uld be interpreted that a physical security seal on the adjustment mechanism is the only method of sealing liquidi easuring devices. However, electronic audit trails are also considered appropriate for liquid-measuring devices.

he capability for electronic adjustment of vehicle-tank meters and loading-rack meters has existed for a number of

:ars and may be extended to measuring devices covered by the LMD Code. This electronic capability is likely to

[,i located apart from the measuring element of the device. Manufacturers may wish to utilize an electronic audit

ail as a method of sealing this electronic adjustment, rather than using a physical security seal. The Committee commends that S.2.2. be amended to explicitly recognize the possible use of audit trails.

aragraph S.2.2. falls under the subsection for measuring elements. The Committee emphasizes that the amendment

i' S.2.2. does not exclude the use of audit trails for other types of electronic adjustments covered by G-S.8. of the

^eneral Code. Paragraph G-S.8. still applies to all other electronic adjustments on devices covered by the LMD

ode. The change to S.2.2. assures that an electronic audit trail is available for use for adjustments to the measuring

ements of devices covered by the LMD Code.

271
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Rvt oiumcndafimi: I Ik Committee recommends S.2 2. be amended t0 read:

S.2.2. Provision Tor Sealing. - 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 no adjustment may

he made of:

(a) any measurement element, or

(h) any adjustable element for controlling delivery rate when such rate tends to affect the accuracy of

deliveries. Wbeu applicable, the adjusting mechanism shall be readily JMxessihle for purposes of affixing B security

seal. 330-4 VC S.3.4. Discharge Lines and Valves; Exceptions

(This item was adopted as pari Of the consent calendar.)

Discussion: The Size Of meters and discharge outlets used in dispensers at truck slops has been increasing over tl\ years. Dispensers with discharge outlets of 1-1/2 inches are not unusual. As currently worded, dispensers at true! stops that have a discharge out let of 1-1/2 inches are exempt from S.3.2. Multiple Delivery Outlets and S.3.3. Fuclir

!

of Trucks, These dispensers should be subject to the requirements of S.3.2. and s.3.3. Recommendation: To clarify the language m S.3.I., S.3.2., S.3.3. and S.3.4. without changing the intent of tl requirements, the Committee recommends rewording as follows:

5.3.1. Diversion Prohibited. - It shall not be possible to divert any measured liquid from the measurif 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 (low from oidy one outlet at a time, and

(b) the direction of How for which the mechanism may he set at any time is clearly conspicuously indicated.

5.3.2. Exceptions. - The provisions Of S.3.1. Diversion Prohibited shall not apply to:

(a) truck refueling devices when diversion of flow to other than the receiving vehicle cannot readily accomplished and is readily apparent. Allowable deterrents include, but are not limited to, physic barriers to adjacent driveways, visible valves, or lighting systems that indicate which outlets are

operation, and explanatory signs;

(h) other devices when all discharge outlets designed to operate simultaneously are 1-1/2 inches in diamet or larger. The present paragraphs S.3.5. through S.3.9. Will be renumbered as S.3.3. through S. 3.7. 330-5 V S.4.5. NTEP Certificate Of Conformance Number

(This voting item (ailed.)

Discussion: An increasing number of States require that devices have NTEP Certificates of Conformance before fl- are placed into commercial service. It has been proposed that devices be marked with the number of the NT'j

Certificate Of Conformance issued to them. This would assist the Held inspector to determine the NTEP status

272
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

a device and would readily identify to potential purchasers those devices that have received an NTEP certificate. Fairness in competitionwould be promoted among device manufacturers since the marking requirement would tend

to force manufacturers to undergo NTEP evaluation, particularly in those jurisdictions that require an NTEP

certificate before devices maybe used commercially.

A number of manufacturers have opposed placing the NTEP Certificate of Conformance number on devices on the

bases that:

1. It will create an administrative problem for the industry in the production process.

2. The marking will have limited benefit since each device must be checked for consistency with the Certificate of Conformance and for suitability of equipment.

3. The Certificate of Conformance marking by itself does not assure that a device meets all the requirements of Handbook 44 or that it is suitable for the application for which it has been installed.

4. The delays in obtaining a type evaluation can interfere with the marketing of a device.

The S&T Committee agrees with the device manufacturers and has concluded that the primary interest of weights

ind measures officials is that devices designed to comply with Handbook 44 be marked in a manner that identifies hem as "Legal for Trade." Consequently, the S&T Committee recommends that models of specific types of scales ind liquid-measuringdevices that have received NTEP Certificates of Conformance be marked with the NTEP logo.

L Hie marking of the Certificate of Conformance number is not required, but the clearly identified Certificate number

r s an acceptable alternative to the marking of the NTEP logo. If a manufacturer chooses to mark the NTEP

Certificate number on devices, to simplify the marking and reduce the administrative burden of maintaining the

XDirect Certificate number on a device, the Certificate number may be marked without the suffixes that identify that he Certificate is either an addendum, a Provisional Certificate, or a Pre-NTEP Certificate. The statement of the equirement indicates that the NTEP logo must be placed only on those devices that have received an NTEP

«rtificate, but the NTEP marking does not mandate an NTEP evaluation on all devices. The marking of the NTEP

r ogo will assist the enforcement official in the determination of whether or not a device has received an NTEP

ertificate. Furthermore, the logo will constitute a positive statement by the manufacturer that the device has been

:valuated and found to comply with Handbook 44.

Tie marking of the NTEP certificate number will not eliminate the need for the weights and measures official to nspect a device thoroughly. In addition to checking the performance, the weights and measures official will still have

o determine if the devices installed in the field are consistent with the device identified in the Certificate of

r Conformance. The device must be inspected to determine that it is the correct model as listed on the Certificate of Conformance, and that its features were evaluated in the type evaluation. The inspector must still determine if the

evice features, division value, accuracy, and other characteristics are suitable for the application. Even if a device

as a Certificate of Conformance, new production devices must comply with any new or amended requirements of landbook 44 when the date of manufacture is after the effective date of the new requirement. The inspector must

: lso verify that the device has not been modified from the original design.

] o the case of software packages that receive an NTEP Certificate of Conformance for use in devices for those

pplications proposed to be marked with the NTEP logo, the software must state either "NTEP Evaluated" or display

ne NTEP logo on the same screen that displays the software name. The software name must be displayable at some

* me for weights and measures officials to verify the package of software being run. The display of this information

lay be part of the boot-up operation or shown on a menu screen that can be called up on the display. ecommendation: The Committee recommends that a new paragraph be added to the LMD Code to require certain pes of devices that have received an NTEP Certificate of Conformance to be marked with the NTEP logo or the ITEP Certificate of Conformance number. (See Item 320-4 for the equivalent requirement as it applies to scales.)

lie Committee recommends adding a new paragraph S.4.5. to read:

; ; S.4.5. NTEP Marking. - If a retail motorfuel dispenser, loading rack meter, measuring element, or service station console has received an NTEP Certificate of Conformance, the NTEP logo or the NTEP Certificate number shall be marked on the device.

273
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

[Nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1992]

330-6 VC N.4.1. Normal Tests; Tolerance Application

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Discussion; The rated maximum flow rate for a meter is the maximum flow rate for which the manufacturer designed

the device. This rate is marked on wholesale meters and retail devices with maximum discharge rates of 25 gallons per minute or more, but may not be marked on other retail devices. The maximum discharge rate is the maximum

flow rate that can be generated under the conditions of a specific installation. The maximum discharge rate is normally less than the rated maximum flow rate and shall not exceed the rated maximum flow rate. The rated minimum flow rate is the minimum flow rate marked on wholesale meters and retail devices with maximum discharge

rates of 25 gallons per minute or more. On other retail devices, the rated minimum flow rate is the minimum flow

rate marked on the device or the minimum discharge rate at which the device will deliver when equipped with an

automatic discharge nozzle set at its lowest setting (N.4.2.2.) The maximum discharge flow rate achieved by a meter in an actual installation is often less than the rated maximum

flow rate established by the manufacturer. For example, a meter marked with a maximum flow rate of 100 gallons per minute (gpm) may achieve a maximum flow rate of only 60 gpm in an actual installation. Paragraph N.4.1. specifies that a test at the maximum discharge flow rate achieved at an installation is considered the "normal' operating condition, hence the tolerance for the normal test is applied. Paragraph N.4.2. and its subparagraphs specify the flow rates at which "special" tests are conducted. For tests conducted at other flow rates, the tolerance to be

applied is not clear. This is particularly true in type evaluation testing. The Measuring Sector of the Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation discussed this issue. They concluded

that it is appropriate to apply the normal test tolerance from the maximum discharge flow rate for an installation tc a flow rate equal to one-half of the sum of the maximum discharge flow rate plus the minimum flow rate for the' meter. The Measuring Sector also concluded that a meter used in an installation that has a maximum flow rate less than 60 percent of the rated maximum flow rate of the meter is not suitable for the installation. An example to compute the flow rates to which the normal test tolerance applies is given below. Rated maximum flow rate = 100 gpm

Rated minimum flow rate = 20 gpm

Maximum discharge flow rate for the installation = 80 gpm

, _ j. Maximum discharge rate + Minimum rated flow rate Lowest normal test flow rate =

Lowest normal test flow rate = *® + — = 50 gpm

Recommendation; To clarify the flow rates at which the tolerances for the normal test apply, the Committe recommends amending N.4.1. to read:

N.4.1. Normal Tests. - The "normal" test of a device shall be made at the maximum discharge flow rate developed under the conditions of installation. Any additional tests conducted at flow rates down to and

including one-half of the sum of the maximum discharge flow rate and the rated minimum discharge flow rate

shall be considered normal tests. 330-7 I T.2.4. Tolerances for Lubricating Oil Meters

Discussion; Meters are being used to measure lubricating oil and other automotiveliquids in quantities ranging froi a few fluid ounces to several quarts. The LMD Code tolerances for retail devices are too large when quantities le<

274
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

nan 1 gallon are delivered. It is necessary to establish appropriate tolerances for lubricating oil meters over the range

>f measurements for which these devices are used.

fhe types of fluids to which these tolerances apply may include such products as transmission fluid, power brake fluid, mtifreeze fluid, and any other automotive fluids that may be delivered directly into an automobile. Because the neasured quantities may be relatively small, the uncertainties associated with the test of the meter are a relatively arge percentage of the measured quantity. The test procedures used to check these meters will consist of deliveries

n o a metal volume standard, a glass flask, a graduated cylinder, or a gravimetric procedure. The tolerance applied

j o the device must be large enough so the uncertainty of the standards and the test procedures do not become a

:ignificant part of the tolerance.

jj Tie Committee reviewed the tolerances contained in the OIML Second Preliminary Draft, "Measuring Assemblies

i or Liquids Other than Water" and the LMB tolerances for lubricating oil meters. The OIML equivalent of an

. cceptance tolerance is 0.3 percent for one liquid at one flow rate for test drafts greater than 2 liters. A table :cmparing the values is below.

Test Draft Acceptance Tolerance Maintenance Tolerance

Quantity, Q,

in Liters OIML LMB OIML LMB

ml %* ml %* ml %* ml %*

Q <; 0.1 1.2 1.2 2.0 2.0 2 2 4 4.0

0.1 < Q <; 0.2 2.4 1.2 2.5 1.25 4 2 5 2.5

0.2 < Q s 0.4

(0.5 for LMB)

2.4 0.6 6 1.2 4 1.0 12 2.4

- 0.4 (0.5) < Q ^ 1 6 0.6 10 1.0 10 1.0 20 2.0 1<Qs2 6 0.3 15 0.75 10 0.5 30 1.5 2 < Q s 5 0.3%Q 0.3 30 0.6 25 0.5 60 1.2

5 < Q ^ 10 0.3%Q 0.3 40 0.4 50 0.5 80 0.8 Q > 10 0.3%Q 0.3 0.25%Q 0.25 0.5%Q 0.5 0.5%Q 0.5

Percent is based upon the largest test draft in the range.

he Committee recommends establishingseparate tolerances for lubricatingoil meters. Because of the relatively large

•lerances associated with the test procedure for lubricatingoil meters and the difficulty in handling the product, the ommittee decided to recommend the LMB tolerances for test drafts through 10 liters. The OIML acceptance

I 7«lerance is used for test drafts greater than 10 liters. The OIML and LMB maintenance tolerances are the same,

est drafts and tolerances for the inch-pound measurement units were selected to be round numbers with general

)rrelation to the metric values. The tolerances are to be applied to any meters measuring automotive fluids.

i

j

j jased upon the recommended table, any test drafts smaller than 100 ml or 0.2 pint would have a very large tolerance, onsequently, it is advisable to set the smallest test draft equal to 100 ml or 0.2 pint. ecommendation: To facilitate discussion of this item over the next year, the Committee is considering proposing

i r adoption in 1992 the following new paragraph T.2.4. and a new Table T.2.4. with tolerances for lubricatingoil and

itomotive fluid meters.

j T.2.4. Meters for Measuring Lubricating Oil and Automotive Fluids. - The tolerances for meters used to measure lubricating oil and other automotive fluids shall be those given in Table T.2.4.

275
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table T.2.4. Tolerances for Lubricating Oil and Automotive Fluid Meters

Test Draft

Quantity, Q

/-Ywccp la I ICC Tolerance

(fl dr)

IVlallllCIlalllC Tolerance

(fl dr)

Tf»«t 1 Co I Draft all Quantity, Q,

(Liters) Tolerance

(ml)

jviainicndnce Tolerance

(ml) Q s 0.2 pt 0.5 1.0 Q <; 0.1 2. 4

0.2 pt < Q <; 0.4 pt 0.6 1.2 0.1 < Q s 0.2 2.5 5

0.4 < Q s 1 pt 1.5 3 0.2 < Q * 0.5 6 12

1 pt < Q <. 1 qt 2.5 5 0.5 < Q s 1 10 20

1 qt < Q <; 2 qt 4 8 KQzl 15 30

2 qt < Q * 1 gal 6 12 2 < Q <: 5 30 60

1 gal < Q * 2 gal 8 16 5 < Q s 10 40 80 Q > 2 gal 0.3% of the

test draft 0.5% of the

test draft Q > 10 0.3% of thetest draft 0.5% of thetest draft 330-8A I UR.1.X. Selection Requirements; Suitability of Equipment

Discussion; The suitability of equipment is critical for device manufacturers, device users, and the enforcem<

official. There appears to be considerable support among weights and measures officials to establish more definit

criteria on the suitability of equipment for various applications in order to minimize user and enforcement problei Although objections have been expressed about putting a suitability of equipment table in Handbook 44, it appe

that most weights and measures officials want it.

This issue developed out of the request to clarify the definitions of retail and wholesale devices, because meters t! had been used in one application were beginning to appear in the other. Larger capacity meters are used in re motor-fuel dispensers, and the same meter may be used as a vehicle-tank meter and in some loading-rack me

applications. Generally, any device may be used in a specific application provided that it satisfies the accuracy a the value of the quantity division requirements. The Committee recommends the addition of a new table to the User Requirements of the LMD Code containing

those applications which the Committee believes are non-controversial or already specified in Handbook 44. Committee expects that this table will be expanded in the future.

This table is proposed as a nonretroactive user requirement. If a weights and measures jurisdiction has accep, currently installed devices with quantity divisions larger than those in the table and consider them acceptable, this ta will not change their acceptability. Exceptions to this table for specific installations with special circumstances i: the discretion of the jurisdiction with regulatory authority over the device.

This table establishes the suitability of liquid-measuring devices for specific applications based upon the quanti

delivered, the value of the quantity division, and the accuracy customarily required for these applications, categories of devices for the table and the values defining the suitability of the device are, in many cases, based

existing requirements in the LMD Code. Recommendation: Based upon the comments received, the Committee decided to make this an information i The Committee recommends the continued development of the following for consideration next year.

276
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

UR.1.2. Suitability of Equipment. - In addition to G-UR.1.1., equipment installed in the applications or used to measure the commodities listed in Table UR.1.2. shall comply with the parameters listed in Table UR.1.2. to be

suitable for the application. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1992]

Table UR.1.2. Suitability of Equipment Criteria for Liquid-Measuring Devices

Application or Commodity Deliveries Maximum

Division Value Minimum

Delivery Accuracy

Required

Motor fuel

Analog z 100 gallon 0.1 gallon lOd 0.5%

Digital * 100 gallon 0.01 gallon lOOd Analog or

digital > 100 gallon 0.1 gallon SOOd

Loading rack

<r 1000 gallon > 1000 gallon0.1 gallon

1 gallon SOOd

SOOd 0.3%

Milk

<r 1000 gallon > 1000 gallon0.1 gallon

1 gallon SOOd

lOOOd 0.2%

Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1992] 30-8B I UR1.X. Selection Requirements; Suitability of Equipment

i

' iscussion: The factors to consider when determining the suitability of equipment are complex. The objectives of

tablishing suitability of equipment criteria are to:

assure that purchasers obtain the proper equipment for the application;

' encourage fair competition among companies by having the applicable criteria understood by all parties so they

11 compete under the same conditions; promote uniformity in the application of suitability of equipment criteria; reduce enforcement problems caused by placing inappropriate equipment into service where it is not suitable

for the application; and

? j facilitate different types of equipment to be used in different applications where the equipment accuracy and

performance meets the needs of the application.

'bviously, many devices may comply with the requirements of Handbook 44, but not all such complying devices are

- Citable for all applications. The suitability of liquid-measuring devices for various applications depends on many

: ri:tors, including device design, capacity, value of the quantity divisions, accuracy required for the application, range

i

1 deliveries measured through the meter, and the features available on the device as compared with the features eded for the application.

&

| many cases, device design indicates the appropriate application of a device, such as a computing scale used in

» jlicatessens and the typical computing retail motor-fuel dispenser used in retail service stations. A trend has * ^veloped over the years where devices have crossed technology lines to be used in applications which had been the

:lusive domain of a specific device-based technology. For example, scales or mass flow meters may be used to

.iasure liquids; on-board weighing systems are recognized as acceptable for measuring cryogenic liquids; and bulk

: * lk may be measured using scales, positive-displacementmeters, or mass flow meters. As manufacturers seek new

irkets for their products and changing events dictate control over materials that were not measured to a significant ent in the past (e.g., recyclable material and billing according to the amount of solid wastes sent to landfills), this tnd is likely to increase. The Committee believes it necessary to establish more definitive criteria for the suitability

277
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

of equipment and to have a mechanism to permit device technology to cross traditional technology lines and be usee

in other applications. The following concepts should be considered to develop this issue:

1. The codes in Handbook 44 establish performance requirements (tolerances) for the device technology.

2. The "suitability of equipment" tables will establish the accuracy required for a particular commodity

(minimum) quantity. Any device, regardless of technology, may be used to measure the commodity and quantit

provided that the device can meet the applicable accuracy requirement and resolution for the transaction.

3. A device should not be constrained in its application by the tolerance established in the code. If a devi manufacturer has developed a device model of higher accuracy than required by the code, then it should

permitted for use in applications where tighter tolerances apply and which can be met by that device.

4. To be suitable for an application, a device must meet both the requirements of its technology (Handbook

code) and satisfy the accuracy and division requirements for the commodity and quantities being measure

(suitability of equipment).

Certain questions must be addressed. How can a manufacturer demonstrate that a device meets a tolerance tight than that stated in Handbook 44? Is the type evaluation of one or two devices sufficient to demonstrate that particular family of devices can meet the tolerance? Should uniform categories of accuracy be established within ea< code and devices be marked with the accuracy category that they can meet? If marked with an accuracy designat

(class or category), then all devices marked with a given accuracy must meet the tolerance, regardless of the prod

being measured. How can weights and measures officials ensure that production devices meet the specified accura

if they cannot test the device in the field over the range of parameters that affect device performance, temperature in the case of the proposed code for mass flow meters? Mass flow meters are frequently used measure liquids. The similarities of scales and metering devices allow similar concepts to be applied for suitability of equipme

however, they must be modified for the unique characteristics of each type of device.

1. The capacity of a scale is limited by the measuring range of the transducer. In the case of metering devic

capacity is usually limited by the flow rate of the meter and the pressure drop across the meter for speci

installations.

2. The minimum load for a scale is based primarily upon the resolution of the weight display or graduation valu The accuracy of scales marked with an accuracy class is related to the value and number of scale divisi Consequently the value of the scale division and the minimum load are related to the scale capacity and

accuracy of the scale. The value of the quantity division for a liquid-measuring device is usually very small relative to the total quan measured in the transaction. The meter measures relatively small volumes on a continuous basis and sums

incremental measurements. Consequently, the minimum delivery for a liquid-measuring device is often m

more divisions than the minimum load established for a scale. However, the value of the quantity divis remains a consideration, for if the value of the quantity division is large relative to the normal delivery for meter, the measuring device may not have adequate resolution for the transaction. The number of divisions a measuring device is not controlled, so a device may have a small value for its volume indication, but can used to measure very large quantities.

3. Liquid-measuring devices are considered to have a fixed error associated with the start and stop of measurement cycle with a constant relative error associated with the steady state flow of product through

meter. The error associated with the steady state operation will vary with the rate of flow of the product

the viscosity of the product. There is usually a lower limit on the flow rate below which a meter of a partic

278
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

size will not measure within Handbook 44 requirements. The nonlinearity of a scale with respect to the load

is analogous to the nonlinearity of a meter with respect to the flow rate. Minimum Measured Quantity (MMQ)

These points are mentioned to introduce the concept of a "minimum measured quantity" for meters. Although the minimum measured quantity may be new to weights and measures officials in the United States, it is fairly common

in OIML countries. Under OIML recommendations, liquid-measuring devices must be marked with the minimum

measured quantity. The minimum measured quantity (MMQ) is declared by the device manufacturer as smallest quantity that can be measured within the accuracy specified by weights and measures requirements. The MMQ is one method for determining if a device is suitable for use in a given application. The device may not be used to measure quantities

smaller the MMQ: this is comparable to the minimum load that may be weighed on a scale. The S&T Commiitee

s considering the MMQ concept to aid in determining the suitability of equipment for different applications. Weights

and measures officials are reminded that MMQ requirements are contained in the draft code for mass flow meters.

Tolerance for the MMQ

handbook 44 has always specified the minimum test draft for a device. In theory, this could be considered the ninimum quantity that should be measured by the device for a transaction. The minimum test draft is not used that

, vay because retail motor-fuel dispensers are often used for transactions smaller than the typical 5-gallon test draft.

f an MMQ is defined and required in the U.S., a device must meet the accuracy requirement for that quantity. In DIML, the tolerance for the minimum measured quantity is usually twice the tolerance normally applied to the meter.

Tie normal tolerance is usually applied to all quantities equal to and larger than twice the MMQ.

f an MMQ is declared, a tolerance must be applied to this quantity. The MMQ may be a relatively small number,

o the uncertainty associated with the test process must be considered when establishing the tolerance. For purposes

f discussion, a table showing some values of the MMQ and the tolerance for the MMQ is provided on the next page.

Tie normal tolerance is applied to all deliveries for quantities equal to or greater than twice the MMQ.

pecial Accuracy Category

"he performance requirements for a particular type of device are established in the particular Handbook 44 code that

pplies to the device. However, a device should not be constrained in its application by the tolerance established in

le code. If a particular manufacturer designs a device that performs at a significantly higher level of accuracy than

required by the applicable device code, the device should be permitted for measuring commodities for which the

£\ ice can meet the required accuracy. In these cases, the device must meet both the requirements of its code and

le suitability of equipment criteria and applicable requirements to measure the commodity.

0 allow the application of this concept, a mechanism must be established whereby it can be demonstrated that a

1 ;vice has a level of accuracy above that required by the device code and the series of devices or the devices within

, ie series that meet the required accuracy can be identified. The enforcement official needs assurance that devices

j aimed to have a higher accuracy level are indeed capable of meeting the higher accuracy when installed in field ^plications, instead of the device requiring extensive maintenance and adjustment to perform within the required

,xuracy to measure the commodity.

o allow a liquid-measuring device to be used at different levels of accuracy, one approach under consideration is to quire devices to be marked with a special symbol corresponding to an accuracy level. All devices designed by the

.anufacturer to meet an accuracy higher than that specified in the device code would have to be marked with the

j curacy category. This is similar to marking the accuracy class on scales. Consideration should be given to jtablishinga relatively small number of fixed categories of accuracy for the wide range of commodities that may be

>ured.

279
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table for the Suitability of Equipment for Liquid-Measuring Devices The Committee has developed a format for a table (see page 281) that would expand on the table in Item 330-8A

illustrating the concept of the MMQ and the special accuracy category. The table is presented for study and

discussion to aid in the development of this issue. The table includes devices and applications from other codes to provide a better overview of the concept, but considerably more work must be done. Some of the suggested

tolerances are tighter than those currently in Handbook 44: the smaller tolerances are listed for discussion purposes

Also, the values in metric units must be developed beyond those presented in the table. The Committee has received comments for several years that the tolerances for agri-chemical meters are too large considering the cost of the commodities. This issue should be addressed in this review to determine if the tolerance: for agri-chemical meters should be changed. 330-9 VC UR.2.4. Diversion of Liquid Flow

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Discussion; The use of physical barriers, valves, and lighting systems are installation requirements as well a: restrictions placed on the device itself. To better assure that all responsible parties are aware of this, it should als< be a user requirement. Recommendation; The Committee recommends adding the last sentence of S.3.3. to the end of UR.2.4. to read:

UR.2.4. Diversion of Liquid Flow. - A motor-fuel device equipped with two delivery outlets used exclusively

in the fueling of trucks shall be so installed that any diversion of flow to other than the receiving vehicle cannot be readily accomplished and is readily apparent. Allowable deterrents include, but are not limited

to, physical barriers to ad jacent driveways, visible valves, or lighting systems that indicate which outlets are in operation, and explanatory signs. 330-10 I UR.3.2. Unit Price and Product Identity

Discussion; Some stations post various unit prices for the same product under different methods of payment or leve of service as adjustments to the posted price, rather than stating the actual unit price in dollars per gallon. A propos I was made to change UR.3.2. to clearly require that all unit prices be displayed to prohibit the practice of declarir unit prices for different methods of payment or levels of service in terms of discounts from the posted price. Tt proposal is repeated below for reference. Amend UR.3.2.(a)(l) to read:

UR.3.2. Unit Price and Product Identity.

(a) The following information shall be conspicuouslydisplayed or posted on the face of a retail dispenser used in direct sale:

(1) all of the unit prices (excluding fleet sales and other price contract sales') at which the product is offered for sale; and ... The Committee's review of this issue raised several questions about the language in UR.3.2., the proposed langua and the enforcement practices of weights and measures jurisdictions. The Committee concluded that this propo \ must be studied further before recommending changes. The issues the Committee would like the industry and t weights and measures associations to review are listed below.

280
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

a ^ * %2 X

1 5 O

•o11

- s

2 s

J 1 J

i_i o J o

"w ! so , 13

OX) ts

j (N d i d

J -J §1

O o

73 eo

in o

8 .9.8

|1 o o

i >

oo>d 3

3 E «

3 > ^

6 c 1 1 -2 -o 2 >b

on o

d o

5 —

i

on d

d ©

o

coo o d d

5 c — o 3 J

« ^ ^73

d i-i

o

on d

»-H OX)

OA 8 S

vi A

o g 11

vi A

OX) IDA

a

ox)_ 5

§1 ; vi A

o >> c «

•S3

II

I

5

o

ox) _ 31?

O

o "3 22

e3

a3

281
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

1. What are the enforcement practices of the various jurisdictions? Must all unit prices be posted (displayed) o

the face of the dispenser? (See Handbook 44 for the definition of the face of a dispenser.) Is there enoug room on the face of a dispenser to post all unit prices?

2. Are "pump-toppers" allowed for posting the unit prices? Technically, pump-toppers do not satisfy th requirements of UR.3.2. although many jurisdictions permit their use.

3. Are pump-toppers required to state the actual unit prices for the products, or may the unit prices be stated i the form of discounts from the highest unit price at which the product is offered for sale, e.g., 4e/gal discoui for cash?

4. Are the requirements for posting the unit prices applied to truck stops which are not exempt from the pri< posting requirements? Should truck stops be exempt? Does the posting of unit prices at truck stops deper upon whether or not the sales are based upon a contract price?

5. How should this requirement be applied to unattended card-activated dispensers? In some card-activat< systems, the unit price is not known at the time of product delivery. LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

332-1 VC T.3. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Discussion; A performance requirement for the accuracy of automatic temperature compensating systems was add

to the LMD Code in 1987 as requirement T.2.3.3. (See the S&T report, Item 330- 14B, in the Report of the 7. NCWM 1987.) A similar requirement is needed for LP gas and anhydrous ammonia meters. The proposed tolerar

is adjusted proportionally relative to the meter tolerances for the two types of applications. The objective is to lir the error in the automatic temperature-compensatingsystem without conducting a separate test on the temperat

probe. The Committee recommends a tolerance of 0.5 percent for the difference between the meter error for tests with without the automatic temperature compensating system activated. The Committee agrees with the comment fr< California that the originally proposed tolerance of 1.2 percent is unnecessarily large. The tolerance established the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code is equivalentto the acceptance tolerance for normal tests; further, it is equival. to probe error of approximately 3 °F for gasoline and a 4 °F error for fuel oil. The original proposal of 1.2 pero

for LPG is almost twice the acceptance tolerance and is equivalent to a probe error of approximately 7 °F. Sett the tolerance to 0.5 percent is equivalent to a probe error of approximately 3 °F . The Committee received a comment that a new requirement would mandate that both temperature-compensated z uncompensated tests be conducted on the meter. It is not always necessary to conduct both tests on a meter, and

process of disconnecting and reconnecting the temperature compensator can change the meter performance c temperature compensated-device. This last characteristic has been reported for mechanical temperat compensators. The possible change in the meter performance as a result of disconnecting the automatic temperati

compensator requires that another temperature-compensated test be conducted on the meter, consuming much m

time than conducting a meter test in the "as found" condition. The Committee considered the comment, but concluded that it has no direct bearing on setting the tolerai Paragraph N.4.1.1. specifies the test procedure for systems with automatic temperature compensators and requ both tests. Since the addition of the tolerance does not change the test procedure for these meters, the Commi

recommends that the tolerance for automatic temperature-compensating systems be adopted. Recommendation: The Committee recommends adding a new paragraph T.3. to read:

282
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

T.3. Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems. - The difference between the meter error for results determined with and without the automatic temperature-compensating system activated shall not exceed 0.5 percent of the test draft The results of each test shall be within the applicable acceptance or maintenance

tolerance.

fll I

32-2 VC UR.1.2. Length of Discharge Hose

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

discussion; To establish a uniform requirement applicable to both retail motor-fuel dispensers and stationary LPG

- nail motor-fuel dispensers, it is recommended that the maximum length of the discharge hose be increased to 18 feet.

t-he change will make the hose length requirement consistent with the LMD Code requirement UR. 1.1.1. The

idition of the word "stationary" will make the language consistent with similar changes that have been made over

le past two years. i ecommendation; The Committee recommends amending UR.1.2. to read:

UR.1.2. Length of Discharge Hose. - The length of the discharge hose on a stationary motor-fuel device

shall not exceed 45 18 feet, measured from the outside of the housing of the device to the inlet end of the discharge nozzle, unless it can be demonstrated that a longer hose is essential to permit deliveries to be made to receiving vehicles or vessels. Unnecessarily remote location of a device shall not be accepted as

justification for an abnormally long hose.

Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor-Measuring Devices Code

J33-1 VC Recognize Mass Flow Meters

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

iscussion: Several states have reported installations for and increasing use of compressed natural gas as a motor

"el, with mass flow meters used to measure this commodity. To establish requirements for these devices and to

r cognize the use of mass flow meters for this application, it is recommended that the Hydrocarbon Gas VaporJ easuring Devices Code be amended to permit mass units when mass flow meters measure the vapor and to establish

- tolerance for these devices.

Ifpe Committee emphasizes that mass units are not to be used on vapor meters that measure on a volumetric basis, ipor meters measuring volumetrically must still indicate the quantity in volume units. ^hen mass flow meters measure compressed natural gas for use as a motor fuel, the system display must have

' equate resolution for the transaction. The Committee has been advised that the tank capacities for compressed

r tural gas range from approximately 20 to 50 lb. In principle, the resolution of the quantity division must be

c fficiently small that the round-off error not represent a significant portion of the tolerance applied to the device.

I

1 ie proposed acceptance and maintenance tolerances for mass flow meters when measuring vapors is 1.5 percent and

I c' ) percent, respectively. Assuming that small deliveries of compressed natural gas may be on the order of 10 lb, if

2 display had a resolution of 1 part in 500 parts for this delivery, the resolution would be approximately 0.1 percent 05d/500d is 0.01 percent). Since a manufacturer of mass flow meters reported that providing this level of

lj;olution is not a problem, the Committee recommends that the maximum value of the quantity division for

' easuring hydrocarbon vapors as a retail motor fuel be set at 0.01 lb. Quantity-value divisions shall be in decimal

'lltiplesor submultiples of 1, 2, or 5.

283
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Compressed natural gas is measured at a high pressure when being transferred to the fuel tank on a vehic Consequently, it is necessary to exclude the measurement of hydrocarbon vapors from the pressure regulation lim ofS.2.1. Recommendation: The Committee recommends amending this code to recognize the use of mass flow meters measure compressed natural gas sold outside the regulatory control of Public Service Commissions. The requiremei

for mass flow meters are written as separate parts of each paragraph to make it clear that mass units are to be us only with mass flow meters. The Committee recommends the following changes to the code.

A.l. - This code applies to devices used for the measurement of hydrocarbon gas in the vapor state, such

as propane, propylene, butanes, butylenes, ethane, methane, natural gas and any other hydrocarbon

gas/air mix.

5.1.1.2. Units.

(a) A volume-measuring device shall indicate, and record if equipped to record, its deliveries in terms

of cubic feet or cubic meters, or multiple or decimal subdivisions of these units cubic feet or cubic meters.

(b) Deliveries through mass flow meters shall be indicated and recorded in grams, kilograms, metric

tons, pounds, or tons and decimal subdivisions thereof.

5. 1.1.3. Value of Smallest Unit. Volume-Measuring Devices: The value of the smallest unit of indicated delivery, and recorded delivery

if the device is equipped to record, shall not exceed:

(a) 100 cubic feet or 1 cubic meter (1,000 cubic decimeters) when the maximum rated gas capacity is less than 10,000 cubic feet per hour,

(b) 1,000 cubic feet or 10 cubic meters when the maximum rated gas capacity is 10,000 cubic feet per hour up to but not including 60,000 cubic feet per hour;

(c) 10,000 cubic feet or 100 cubic meters when the maximum rated gas capacity is 60,000 cubic feet per hour or more. Mass Flow Meters: The maximum value of the quantity-value division shall not exceed 0.01 lb (0.01 kg) when measuring product as a retail motor fuel.

5.2.1. Pressure Regulation. - Except when measured as a retail motor fuel, the vapor should be measured

at a normal gauge pressure of: ...

S.2.S. Mass Flow Meters; Density Correction. - An automatic means to determine and correct for changes

in product density shall be incorporated in any mass flow metering system that is affected by changes in the density of the product being measured.

5.4.2. Discharge Rates. - A volume-measuring device shall be marked to show its rated gas capacity in cubic feet or cubic meters per hour. A mass flow meter shall be marked with its maximum and minimum

flow rates in pounds or kilograms per unit of time.

N.l. Test Medium. - The device shall be tested with air or the product to be measured.

284
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

T.2. Tolerance Values for Mass Flow Meters. - Maintenance and acceptance tolerances for mass flow meters shall be 2.0 percent and 1.5 percent, respectively.

o exempt sales of compressed natural gas used as a motor fuel from the requirement to provide an invoice, amend

R.2.2. to read:

UR.2.2. Invoices. • A customer purchasing hydrocarbon gas measured by a vapor meter for other than motor fuel shall receive from the seller an invoice for each billing period ...

33-2 VC N.4.2.2. Low-Flame Test and T.l.l. Low-Flame Test

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

iscussion: When the low-flame test is conducted, a defective meter will fail to register at some point during the test, ^nsequently, the results of the low-flame test are either pass or fail: the meter will either continue to operate Toughout the test or will stop operating and, therefore, fail. The inclusion of a tolerance value appears to be

inecessary. The Committee has been advised that replacing the tolerance with a requirement for continuous

gistration of the meter throughout the test will adequately identify defective meters relative to the low-flame test. commendation: The Committee recommends deleting paragraph T.l.l. and amending N.4.2.2. to read:

N.4.2.2. Low-Flame Test. - The device shall be tested at an extremely low-flow rate as given in Table 1. The test shall consist of passing air at a pressure of 1.5 inches water column through the meter for not

less than 60 minutes. The quantity of air regi stered by the meter shall be determined at a minimum of

three approximately equal time intervals! (See T.l.L for the performance requirement for this test) The

meter shall continue to advance at the conclusion of the test period.

Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

4-1 VC S.2.4. Automatic Temperature or Density Compensation

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

ncussion: The Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices Code provides an option for using temperature-compensated

uncompensated meters. Several uncompensated meters have been found to overregisterdue to liquid temperatures

ove the temperatures intended for the delivery.

'ers rely on pressure relief valves to maintain stable and proper temperatures of liquid in storage tanks. It appears

t the pressure relief valves are often set too high or fail to function, resulting in higher liquid temperatures and

jter overregistration. Customers and users usually fail to detect this problem. It is therefore necessary for all ogenic meters to be equipped with automatic temperature or density compensation systems. This requirement

uld apply on a retroactive basis effective January 1, 1992. commendation: The Committee recommends amending S.2.4. on a retroactive basis to read:

S.2.4. Automatic Temperature or Density Compensation. - If-a A device is shall be equipped with an

5 | automatic means for adjusting the indication and/or recorded representation of the measured quantity

of the product, it shall to indicate and/or record in terms of: kilograms or pounds; liters or gallons of

liquid at the normal boiling point of the specific cryogenic product; or the equivalent cubic feet of gas at

a normal temperature of 70 °F and an absolute pressure of 14.696 psia.

285
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

334-2 VC S.2.4. Automatic Temperature or Density Compensation

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Background: In the event of a failure to the temperature-compensating system, this proposal would pern temperature-compensated meters to revert automatically to indicate uncompensated volume values provided thai clear indication of this condition exists . This operation will be an alternative to taking the meter out of service un

repaired or until approval is obtained from the weights and measures authority to operate the meter in uncompensated mode. However, paragraph UR.2.6.1. applies and authorization to operate in the uncompensat

mode must be obtained from the weights and measures official having statutory authority. Paragraph S.2.4. now requires that indications of volume on compensated devices be in terms of compensated volun

only. Some devices revert to uncompensated indications when there is a failure in the compensator system and sor

clearly disclose that the indication is in uncompensated volume. This is preferable to devices which revert displaying uncompensated volumes without disclosing that the system has failed. Both methods of operation app

to violate the current specification.

It seems reasonable to permit cryogenic liquid meters to display the uncompensated volume when due to syst failure, provided that the meter display clearly indicates that the displayed and recorded quantity is the uncompensa

volume and failure of the system is clearly indicated. The meter should not be permitted to display or re uncompensated volume without disclosure. Such operation would violate G-S.6. Marking Operational Contn

Indications, and Features. Recommendation: Add a nonretroactive sentence to S.2.4. to read:

S.2.4. Automatic Temperature or Density Compensation. - If a device is equipped with an automatic means for adjusting the indication and/or recorded representation of the measured quantity of the

product, it shall indicate and/or record in terms of: kilograms or pounds; liters or gallons of liquid at the normal boiling point of the specific cryogenic product; or the equivalent cubic feet of gas at a normal

temperature of 70 °F and an absolute pressure of 14.696 psia. When a compensator system malfunctions,

the indicating and recording elements may indicate and record in uncompensated volume if the mode of

operation is clearly indicated e.g., by a marked annunciator, recorded statement, or other obvious means. * [^Nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1. 1992] 334-3 I Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices

Discussion: A proposal to add a separate code to Handbook 44 for liquid carbon dioxide meters has been bei the Committee for several years. Due to lack of resources, very little work has been done on this code. The Committee has questioned the need for a separate code since many of the requirements for cryogenic me

and liquid carbon dioxide meters are the same. The Committee has been advised that businesses and offk concerned with specifications and tolerances for liquid carbon dioxide (C02) and cryogenic liquid-measuring dev

are not interested in the large number of requirements that apply to devices other than those with which they working. Separate codes would be more easily understood. Moreover, deliveries of liquid C02 require substant

different equipment than for cryogenic liquids. Companies that produce and consume these products have special

facilities and personnel to work with C02 or cryogenic liquids; the same equipment and personnel do not handle 1 products.

In response to these comments, the Committee will review the special requirements applicable to each type of m r and ultimately offer a single code that separates within the same code the requirements for the two types of me

or else a separate code for carbon dioxide liquid-measuring devices.

286
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Milk Meters Code

35-1 VC S.32. Intake Hose

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) L

r iscussion: The dairy industry is very concerned that hoses withstand operating pressures; maintain the vacuum

li iveloped during use; maintain proper connections and structure during cleaning; and permit cleaning the equipment

thout disassembly. Optically clear hoses often fail after a few months, either due to pin holes and/or connection

tds that are not suitable for cleaning in place. n

k was originally proposed to amend this paragraph to require that all intake hoses comply with the requirements of

e Food and Drug Administration and the U.S. Department of Agriculture regarding pressure and vacuum. The

jommittee does not find it necessary to restate these requirements in Handbook 44 since they are already met.

iditionally, the federal requirements supersede those in Handbook 44. Instead, the Committee is concerned that e code requirement specifying the use of "clear hoses" is not appropriate and does not reflect the types of hoses used

the industry. Since no one in the industry or from the regulatory community appears to have any objection to using

i her than clear hoses on milk meters, the Committee believes that the obsolete requirement should be removed from

Jig code. T

commendation: The Committee recommends deleting point (d) under S.3.2. and renumbering point (e) to be point

). The paragraph will then read:

I, S.3.2. Intake Hose. - The intake hose shall be:

(a) of the dry-hose type,

(b) adequately reinforced,

(c) not more than 20 feet in length unless it can be demonstrated that a longer hose is essential to permit transfer from a supply tank; and

{4)—

s

uffici ently clear so product in the hose i s visible, and

<e) /d) connected to the pump at horizontal or above to permit complete drainage of the hose. m

5-2 I UR.2.3. Ticket in Printing Device

t icussion: It is contended that there is a potential for fraud or error if a milk hauler must manually record the

:i 1 unity of milk picked up or delivered through a milk meter. A proposal was made to require a printed receipt from

^l

J --ry meter to ensure that there is a printed ticket for every transaction.

proposal would have a significant impact on existing equipment and actually represents a design specification for meter. To be consistent, a specification would have to be added to have the same effect as this user requirement,

e to the potential impact of this proposal, more information is needed to assess the ramifications. Comments are

uested on the need and impact of a requirement for a printed ticket for every transaction.

287
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Taximeters Code

354-1 VC T. 1.2.2. Tolerance on Average Time Interval Computed After Excludinj the Initial Time Interval

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Discussion; There is a tolerance on overregistration for the initial time interval and a separate tolerance for oth< individual intervals, but not for the average of four successive time intervals. A non-zero tolerance for overregistratic, would recognize variations in production even though timing devices are targeted to have zero error. Although th electronic timing devices used in taximeters are quite accurate, errors of either overregistration or underregistratic may occur. The electronic timing devices usually do not have any adjustment mechanism for accuracy, consequent

the zero tolerance on overregistration is not practical. All devices, no matter how accurate, will have son

overregistration or underregistration error. Moreover, the tolerance for a device must recognize the uncertainty the test process used to test the time feature on taximeters. See Item 354-3 in the S&T report in the Report of the 75,h NCWM 1990 for background information. Recommendation; The Committee recommends establishing a 0.2 second per minute tolerance for overregistrati for the average time interval for the timing device on taximeters. The Committee recommends amending T. 1.2.2. read:

T.l.2.2. On Average Time Interval Computed After Excluding the Initial Interval. - Maintenance and

acceptance tolerances on the average time interval excluding the initial interval shall be as follows:

(a) On Overregistration: 0 seconds 0.2 second per minute (0.33 percent)

(b) On Underregistration: 3 seconds per minute (5 percent). 354-2 VC UR.4. Reinspection

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Discussion: Paragraph UR.4. requires testing by a weights and measures official of all taximeters that have b< damaged or repaired in any way that might affect accuracy before they are returned to service. Taximeters are only devices that a registered service person cannot place back into service after installing, repairing, and adjusf l until an official examination can be made. Although weights and measures officials may still want to be notifies! any taximeters placed back into service, the need for a mandatory reinspection is not justified. The Committee proposes that UR.4. be deleted. This will eliminate the mandatory testing of a taximeter by weij j

- and measures officials before being placed back into service. If a jurisdiction has a regulation permitting ( registered service agencies to return a device to service (such as the Uniform Regulation for the Volun

Registration of Servicepersonsand Service Agencies for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices), the dele of UR.4. will have no effect on the regulation. The weights and measures official has the discretion to test taxime

after return to service either for a new installation or after repair. Recommendation: The Committee recommends deleting paragraph UR.4. Reinspection.

\fo

288
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Grain Moisture Meters

1 56 I Establish a T^pe Evaluation Program for Grain Measurement

Equipment

discussion: Congress has passed a new U.S. Farm Bill promoting greater uniformity in commercial grain inspection. See the Executive Committee Item 102-4.) A cooperative effort to develop standards would be beneficial to the grain

ldustry and all parties involved. The FGIS has provided extensive information to OWM regarding its current and

roposed requirements, and a proposed plan for type evaluation of this equipment.

hscussions are in progress to explore establishment of a cooperative program among the USDA Federal Grain

ispection Service (FGIS), the National Conference on Weights and Measures, and the NIST Office of Weights and

leasures to develop device specifications and a type evaluation program for grain-measuring equipment. Equipment

deludes grain moisture meters, dockage testers, near infrared spectroscopy equipment to measure grain constituents ncluding moisture, protein and oil), aflatoxin screening test kits, and test weight per bushel apparatus. This could

isult in additional codes or requirements for Handbook 44. Interested parties are encouraged to monitor the

:tivities in this area and provide input to the Executive Committee. Other Items

16O-I V Draft Mass Flow Meters Code

(This item was adopted.)

iscussion: Several codes have been amended over the years to recognize that mass flow meters are acceptable

^vices for measuring the products covered by the separate codes. Item 333-1 proposes to amend another code to

•-cognize these devices for measuring compressed natural gas. Adding mass flow meters to each separate code has

suited in different tolerances for mass flow meters based on the tolerances that already exist in the amended codes, separate code for mass flow meters would consolidate the requirements for these unique devices into one reference xument and standardize the applicable tolerances.

he LMB and OWM have reviewed the pre-draft international recommendation developed for the International rganizationof Legal Metrology (OIML). The LMB and OWM agreed upon a tolerance for measuring liquids and

:neral specifications for mass flow meters. The specifications and tolerances were distributed to the regional weights

id measures associations as information and for review. A meeting of the OIML InternationalWorking Group held

u August 1990 resulted in changes to the OIML pre-draft. These changes were reviewed by the LMB and OWM.

, number of changes to the draft mass flow meter code were distributed in December 1990 to the regional weights

( id measures associations and have been agreed upon. The proposed Tentative Mass Flow Meters Code is contained

I Appendix B to this report.

( tie major changes from the December draft and issues for discussion are listed below:

It was reported that the zero setting of mass flow meters is significantly affected by temperature. The effect can be as large as 0.4 percent over a temperature range of -10 to 50 °C. The change in zero has the same effect as an adjustment to the accuracy of the device. Consequently, the December draft included a "window" concept

for the zero adjustment mechanism. This concept was subsequently rejected by the OIML InternationalWorking

J Group. A mass flow meter must be accurate over the range specified for the device without adjustment of the

zero due to the effects of temperature. Hence, the temperature "window" concept has been deleted from the proposed tentative code. The tolerance for measuring liquids is 0.3 percent acceptance and 0.5 percent maintenance.

289
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

3. The specifications and tolerances for measuring gases (vapors) as proposed in Item 333-1 have been include*

in the tentative code.

4. The OIML International Working Group agreed that mass flow meters should indicate in "true mass" rather thai I in "apparent mass." The LMB and OWM agreed to accept the OIML position as the appropriate indication o mass units. The issue is whether mass flow meter indications should essentially agree with volume indication

!

of liquid meters when converted to true mass, or should agree with indications from a scale (apparent mass) i j a product is weighed. The quantitative difference between these two indications is approximately0.1 percent fo liquids with a density near water. If true mass indications are accepted, a table with correction factors based oi the density of the liquid must be used to convert scale indications into true mass values. The process o

correcting the indications is not a major issue. Air buoyancy is not a factor when measuring gases or liquids under pressure since they are delivered into i closed container: the air buoyancy effect is canceled out.

i The Committee is concerned about the practicality of adopting the requirement for accuracy over a temperature rang when compliance with this requirement cannot be determined through field enforcement, but only in the laborator The Committee will continue to study this point. The Committee may delete this requirement from the draft befor presenting the code for adoption in its final form. Recommendation: The Committee recommends the adoption of the Mass Flow Meters Code as a Tentative Cod

in Handbook 44. The recommended Tentative Code for Mass Flow Meters is contained in Appendix B to this report. The commentai

notes that appeared in the previous draft have been retained to aid in the review of the recommended code; howeve

the notes will be omitted when the Tentative Code appears in Handbook 44. Manufacturers of mass flow meters, device users, and weights and measures officials are encouraged to apply the cod over the next year to learn if the requirements are practical and appropriate. Based upon comments received, th following changes were made to the proposed tentative code and are reflected in Appendix B. Paragraph S.3.5. was amended to read:

S.3.5. Provision for Sealing. 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 adjustment cannot

be made on any device that affects the measurement result without breaking the security seal. The text in part (b) of S.l.2.4. was deleted and the following text added:

(b) The maximum value of the quantity-value division for vapor-measuring devices shall not exceed

(0.01 kg) 0.01 lb when measuring product as a retail motor fuel. Paragraph N.6. was amended to read:

N.6. Air Buoyancy Correction. - Air buoyancy corrections are applied when measuring products into an

open vessel; air buoyancy corrections are not applied when measuring product into a closed vessel. When

measuring product into an open vessel, weight values from a scale shall be converted to mass values by

using Table N.6. The formula under Table N.6. was corrected to be: 0.99985 x pD M

pp - 0.0012 g/cm 3

290
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

60-2 I Appendices B and C of Handbook 44

liscussion; In November 1989, the Committee received a detailed proposal from Mr. Louis Sokol to update

i appendices B and C of Handbook 44 with respect to terminology and language related to the International System

f measurement units. The NIST review of Appendix B, "Units and Systems of Weights and Measures: Their Origin, development, and Present Status," revealed that much more extensive revision is needed to update the appendix

;garding the International System of Units. Since a new NIST publicationon the International System is in process, n update of Appendix B is not justified; hence, Appendix B will be omitted from the 1992 edition of Handbook 44.

Tie changes to Appendix C, "General Tables of Weights and Measures," are primarily changes to the many headings

)r sections and tables. The updated Appendix C is available from OWM upon request. The revised Appendix C

ill be included in the 1992 edition of Handbook 44 and renumbered as Appendix B.

Editor's Note: Subsequent to the Annual Meeting, strong interest was expressed to retain Appendix B. Consequently, ppendix B has undergone revision for the International System ofMeasurement and will be included in the 1992 edition W Handbook 44.J 40-3 I OIML Report

he following information was provided by Mr. O. K. Warnlof, Standards Management, NIST, to report on OIML

M ;tivities that are of significant importance to the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

iscussion: The OIML schedule of activities for 1990/1991 has been extremely heavy and is expected to continue

L >r the next several years, primarily because of "EC'92". The cooperation and interest of members of the NCWM is Dpreciated and your continued participation is encouraged. The following is an outline of activities since the 1990 CWM and scheduled for the calendar year 1991. OIML WORK PROGRAM - 1990/1991

I S5D "Dynamic Measurement of Liquids" RSI "Meters With Measuring Chambers or Turbines' 2nd Pre-Draft "Combined Document" received & circulated to National Working Group (NWG) - 7/7/90 Meeting of NWG - 8/13-15/90, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD

Comments on 2nd Pre-Draft due Reporting Secretariat (RS) - 8/90 Meeting of International Working Group (IWG) - 10/24-26/90, NIST Gaithersburg, MD

Comments on Self-Service Equipment to Co-Reporting Secretariats - 12/31/90 Meeting of Self-Service Ad-hoc group - 3/91, Italy 3rd Pre-Draft Combined Document to be circulated - 6-7/91 Meeting of IWG - 10/91, Paris Meeting of self-service Ad-hoc group held (5/13/91) Florence, Italy RS3 "Water Meters" Meeting of IWG on 2nd Pre-Draft Revision International Recommendation (R) 49 scheduled for late 1991. RS6 "Electronic Devices"

Draft IR accepted by RS & PS (U.S.voted "no") - 1/1/90 Draft will not be published because of "EC'92."

291
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

RS7 "Methods & Devices for Verification" & RS9 "Vortex Meters" Meeting of IWG held on 11/6-10/89, Japan on:

(a) 2nd Pre-Draft "Test Procedures, Gas Pumps"

(b) 2nd Pre-Draft "Pipe Provers"

(c) 1st Pre-Draft "Vortex Meters" Comments received from - (a), API, Gilbarco; (b) & (c), NIST

Comments sent to RS - 11/14/89 Note: The results of this meeting have not been distributed. Reporting Secretariat provided the 3rd Pre-Draft IR Test Procedures, Gas Pumps and 3rd Pre-Draft Pipe Provers and circulated to NWG for comment (8/30/91) IWG Meeting (3rd Pre-Draft referenced above), Tokyo, Japan, 11/25-27/91 RS10 "Direct Mass Flow Meters" 2nd Pre-Draft circulated to IWG 3/22/90 for comment by 8/1/90 Meeting of NWG - 8/15-16/90 NIST, Gaithersburg, MD to review comments received. Meeting of IWG - 10/22-23/90 NIST, Gaithersburg MD

Meeting of NWG - 1/17-18/91, Hyatt Hotel, Washington, D.C., to finalize the 3rd Pre-Draft 3rd Pre-Draft to be circulated to IWG - 2/91 Meeting of IWG - 5/13-15/91, NWML, U.K.

Results of IWG Meeting 1st Draft IR

Ballot on 1st Draft IR to PS IWG 6/12/91 Response due 9/27/91 PS5S "Static Measurement of Liquids"

RS12 "Static Direct Mass Measurement of Quantities of Liquids"

Meeting of IWG on 2nd Pre-Draft IR - 5/16-17/91, NWML, Teddington U.K. PS6 "Measurement of Gas"

RS4 "Measurement of Hydrocarbon Gases Distributed by Pipe-Line" 2nd Pre-Draft IR circulated to NWG - 8/8/89. Comments due to RS - 9/15/89; delay requested. Comments received from AGA & API, 10/3/89; sent to RS on 10/10/89. PS7 "Measurement of Mass"

RS2 "General Problems. Electronic Devices" IWG Meeting - 7/16-18/90, NIST, Gaithersburg, MD, to discuss revision of R74

R74 Revision - Circulated to PS IWG for vote - 9/7/90 R74 Revision Vote Results: yes - 4, no - 3, abstain - 1. Vote on 3 V/m versus 1 V/m from 500-1000 MHz: 3 V/m - 6, 1 V/m - 1, abstain - 1. Reporting Secretariat's response to comments and re-vote request to the International Working Gro

(5/8/91). Response due 8/16/91. RS4 "Non-Automatic Weighing Instruments" IWG Special Meeting on 3rd Pre-Draft Rev. - 8/27-29/90, Cologne.

NWG Meeting - 12/5-7/90, NIST, Gaithersburg, to develop comments on 3rd Pre-Draft Rev. R76.

292
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

IWG Meeting - 1/28/-2/1/91, PTB, Braunschweig, to discuss 3rd Pre-Draft Revision R76. PS7 IWG Meeting - 2/1/91, PTB, to act on any decisions made during RS meeting.

R76 Revision will be provided to the National Working Group (NWG) for vote by 5/17/91. U.S. "YES" vote on R76 revision along with comments on humidity test sent 6/7/91. The NCWM was represented by J. Truex, Chairman of the S & T Committee, and five other

representatives of scale manufacturers at the meetings in Braunschweig.

RS5 "Automatic Weighing Instruments"

1st Draft IR "Hopper Scales" & Draft IR "Railroad Track Scales" being editorially revised to reflect the

revision of R74.

3rd Pre-Draft Revision R61 "Gravimetric Filling Instruments" - circulated to NWG 11/21/90. 4th Pre-Draft Revision R50 "Belt Weighers"- circulated to NWG 1/7/91. NWG Meeting - 3/20-21/91, NIST, Gaithersburg MD to review succeeding Draft Documents on Belt Weighers, Catchweighers, etc. IWG Meeting - 5/20-24/91. NWML, U.K. - to discuss succeeding Draft Documents.

Results of the International Working Group (IWG) meeting:

1st Draft Revision R50 Belt Weighers accepted. 4th Pre-Draft Revision R61, Gravimetric Filling Instruments (to be circulated by fall 1991) 2nd Pre-Draft Revision R51, Catchweighers (to be circulated by fall 1991) IWG Meeting, February, 1992, NWML, U.K. - to discuss draft document revisions R51 and R61. RS8 "Load Cells" Revised R60 voted on by CIML at meeting in Paris, 10/90. Revision accepted with 1 dissenting vote (Germany).

Test procedures and report forms needed for Certificate System. PS8 "Weights" Revised Combined Document received from Belgium 6/20/90, circulated to NWG for comment 6/22/90. IWG Meeting - Combined Document on Weights - NIST, 7/19/90 4th Pre-Draft & meeting minutes circulated to NWG for comment - 11/6/90 One comment received and sent - 1/8/91

1st Draft IR received 4/17/91 and circulated to NWG for comment by 6/28/91

1st Draft IR U.S. vote by 7/1/91

Truex, Ohio, Chairman

Carroll, Massachusetts

Helmick, Arizona

Jeffries, Florida

Suiter, Nebraska

Marceau, Legal Metrology Branch Canada, Technical Advisor

. Oppermann, NIST, Technical Advisor

pecifications and Tolerances Committee

293
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Appendix A

Testing Large Capacity Platform Scales

Reflecting 1989 and 1990 Changes to NIST Handbook 44

by Ross J. Andersen, Metrologist

New York State Bureau of Weights and Measures

Several changes to NIST Handbook 44[1] in the 1989 and 1990 editions significantlyaffect the testing of large capacil platform scales. These changes were the product of a study of how vehicle scales are used, how they are rated, an how they should be tested [2] [3]. This paper is intended as a aid to understanding the changes and the practice

I

application of the prescribed tests. The first change redefined the capacity ratings of vehicle scales to link the nominal capacity and the concentrated loa capacity (CLC) (see Scale Code par. S.6.1.) The concentrated load capacity is a new term that is somewhat simih

to the section capacity in older versions of the handbook. This change is intended to correct a problem wit misrepresenting the weighing capabilities of Class III L scales. In the second change, the shift test (formerly secti

test) was redefined in paragraph N. 1.3.4. to reflect the change from section capacity to CLC. The objective is clearly require a scale to be accurate whenever loads up to the CLC are placed on the weighbridge in a configurati

typical of the vehicles to be weighed. The change clarifies the proper application of the test loads applied in a shi' test to produce a better test and prevent inappropriate loading of the scale.

c

The third change specified the minimum increasing-load test of a Class III L scale (see Scale Code par. N.3. ar Table 4). This change called for two tests over two different ranges equal to 25 percent of the scale capacity. Th

was a significant addition to Handbook 44 in regard to testing these scales since the standard reference was NE

Handbook 94, which is now out of print[4]. Furthermore, the changes go beyond the procedures in Handbook 94

j define how the scale should be loaded during the tests. Load Application

When a tractor-trailer is on a vehicle scale, it may appear that the load is distributed across the scale. The seal however, senses only the load concentrations at the treads of the tires. A typical tractor-trailer has 18 tires on ft axles, usually in groups of one, two, or three axles spaced 4 to 5 feet apart on center. Thus a two-axle group appl load to the scale over an area formed by approximately four feet in length by the width of the scale. A truck plac no load directly on the center 2 feet of the deck along the longitudinal axis since the tires do not touch that area. The Federal and State departments of transportation (DOT) have defined maximums that each axle may legally car on the highway in a formula called the "Bridge Formula" [5]. This formula relates the permissible gross and axle loa to the number and spacing of the axle groups. The DOT regulations attempt to limit highway loads to preve overloading the roadbeds and bridges. Although this does not directly affect weights and measures, the bridge formi,

parallels the design and use of the vehicle scale, and the official test must duplicate the use of the device of the devi

as closely as possible. To reflect the method of use, Handbook 44 has defined a test pattern consisting of an area, at least 4 feet loi extending across the scale deck (N. 1.3.4.). This test pattern is used to load the scale during the official tests and mi

not be loaded above the rated CLC. If a very large load is to be carried on a vehicle, the common solutionis to a

an axle to spread out the load. When applying loads greater that the CLC, Handbook 44 specifies that the additioi load be concentrated on other test pattern areas consistent with the method of use. To test the scale to its us

capacity, it will be necessary to load several different test patterns to avoid overloading any one pattern. Multi] patterns may be loaded to the CLC consistent with the axle configurations of the trucks intended to be weighed. Tl will parallel the way the scale is used. Figure 1. Test patterns for a 60' x 10' scale with three (3) sections.

*p

to

in

III tl

294
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

4'

Section

1 Midway between sections

1 and 2 Section

2 Midway between

sections 2 and 3 Section

3

'igure 2. Typical loading of a vehicle scale.

30-foot truck with three axles 60-foot truck with 5 axles /hen conducting the shift test (N. 1.3.4.), the two required test loads may be loaded in a test pattern anywhere on

'.e deck. Generally this means applying the shift test loads at the sections and at the mid-span between sections, wading at the sections tests for proper adjustment of the levers or load cells in each section. Loading at mid-span

sts for performance changes due to deflection in the deck supports, since the mid-span is the weakest point in the

ck.

le tolerances on the shift test are applied in two ways. First, when using known test loads, every reading must be

thin the applicable acceptance or maintenance tolerance. Second, as required in T.N.4.4., the readings obtained

' ring the shift test must agree within the absolute value of the maintenance tolerance. Stated another way, the

"ference between the highest and the lowest reading must not be more that the maintenance tolerance for that load.

I hen loading the test pattern with weights (without a weight cart), the test pattern can readily accept 54 1,000-pound

•ights. These may be placed on the deck in two stacks, each three high by three deep by three across. It is Tmissible to load the center 2 feet of the deck with weights since the load concentrations (in pounds per square

:h) are not very high. In routine enforcement tests, it is very unusual to have such a large amount of test weight

ailable. hen using weight carts, the official must be aware of the load concentrations on the solid rubber wheels. The more

xnt designs of weight carts use wide wheel spacings and soft rubber to reduce the concentrations on the deck, nee more closely resemble the loads generated by highway vehicles. Four-wheel carts with loads up to 30,000 lb d six-wheel carts with loads up to 40,000 lb are in use in many States. Due to of the design of many weighbridges,

i wheels of the cart should in no case be placed in the center 2 feet of the deck. If two carts are used, one on each

e of center, then care must be exercised to prevent unbalanced loading. Load the first cart to no more than 1/4 CLC, load the second cart, then finish loading the first cart.

rge load concentrations are also an issue when using test trucks with special hydraulic jacks to perform shift tests.

I e jacks, located between the front and back axles, lift the front wheels off the ground and concentrate the load in mall area between the rear wheels and the jacks. The loading surfaces of the jacks must be large enough to nimize the load concentrations (usually less than 100 lb/in2). If the load supported by the two jacks is 20,000 lb

:n the area of the load surfaces should be at least 200 in2 (e.g., each jack has a base plate of 10 x 10 in). Supporting

; same load on jacks with 4-inch-roundbase plates would result in load concentrations in excess of 800 lb/in2

295
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Standards

Suitable standards are the key to a meaningful test, Table 4 of the Scales Code provides the weights and measure;

official with a very good guide as to the suitability of a given capacity scale. With large capacity scales, it is highl; unusual to have test weights equivalent to the scale capacity. Handbook 44 therefore differentiates between tes | weights and test loads. The term "test weights" refers to calibrated standards which meet specified accuracy criteria. The test weights shoul< have valid calibration reports from a certified State laboratory attesting to their accuracy and their traceability to th< national standards. For scales with capacities over 1,000 lb and up to 40,000 lb, test weights equivalent to 25 percen

of scale capacity should be available, and for larger scales, equivalent to 12.5 percent of capacity. Test weights ar< usually cast iron blocks that conform to Class F specifications and tolerances [6]. The tolerances for Class F weight

' over 2 pounds are 0.01 percent, or 1 part in 10,000. This is at least 10 times better than the acceptance tolerance

for Class III L scales. Weight carts generally do not meet the specifications for Class F weights, but can be maintained to be accurate withi

1 6r 2 pounds. This is within 1/3 of the smallest tolerance applied to most Class III L scales and, therefore, make j the carts suitable for use as test weights for these scales. Periodic recalibration and proper maintenance will assur

that the weight cart remains sufficiently accurate. The term "test load" used in Table 4 refers to other material, such as trucks, skiploaders, etc, which is placed on th platform during the test. These test loads allow the official to test the scale to capacities beyond the available tes

!

weights. The test loads are used either as strain loads, as substitution loads, or as a combination of both. The officii

j must be aware of the differences and the proper application of tolerances in each case. The Increasing Load Test The increasing load test measures the performance of the scale when loads of increasing size are placed on th weighing platform. Table 4 specifies the minimum test loads that should be applied during this test. A note in Tabl

;

4 specifies that a minimum test of a Class III L scale should consist of one test from zero to at least 25 percent c the scale capacity, then one strain load test up to the used capacity of the scale. The used capacity is based on th largest loads commercially weighed on the device. The test weights available to perform these tests often dictates the use of substitutionand/or strain load testing, te 1 procedures have been used for many years, often incorrectly. The test procedures at the end of this document attemj

to describe the tests as they apply to current technology and test equipment. The substitution test method extends the test beyond the available test weights. In a substitutiontest, the substitutk I load replaces test weights in a range of the scale that has been already tested so that the error is known.1

,

,

correction is made for any error in the scale at that point based on a previous test using the test weights. Thus tr

!

substitution load has a known value and is included with the test weights in the application of tolerances. 1¥

substitution procedure may be used as part of a test that starts at zero and as part of a strain-load test. The strain-load test uses an unknown load to establish a new reference point upscale from zero and beyond tr i calibrated range of the scale. This is one method of extending the test beyond the available test weights. The ern

in the scale at the strain-load reference point is unknown, hence must be thought of as the starting point for the tes When test weights are applied, the only comparison can be the change from the strain-load reference point; this the basis for tolerance application. Tolerances are applied only to the change from the strain-load reference base on the known test loads applied.

*To be accurate, the scale error should be determined at the precise load at which the substitution of weight

will occur. This is more critical when testing dial and beam scales, where the geometry of graduations, notches, and rack and pinion gears may affect the scale error. The precise substitution of weight on a digital, load-cell scale is not as critical since the output is a smooth continuous function. 296
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Tie major difference between the strain-load and substitution tests is the untested range of the scale in the former.

Tie following examples provide a schematic of the proper application of the two types of tests. Test weights smaller nan one scale division, typically to 1/4 or 1/10 d, should be used to determine scale errors and reference points Hthin scale divisions whenever substitution and strain load tests are conducted.

IExample 1. Test of a 30-foot scale (60,000 x 20 lb) using Procedure 1 and using the substitution option and 30,000 lb

f test weights (50 percent of scale capacity). The test truck (approximately 28,000 lb) will be used as the substitution

)ad.

part 2

part 1 + + +

0 30,000 60,000 lb

;

nominal and used capacity

art 1 - The test weights are applied beginning at zero.

art 2 - The test truck is substituted for the test weights and then the weights are reapplied to reach both used and

ominal capacity.

x ampie 2. Test of a 60-foot scale (1 20,000 x 20 lb) using Procedure 1 and using the strain-load option and 30,000 lb f test weights (25 percent of scale capacity). A dump truck with sand (approximately 60,000 lb) is used as the strain

>ad. (As a practical matter, the weight of the truck will not be equally distributed over the steering and drive axles;

le bulk of the load will be on the rear axles. Care must be taken not to add test weights near the rear axles to the

<ctent that the combined loads of the truck axles and test weights exceed the CLC.)

! part 1 part 2 + - + +

0 80,000 120,000 lb used capacity nominal capacity

art 1 - The test weights are applied beginning at zero.

art 2 - The dump truck is applied as a strain load , balanced out, and then the weights are reapplied to reach used

opacity. mple 3. Test of an 80-foot scale (200,000 x 20 lb) using Procedure 2 with 30,000 lb of test weights (15 percent of

i ale capacity) and a substitution test near 30,000 lb. A large dump truck with sand (approximately 70,000 lb) is used

. the strain load and a skiploader (approximately 28,000 lb) is used as a substitution load.

part 2 part 4

part 1 part 3 + + + +

0 50,000 100,000 200,0001b

used capacity nominal capacity

297
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Part 1 - The test weights are applied beginning at zero.

Part 2 - The skiploader is substituted for the test weights and then the weights are reapplied to reach 25 percent of scale capacity.

Part 3 - The dump truck is applied as a strain load and then the weights are reapplied.

Part 4 - The strain load is left on the scale, the weights are removed, and the skiploader is substituted for the teslr weights. The weights are then reapplied to reach used capacity. Note that additional substitutions could have been performed as a part 1A in Example 2 and as a part 2A in Example

3. These would have been beyond the minimum test recommended in Table 4 but may be within a jurisdiction'* testing policy. Care should be exercised in multiple substitutions since there are uncertainties even with the use of error weights Factors such as creep, zero drift, hysteresis, repeatability, and shift in the test load distribution may limit the suitability of repeated substitutions. The Office of Weights and Measures recommends that no more than three substitution! be performed before treating the remaining tests as strain-load tests[7]. Reading the Scale Errors

During the tests, it is important to read the errors in the scale correctly since they do not always equal whole scali divisions. It may be necessary to read between the lines (i.e., interpolate between graduations or use error weight

to measure to values smaller than digital scale divisions) to avoid misapplication or improperly applying tolerance and penalizing the scale for round-off errors when reading the weight value. The problem stems from the round-off of weight values to the nearest scale division. Normally, the observer mentall rounds off the indications of such analog indications as beams and dials to the nearest scale division, while round-ol occurs automatically on digital devices. Each time the observer reads an indication (other than zero) there is potential for an error of ±0.5 division (e.g., a reading of 20,140 lb on a scale with d = 20 lb may be anywhere betwee

20,130 and 20,150 lb). This potential error can have significant impact on the outcome of the test.

First, consider the application of the tolerance when the tolerance is a whole number of scale divisions. This occur when applying maintenance tolerances and some acceptance tolerances. When a digital-indicating scale reads +

1

for a known test load, the scale is rounding its indication and the actual load measured by the scale may be anywher between +0.5 and +1.5 divisions in error. If the tolerance is l.Od then the range between +1.1 and +1.5d is actual! out of tolerance, and failure to read this error increases the tolerance by up to 50 percent. When only small amounl

of test weights are available, e.g., 500 or lOOOd, this can be very significant. The solution to this problem is to read the scale in increments less than a scale division. On analog scales, this ca be done by carefully reading between the graduations on dial scales or by reading the position of the beam on beai

scales. On digital scales, a tolerance weight of 0.5d can be used to make a pass/fail determination of scale errc relative to the tolerance. If the tolerance is ± Id and the reading is + Id, then the addition of the tolerance weigl must not result in a stable reading of + 2d. This indicates that the scale was between + 0.5d and + l.Od and n< between +1.1 and +1.5d. If the error is -Id, the addition of a weight equal to 0.5d must take the reading to the ne

higher division, indicating that the reading was between -0.5d and -l.Od. Another problem occurs when substitution or strain load tests are applied. There is a potential error of ± 0.5d in tl reading of the reference point for the strain or substitution load and a potential error of ±0.5d in the reading afti the test weights are applied. This means a potential ± Id error exists in the indicated values for every strain load < substitution test, when the tolerance may be as small as ±0.5d! The use of error weights in these tests is ve important. Under windy conditions, both the- official and the scale user must be ready to accept these potential errors as thi may help or hurt the scale. It is not practical, considering the inspector's time and expense of operating a test true

298
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

to reschedule a test simply because the wind is gusting. However, if the wind and gusts are so strong that a reasonably accurate test cannot be performed, the test must be postponed.

IIUnder good environmental conditions, the use of error weights can significantly reduce the potential round-off error. The use of error weights has been documented [8] and employs the break point between divisions to measure the

errors to 1/10 or 1/4 scale division. Use the formulas in the Appendix to compute the scale errors. It is necessary

to get outside the operating range of the automatic zero-setting mechanism (AZSM window) when measuring the amount of weight needed to reach the break point near zero load. Note that the use of error weights is necessary

only when the scale is on the border of being out of tolerance or when applying a strain or substitution load. The

remainder of the scale errors may be calculated directly from the scale readings.

jft is recommended that the inspector weigh the substitution loads before the test begins. Then the use of error

w eights may be limited to the substitution point, which is the closest test load to the amount of the substitution load. For example, consider the case of a test similar to Example 3 above. The inspector weighs the skiploader before the

:est, and it weighs 27,720 lb. If the weights are applied in 3000-lb increments, the inspector need only use the error

weights at 27,000 lb to determine the scale error to be carried with the substitution. This of course assumes that the

;cale performance remains fairly linear between 27,000 and 30,000 lb.

vVeighing the substitution loads before the test also may reduce the movement of weights in and out of the test truck, -or example, if the substitution load were only 22,000 lb in the above example, then it would only be necessary to apply 24,000 lb of the test weights before applying the substitution load. The error weights would be used at 21,000 lb >and the range between 24,000 lb and 30,000 lb would be covered when the weights are reapplied.

L. Oppermann, H. V., editor, Specifications and Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and

i Measuring Devices, NIST Handbook 44 (published annually).

I Tholen, A. D., et. al. editor, Report of the National Conference on Weights and Measures 1988, NIST Special Publication 750, Specifications and Tolerances Committee Items 320-5A and 320-5B, p 242-245.

\. Tholen, A. D., et. al. editor, Report of the National Conference on Weights and Measures 1989, NIST Special

i Publication 771, Specifications and Tolerances Committee Items 320-7, p 151.

U. Jensen, M.W., The Examination of Weighing Equipment, NBS Handbook 94, (1965).

i. Bridge Gross Weight Formula, US Dept. of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, (1984).

>. Specifications and Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights and Measures, NIST

Handbook 105-1, Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Weights (NIST Class F), (1990).

\ Oppermann, H.V., The Testing of Hopper Scales, available through the NIST Office of Weights and Measures.

i References

299
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Increasing Load Test: Procedure #1

Available test weights equal to at least 25 percent of scale capacity.

1. Begin the test with the scale at zero load.

2. Apply the test weights in one or more test patterns; be sure not to exceed the rated CLC. Apply the weights

in convenient increments while striving to take readings at the maximum test loads near the loads at which the tolerance changes; record the scale errors.

3. A decreasing load test may be run where appropriate by removing half of the applied weights.

4. Remove all test weights and check for proper return to zero. Option 1. Strain Load Test - to reach used capacity

(see Example 2)

5. Start with the scale at zero load.

6. Apply a strain load to the scale leaving room to apply the test weights. Record the scale reading at the starting point of the strain load test: this is the strain-load reference point.

7. Apply the test weights in one or more test patterns; be sure not to exceed the rated CLC. Apply the weights

in convenient increments while striving to take readings at the maximum test loads near the loads at which the tolerance changes; record the scale errors.

error = (scale reading - strain load reading) - test weights

Calculate the scale errors and apply tolerances to the change from the strain-load reference point based on the known test load applied.

8. A decreasing load test may be performed where appropriate by removing the strain load, calculating the errors, and applying the tolerance to the known test weights left on the scale.

9. Remove all test weights and check for proper return to zero.

10. This test may be performed on both ends of the scale or in test patterns on other areas of the scale platform Option 2. Substitution Test - to reach used capacity

(see Example 1)

5. Start with the scale at zero load.

6. Apply a substitution load to the scale leaving room to apply the test weights. The substitution load must no

exceed the previously calibrated range of the scale based on steps 1-4, nor a previous substitution. Calculate th< actual weight of the substitution load based on the scale errors previously recorded.

7. Apply the test weights in one or more test patterns; be sure not to exceed the rated CLC. Apply the weight

in convenient increments while striving to take readings at the maximum test loads near the loads at which th< tolerance changes; record the scale errors. Calculate the scale errors and apply the tolerances to the entire loa< on the scale since the full load on the scale is known test load. Follow steps 5 through 7 may be repeated, bu

,

there should not be more than three substitutions.

8. A decreasing load test may be performed where appropriate by removing the test weights or the substitutio

load. Calculate errors and apply the tolerance to the known test load left on the scale.

300
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

9. Remove the entire test load and check for proper return to zero.

10. This test may be performed on both ends of the scale or in test patterns on other areas of the scale platform. Increasing Load Test: Procedure #2

Available test weights are less than 25 percent of scale capacity. L Begin the test with the scale at zero load.

2. Apply the test weights in one or more test patterns. Apply the weights in convenient increments while striving to take readings at the maximum test loads near the loads at which the tolerance changes; record the scale

errors.

3. Remove all test weights and check for proper return to zero.

Starting at zero, apply a substitution load to the scale leaving room to apply the test weights. The substitution load must not exceed the previously calibrated range of the scale based on steps 1-3, or a previous substitution. Calculate the actual weight of the substitution load based on the scale errors previously recorded. Apply the test weights in one or more test patterns; be sure not to exceed the rated CLC. Apply the weights

in convenient increments while striving to take readings at the maximum test loads near the loads at which the tolerance changes; record the scale errors. Calculated the scale errors and apply the tolerance to the entire load on the scale since all the load on the scale is known test load. Follow steps 4-6 to reach 25 percent of scale capacity. There should be no more than three substitutions performed as part of this portion of the test. A decreasing load test may be performed where appropriate by removing the test weights or the substitution

load. Calculate the errors and apply the tolerance to the known test load left on the scale. Remove the entire test load and check for proper return to zero.

Strain Load Test - to reach used capacity

(see Example 3)

8. Start with the scale at zero load.

9. Apply a strain load to the scale leaving room to apply the test weights. Record the scale reading as the starting point of the strain load test: this is the strain-load reference point.

10. Apply the test weights in one or more test patterns; be sure not to exceed the rated CLC. Apply the weights

in convenient increments while striving to take readings at the maximum test loads near the loads at which the tolerance changes; record the scale errors.

error = (scale reading - strain load reading) - test weights

Calculate the scale errors and apply tolerances to the change from the strain-load reference point based on the known test load applied.

11. Remove all test weights and check that the scale returns to the strain load reference point.

12. Starting at the strain load reading, apply a substitution load to the scale leaving room to apply the test weights. The substitution load must not exceed the previously tested range of the scale based on step 10 or a previous

substitution. The range between zero and the strain load is not included since the error at the strain load reading is unknown. Calculate the actual weight of the substitution load based on the scale errors previously recorded.

301
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

13. Apply the test weights in one or more test patterns; be careful not to exceed the rated CLC. Apply the weights

in convenient increments while striving to take readings at the maximum test loads near the loads at which the tolerance changes; record the scale errors. Calculated the scale error and apply the tolerance to the combination

of substitution load and test weights since all this load is known test load. Steps 12 and 13 may be repeated to reach the used capacity of the scale, but no more than three substitutions are to be performed as part of this portion of the test. To calculate the error from direct reading, use the following formula.

scale strain substitution error = - load - - test weights

reading reading load

14. A decreasing load test may be performed where appropriate by removing the strain load and applying the tolerance to the combination of substitution load and test weights left on the scale.

15. Remove the substitution load and all test weights and check for proper return to the strain load reading.

16. After removing all material and test weights from the scale, check for proper return to zero. Do not penalize the scale for possible drift or creep that may occur if the testing procedure takes a long time.

If the scale does not return to zero after removing all material and test weights, a separate return to zero test should be conducted. Zero the scale and drive a vehicle onto the scale platform. Allow the vehicle to remain on the scale for a time equal to the normal weighing operation. Drive the vehicle off the scale and check the return to zero. This test may be repeated as many times as necessary to determine whether or not the scale has a problem returning to zero.

302
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Formulas for Calculating Scale Errors When Using Error Weights

Increasing Load Test - start at zero

Tolerances are applied to only the test weights (S^)

. Strain Load Test

error = Rload

- R^ - Sws + E^ - Eload

j Tolerances are applied to only the test weights (S^J

. Increasing Load or Strain Load Test with Substitution

error = Eprev + Rload

- Rsub - + E^ - Eload Tolerances are applied to the sum of the substitution load and the test weights (S^). *The scale error in substitution is assumed to be the same as the error at the nearest test point recorded in the

| revious tests. u

; When starting at zero the substitution load is equal to the scale reading of the substitution load (Rsub) Vhen starting at a strain load the substitutionload is the difference between the scale reading at the substitutionload nd the scale reading at the strain load (Rsub

- R^^).

Vhere:

^load = Scale reading at load R«ram = Scale reading at strain load Rtub = Scale reading at substitutionload S^ = Test weights EKro = Error weights to break point at zero

Eflnun = Error weights to break point at strain load E^ = Error weights to break point at substitutionload E^ = Error weights to break point at load Eprev = Scale error at substitutionload* The scale error in substitution is assumed to be the same as the error at the nearest test point recorded in the

revious tests.

303
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Appendix B

Tentative Mass Flow Meters Code

Handbook 44 has been amended over the years to recognize the use of mass flow meters in various specific code The Specifications and Tolerances Committee believes that a separate code should be developed to recognize ma: flow meters. Initial discussions with the Legal Metrology Branch (LMB), Canada have resulted in specifications ar tolerances that are believed to be appropriate for these meters. The OIML draft document for mass flow meters w« used as the reference document to determine the requirements. The draft contains the proposed changes to the Hydrocarbon Vapor-Measuring Devices (HVMD) Code that are c the agenda of the Specifications and Tolerances Committee for the Interim Meeting in January. The appropriatene of the proposed requirements must still be determined; however, the proposed changes are included in this draft I aid in the review process. Specific requirements for vapor-measuring mass flow meters are shown in small capit/ LETTERS.

Explanatory notes are indicated by [brackets and italics] to provide information regarding the requirement. Tl information is intended to aid in the review, but will not appear in the final code. All requirements are proposed

be retroactive.

All changes made since the December 1990 draft of this code will be reviewed by the S&T Committee in detail the Annual Meeting. Of particular importance is that section S.2.4. Operation Over a Temperature Range, whii addressed the temperature effect on zero, has been deleted since the concept was rejected by the OIML Internatior Working Group. One OIML performance requirement has not been included at this time, namely specifying that tl tolerance for quantities from the minimum measured quantity to twice the minimum measured quantity be twice tl tolerances specified in T.2. This point will be considered by the S&T Committee in July. Some requirements for mass flow meters are unique to these devices. An index of related paragraphs is given belc to assist in the review of the unique requirements that are new for mass flow meters. Index of Related Paragraphs

Mass or (true) mass S.I.2.2., N.6. Minimum measured quantity (MMQ) S. 1.2.4., S.5., N.I., N.4., UR.l. Temperature range (operating temperature range) S.5., Tl,

Vapor measurement A.2., S. 1.2.1., S. 1.2.4., N.2.2., T.2.

304
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Tentative Mass Flow Meters Code

A. Application

A.l. Liquids. - This code applies to devices that are designed to dynamically measure the mass of liquids. It also

specifies the relevant examination and tests that are to be conducted. t

A.2. Vapor (Gases). - This code applies to devices that are designed to dynamically measure the

: MASS OF HYDROCARBON GAS IN THE VAPOR STATE. EXAMPLES OF THESE PRODUCTS ARE PROPANE, PROPYLENE,

-"BUTANES, BUTYLENES, ETHANE, METHANE, NATURAL GAS AND ANY OTHER HYDROCARBON GAS/AIR MIX.

4.3. Exclusions. - This code does not apply to measuring assemblies for cryogenic liquids.

fS.L Indicating and Recording Elements.

5.1.1. Indicating Elements. A measuring assembly shall include an indicating element. Indications shall be

J clear, definite, accurate, and easily read under normal conditions of operation of the instrument.

5.1.2. Units. -

5.1.2.1. Units of Measurement. - Deliveries shall be indicated and recorded in grams, kilograms, metric

tons, pounds, or tons and decimal subdivisions thereof. [Modified from H-44 LMD Code S. 1.2.2.

]

5. 1.2.2. Mass Measurement - The indication of a delivery shall be on the basis of (true) mass (as opposed

to apparent mass versus a density of 8.0 g/cm3

). The quantity indication and any recorded representations

shall be identified as follows, "Product quantity is based upon (true) mass" or some similar suitable statement.

I 'This is a change from H-44 LMD Code S.1.2. The OIML International Working Group has established the basis of

'true mass"for indications from mass flow meters instead of the "apparent mass" basis that has been accepted in the U.S. Hie Canada LMB has agreed with the Office of Weights and Measures to accept "mass" as the basis of mass flow meter

neasurement.

lie significance of this issue is whether mass flow meters should be required to agree with scale indications as if the

>roduct were weighed on a vehicle scale, or to require quantity agreement as if the product were measured through a liquid

neter. The difference in the indication is approximately 0.1 percent for liquids with a density of 1.0 g/cm3

. If a liquid

s measured through a liquid meter and weighed on a vehicle scale, the buoyant effect of air would cause the scale

ndication to indicate approximately 0.1 percent less than the mass computed from the volume and the density of the 'quid However, in the case ofproducts in vapor form (which will be measured using a closed tank, e.g., compressed

atural gas) and pressurized liquids such as LP gas, the scale and liquid meter readings will agree: the buoyant effect of

ir cancels since the receiving tank is a closed system.

lie use of mass means that a correction value must be used to convert scale indications to true mass when the meter

s tested. The correction factor depends upon the density of the liquid being measured. A table is provided in the code

or this purpose.]

5.1.2.3. Numerical Value of Quantity-Value Divisions. - The value of a scale interval shall be equal to:

S. Specifications

- 1, 2, or 5, or

- a decimal multiple or sub-multiple of 1, 2, or 5.

305
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

5.1.2.4. Maximum Value of Quantity-Value Divisions.

(a) The maximum value of the quantity-value division for liquids shall be not greater than 0.2 percent of the minimum measured quantity.

(b) The maximum value of the quantity-valuedivision for vapor-measuringdevices shall not exceed 0.01 lb (0.01 kg) when measuring product as a retail motor fuel.

[Note: The flow rates in pounds per hour are obtained by converting the cubic feet per hour in the HVMD Code to pounds using the conversion factor used in the proposal to change the HVMD Code.]

5.1.2.5. Values Defined. Indicated values shall be adequately defined by a sufficient number of figures, words, symbols, or combinations thereof. A display of "zero" shall be a zero digit for all displayed digit* to the right of the decimal mark and at least one to the left.

5.2. Operating Requirements.

5.2.1. Return to Zero. Except for measuring assemblies in a pipeline, one indicator shall be provided with z means for returning the indication to zero either automatically or manually.

5.2.2. Indicator Reset Mechanism. The reset mechanism for the indicating element shall not be operable durinj a delivery. Once the zeroing operation has begun, it shall not be possible to indicate a value other than the lates measurement, or "zeros" when the zeroing operation has been completed.

5.2.3. Nonresettable Indicator. An instrument may also be equipped with a nonresettable indicator if th< indicated values cannot be construed to be the indicated values of the resettable indicator for a delivers

quantity.

[Note: The section S.2.4. Operation Over a Temperature Range, which appeared in the December 1990 draft, has beei deleted since the concept was rejected by the OIML International Working Group.]

5.3. Measuring Elements and Measuring Systems.

5.3.1. Maximum and Minimum Flow-Rates.

(a) The ratio of the maximum to minimum flow-rates specified by the manufacturer for devices measurin

liquified gases shall be 5:1 or greater.

(b) The ratio of the maximum to minimum flow-rates specified by the manufacturer for devices measuri

other than liquified gases shall be 10:1 or greater.

5.3.2. Adjustment Means. An assembly shall be provided with means to change the ratio between the quanti

indicated and the quantity of liquid measured by the assembly. A by-pass on the measuring assembly shall n< be used for these means.

S.3.2.1. Discontinuous Adjusting Means. When the adjusting means changes the ratio in a discontin manner, the consecutive values of the ratio shall not differ by more than 0.1 percent.

5.3.3. Vapor Elimination. A liquid-measuring instrument or measuring system shall be equipped with < effective gas extractor or other effective means, automatic in operation, to prevent the measurement of vap and air that results in errors greater than the tolerance for the minimum measured quantity (See N.I.).

5.3.4. Maintenance of Liquid State. A liquid-measuring device shall be installed so that the measured prodi remains in a liquid state during passage through the instrument.

306
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

SJ.5. Provision for Sealing. Adequate provisionshall be made for an approved means of applying security ("e.g., data change audit train or physically applying security seals in such a manner that an adjustment cannot be made

on any device that affects the measurement result without breaking the security seal. S3.6. Mass Flow Meters. - An automatic means to determine and correct for changes in product density shall be incorporated in any mass flow metering system that is affected by changes in the density of the product being measured. [From H-44 LMD Code S.2.9.] Discharge Lines and Valves.

5.4.1. Diversion of Measured Product No means shall be provided by which any measured product can be

diverted from the measuring instrument. However, two or more delivery outlets may by permanently installed and operated simultaneously, provided that any diversion of flow to other than the intended receiving receptacle cannot be readily accomplished or is readily apparent. Such means include physical barriers, visible valves or

indications that make it clear which outlets are in operation, and explanatory signs if deemed necessary. A manually controlled outlet that may be opened for purging or draining the measuring system shall be

permitted. Effective means shall be provided to prevent the passage of liquid through any such outlet during normal operation of the measuring system.

5.4.2. Directional Flow Valves. Avalve or valves or other effective means, automatic in operation (and equipped

with a pressure limiting device, if necessary) to prevent the reversal of flow shall be properly installed in the system if a reversal of flow could result in errors that exceed the tolerance for the minimum measured quantity. (See N.l.)

5.4.3. Discharge Valves. A discharge valve may be installed on a discharge line only if the system is a wet hose

type. Any other shutoff valve on the discharge side of the instrument shall be of the automatic or semiautomatic

predetermined-stop type or shall be operable only:

- by means of a tool (but not a pin) entirely separate from the device, or

- by means of a security seal with which the valve is sealed open.

5.4.4. Anti-drain Means. In a wet hose type device, effective means shall be provided to prevent the drainage

of the hose between transactions.

5.4.5. Other Valves. Check valves and closing mechanisms that are not used to define the measured quantity

shall have relief valves (if necessary) to dissipate any abnormally high pressure that may arise in the measuring

assembly. Markings. A measuring system shall be legibly and indelibly marked with the following information:

) pattern approval mark (i.e., type approval number);

) name and address of the manufacturer, or his trademark and, if required by the weights and measures authority, the manufacturer's identification mark in addition to the trademark; model designation or product name selected by the manufacturer;

I nonrepetitive serial number; maximum and minimum flow rates in pounds per unit of time; maximum working pressure;

307
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(g) applicable range of temperature if other than -10 °C to +50 °C;

[Note: A meter must operate within tolerance over the temperature range of -10 to 50 °C unless it is marked with anoth

temperature range. (See T.l.) Determining compliance with this requirement can be done only during type evaluation Unless a test facility exists, it may be premature to adopt this requirement since weights and measures does not have way to determine device performance over a temperature range.]

(h) minimum measured quantity; and

(i) product limitations, if applicable.

S.6. Printer. When an assembly is equipped with means for printing the measured quantity, the following conditio

apply:

(a) the scale interval shall be the same as that of the indicator;

(b) the value of the printed quantity shall be the same value as the indicated quantity;

(c) a quantity for a delivery (other than an initial reference value) cannot be recorded until the measurement a delivery has been completed;

(d) the printer is returned to zero when the resettable indicator is returned to zero; and

(e) the printed values shall meet the requirements applicable to the indicated values.

S.6.1. Printed Receipt. Any delivered, printed quantity shall include an identificationnumber, the time and da and the name of the seller. This information may be printed by the device or pre-printed on the ticket. N. Notes

N.l. Minimum Measured Quantity. The minimum measured quantityshall be specified by the manufacturer. [Frr OIML draft document, point 5]

N.2. Test Medium.

N.2.1. Liquid-Measuring Devices. - The device shall be tested with the liquid that the device is intendec measure or another liquid with the same general physical characteristics.

N.2.2. Vapor-Measuring Devices. - The device shall be tested with air or the product to

MEASURED.

N.3. Test Drafts. - The minimum test shall be one test draft at the maximum flow rate of the installation and || test draft at the minimum flow rate. More tests may be performed at these or other flow rates. (See T.4.)

[Note: The length of time for the deliveries is specified in N.l. and may be less than one minute when the flow rail more than twice the minimum flow rate.]

N.4. Minimum Measured Quantity. - The device shall be tested for a delivery equal to the declared minin measured quantity when the device is likely to be used to make deliveries on the order of the minimum measi

quantity.

[Note: This will require the device to be tested using a standard capable of measuring the minimum measured qua (MMQ). For example, a gas pump may be required to have an MMQ of 0.2 gallons. This would require the devk

be tested for accuracy for a 0.2 gallon delivery. Handbook 44 now requires a gas pump to be tested with a 5-gallon

draft.]

308
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

\S. Motor Fuel Dispenser. - When a device is intended for use as a liquid motor-fuel dispenser, the type evaluation

st shall include a test for accuracy using 5 starts and stops during a delivery to simulate the operation of the

j atomatic shut-off nozzle. This test may be conducted as part of the normal inspection and test of the meter.

ii

l .6. Air Buoyancy Correction. - Air buoyancy corrections are applied when measuring products into an open vessel;

r buoyancy corrections are not applied when measuring product into a closed vessel. When measuring product into

i open vessel, weights values from a scale shall be converted to mass values by using Table N.6.

Multiplier for Liquids to Convert Scale Indication to Mass (Air Buoyancy Correction) Product Density

(g/cm3> Multiplier Product Density

(g/cm3> Multiplier

0.5011 to 0.5228 1.0022 0.8011 to 0.8582 1.0013 0.5229 to 0.5465 1.0021 0.8583 to 0.9241 1.0012 0.5466 to 0.5725 1.0020 0.9242 to 1.0010 1.0011 0.5726 to 0.6011 1.0019 1.0011 to 1.0919 1.0010 0.6012 to 0.6326 1.0018 1.0920 to 1.2010 1.0009 0.6327 to 0.6677 1.0017 1.2011 to 1.3343 1.0008 0.6678 to 0.7069 1.0016 1.3344 to 1.5009 1.0007 0.7070 to 0.7510 1.0015 1.5010 to 1.7152 1.0006

0.7511 to 0.8010 1.0014 1.7153 to 2.0009 1.0005

Tote: Table N.6. is computed using the following equation. 0.99985 x pD M =

pp - 0.0012 g/cm 3

ere p

p = density of the product

'-is equation is based on an assumed air density of 1.2 mg/cm3

. Since the density of air can range from 0.96 mg/cm3 1.2 mg/cm3

, assuming a density of 1.2 mg/cm3 results in a maximum potential error of only 0.02 percent; a difference

E2 in the last decimal place in Table N.6. This assumed value simplifies the process ofmaking air buoyancy corrections

1 en testing the meter.

e magnitude of the air buoyancy correction depends upon the density of the weighed product. The density must be

f own or given to make the correction. However, as mentioned in the note under S. 1.2.2., an air buoyancy correction

tot made when measuringproducts into a closed vessel, e.g., LP gas or compressed natural gas: because vaporproducts

always measured in a closed container, an air buoyancy correction is not needed.] E

309
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

T. Tolerances

T.l. Tolerances, General

(a) The tolerances apply equally to errors of underregistration and errors of overregistration.

(b) The tolerances apply to all products at all temperatures between -10 to 50 °C, inclusive, measured at any flo rate within the rated measuring range of the meter.

T.2. Tolerances for Liquid-Measuring Devices. - The maintenance tolerance shall be 0.5 percent of the measure

quantity. The acceptance tolerance shall be 0.3 percent of the measured quantity.

[Note: The OIML draft doubles the tolerances for liquefied gases. The OWM and LMB have taken the position th

the larger tolerance is not needed because these meters must be installed such that the measured liquid remains in tl liquid state during measurement. Consequently, a larger tolerance is not needed. However, it was argued at the OIM

meeting that liquefied gases are more difficult to handle and measure, hence the larger tolerance was retained in t) OIML draft.]

T.3. Tolerances for Vapor-Measuring Devices. - Maintenance and acceptance tolerances for ma

FLOW METERS SHALL BE 2.0 PERCENT AND 1.5 PERCENT, RESPECTIVELY.

[Note: The proposed tolerances for vapor-measuring devices seem large. The proposed tolerances should be reviewt to assure that the tolerances realistically reflect the ability of the technology to measure vapors. The tolerances shou

not be based solely on the tolerances for other vapor-measuring equipment. This tolerance will be significant when L suitability of equipment issue is studied. One could argue that since compressed natural gas used as a motor fuel, t tolerance should be the same order as for measuring gasoline through retail motor-fuel dispensers.]

T.4. Tolerance for Multiple Tests. - When multiple tests are conducted at approximately the same flow rate, t range of the test results for the flow rate shall not exceed 20 percent of the measured quantity.

[Note: This tolerance was change from 40 percent of the applicable tolerance to 20 percent of the measured quanti This change makes the repeatability tolerance the samefor both acceptance and maintenance tolerance tests. This revis tolerance is the same as that specified in the December 1990 draft for the maintenance tolerance tests.] UR. User Requirements

UR.l. Minimum Measured Quantity.

(a) The minimum measured quantity shall be specified by the manufacturer. [From OIML draft document, po

5]

(b) The minimum measured quantity appropriate for a transaction may be specified by the weights and measu

authority. A device may have a minimum measured quantity smaller than that specified by the weights a measures authority; however, the device must perform within the performance requirements for the declai minimum measured quantity.

310
Education Committee

Report of the Committee on

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

Steven A. Malone, Chairman

Director, Weights and Measures Division Nebraska

Reference Key Number

% 400 Introduction

This is the Final Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs for the 76th Annual

\ Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. The Report consists of the Interim Report offered

n [he Conference "Program and Committee Reports" as amended by the Addendum Sheets issued during the Annual

I Meeting.

I

'able A identifies all of the items contained in the Report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number.

Ul items were informational (as indicated by the "I" after the Reference Key No.) and required no formal action by

he membership. The membership adopted the report in its entirety as follows: House of State Representatives - 2 yea, 0 nay; House of Delegates - 42 yea, 0 nay.

Table A

Reference Key Items and Index

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

:: 401 I Regional Weights and Measures Activities 312

401-1 I Deletion of H-44 Paragraphs from Modules 313

401-2 I Minimum Training Requirements 313

401-3 I NTP Certificates for Completion of Classroom Training 313

401-4 I Special Recognition for NTP Achievements 314

401-5 I Distribution of Module Revisions 314

p 402 National Training Program (NTP) 314

' I 402-1 I NTP Status Report 314

"

L 402-2 I Certification Program Implementation 316

402-3 I Registry Summary 316

402-4 I Module Revisions 316

402-5 I Training for Trainers 317

402-6 I Module 5 Revision 318

402-7 I Weights and Measures Administration Module 318

402-8 I Joint Meeting with Executive Committee 318

402-9 I New Regulatory Strategies in Canada 318

1 402-10 I Certification of NTP Instructors 319

402-11 I Revised EPOs and Tolerance Work Sheets for Scales 320

311
Education Committee

In addition, the Report contains four appendices that are related to specific Reference Key Numbers as follows

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

Suggested Format for Certificate of Recognition 401-3 NTP Certification Summary 402-2 NTP Registry Summary of Activity 402-3 Trainer Certification Criteria 402-10

321 322

325

332

Details of All Items

(in order of Reference Key Number)

401 I Regional Weights and Measures Activities The Committee reviewed and discussed the following:

1. The final report of the Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Committee to the 33rd Annu

Technical Conference of the Western Weights and Measures Association (W <VMA) (August 1990).

2. The final report of the Education Committee to the 45th Annual Conference of the Southern Weights Measures Association (October 1990).

3. The final report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs to the 18th Annu

Conference of the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) (May 1990). (This is a carryov item from the 75th Annual Meeting of the NCWM.)

4. A proposal developed at NEWMA's Interim Meeting in October 1990.

5. A proposal concerning the establishment of minimum training requirements that was developed at the Centi Weights and Measures Association's Interim Meeting in October 1990 and submitted to the NCWM Laws

Regulations Committee.

6. The final report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs to the 19th Ann

Conference of the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (May 1991). The report of WWMA's Education and Consumer Affairs Committee includes a proposal that CEUs be granted

individuals who attend NIST-sponsored metrologist training programs. The Committee would like to note tl provision was made to include metrologist training in the NCWM's National Training Program (NTP) Registry whl it was established in 1985. Information on all participants who successfully completed basic and intermedi metrology seminars held at NIST since 1985 was recently submitted to the Registry and CEUs were awarded to participants. (See Appendix C for a summary of CEUs awarded.) The Committee agrees with the Western Association about the importance of including safety considerations in modules. Anyone with safety information related to one of the modules is encouraged to send it to the Committ

312
Education Committee

"echnical Advisor. The Committee is looking forward to receiving the recommendations of the NCWM Safety Task

orce. In particular, it is interested in the Task Force's efforts to incorporate basic safety information in the lamination Procedure Outlines that appear in the modules and are published separately in NCWM Publication 12.

lS soon as these revised EPOs are available, the Committee will begin to incorporate them into the modules.

01-1 I Deletion of H-44 Paragraphs from Modules

he Southern and the Central Weights and Measures Associations both recommended that paragraphs from NTST

andbooks not be included in the modules in order to facilitate updating; they felt that students could use the andbooks to look up paragraph references. The Technical Advisor reported that the task of revising handbook

jferences is actually the easiest part of revising a module because this task can be automated; for example, a

;cretary with a computer floppy disk of the latest edition of Handbook 44 can block text from the handbook and copy

directly into a module. The real problem in revising modules is rewriting explanatory text, redoing tolerance work

leets, making changes to module quizzes and exams, and revising module illustrations and visual aids. These tasks

re far more difficult and time consuming and require substantial technical staff time. It was also pointed out that: Due to the many references included in the modules (some EPOs have more than 70 references), the task of looking up each reference can be time consuming, distracting, and boring. In most cases, students are asked to read a module before they come to class; consequently, they may have to look up the paragraphs twice: once

during self-study and again in class.

If the references were not included in the module, it might not be immediately clear that the text refers to an outof-date requirement; therefore, it might make it harder for instructors to identify out-of-date material.

It is not an objective of the device modules to teach an inspector how to use Handbook 44. Each module states

that familiarity with Handbook 44 is a prerequisite. Module 24, Introduction to NIST Handbook 44, was

developed specifically to teach inspectors how to use the Handbook.

fter considering the pros and cons associated with the proposal from the regional groups, the Committee decided

i continue to include Handbook paragraphs in the modules.

01-2 I Minimum Training Requirements

if he Committee reviewed and discussed a proposal made by the Central Weights and Measures Association to the

| CWM's Laws and Regulations Committee to amend the Uniform Weights and Measures Law, Section 12, Powers

id Duties of the Director, to include authority to adopt rules and regulations to establish minimum training quirements. The Committee strongly supports the concept behind this proposal. It was recognized, however, that

e wording of the proposed change should perhaps be more permissive to make it clear that the Director has the

ithority to do so, but is not required to set minimum training requirements.

,01-3 I NTP Certificates for Completion of Classroom Training

he Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) submitted a proposal requesting that NTP

i' rtificates be given to individuals who successfully complete the classroom training portion of a module for which

rtification is available. NTP certificates are currently awarded to: 1) any associate member who completes the assroom portion of any NTP module that is sponsored by a State participating in the NTP, 2) any weights and

Measures official who completes a module for which certification is not available, and 3) to weights and measures

ficials who have successfully completed the classroom and field training portions of a module and have been

: )minated for certification by their State weights and measures director.

M

1 1 has been the position of the Education Committee that modules with a certification component were not considered

•mpleted until the field training or field evaluation phase of the training was successfully finished since these modules

[ e intended to train an individual to perform an official evaluation in the field. The Committee believes that giving

:| 3 TP certificates to individuals who complete only the classroom portion of a module would diminish the importance

I NCWM certification and the recognition that is given for that achievement. Consequently, the Committee does

313
Education Committee

not plan to change its policy. The Committee has no objection to a State or a region recognizing individuals wl

successfully complete the classroom portion of a module and who may or may not be planning to complete fie

;

training and seek NCWM certification. A suggested format for a certificate that could provide such recognition shown in Appendix A. 401-4 I Special Recognition for NTP Achievements

In the 1990 report of NEWMA's education committee, it was suggested that individuals be given special recogniti< for completing a specific number of modules or earning a specific number of Continuing Education Units. T!

;

Committee felt that this would also be a more appropriate undertaking for a specific weights and measures jurisdictir or for the regional weights and measures groups. Some States already have performance or promotion prograi based on completion of specific modules to attain a certain level of competence. The Committee does not want

create programs that compete or conflict with these State programs. 401-5 I Distribution of Module Revisions

NEWMA's education committee also recommended that module revisions be sent to all local officials who ha purchased the module or have attended a course on a module. The current practice is to send copies of the fi: revision of a module to each State weights and measures office and to all purchasers of the module. Future revisio are sent to the States and to all purchasers who notify the NCWM that they would like to continue receiving revisioi State's that participate in the NCWM's National Training Program have an obligation to keep their officials who ha taken modules up to date on changes to the handbooks on which the modules are based.

The status of the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) grants to the NCWM as of June 30, 19 was as follows:

402 National Training Program (NTP)

402-1 I NTP Status Report

Grant 1 NB83NAHA4003

Grant 2 70NANB8H0869

Net outlays to date: Total unliquidated obligations: $489,444.12

7,000.00 $ 31,868.13

2,500.00 (money committed to contractors) Total outlays & unliquidated obligations: Total grant funds authorized: Unobligated balance of funds:

496,444.12

515,189.00

18,744.88

34,368.13 180,000.00

145,631.87 (money available for future module

development)

Total funds available for future module

development (grants 1 & 2): $164,376.75

The status of all training modules under development as of June 30, 1991, is given in Table C.

314
Education Committee

Table C

Training Module Status Report

(As of 6/30/91)

Module No. Subject Status

1 Mechanical Computing Scales Project completed.

2 Electronic Computing Scales Project completed.

4 Medium-Capacity Scales Project completed.

5 Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales The first draft of the revision of this module was reviewed by the Education Committee at the NCWM's 1991 Interim Meeting. The second draft will be reviewed at NCWM's 1991 Annual

Meeting.

6 Monorail Scales Project completed.

7 Livestock and Animal Scales Project completed.

8 Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers Project completed.

10 Package Checking Project completed.

13 Hopper Scales The working group is developing the first draft of this module.

19 Loading-Rack Meters Project completed.

20 Vehicle-Tank Meters Project completed.

21 LPG Liquid Meters Project completed.

22 Commodity Regulations Project completed.

23 Weights and Measures Admin. Chapters 1 and 2 of Part II of this module

will be reviewed at the NCWM's 1991 Annual Meeting.

24 Introduction to Handbook 44 Project completed.

27 Electronic Weighing and

Measuring Systems

Project completed.

315
Education Committee

402-2 I Certification Program Implementation

As of June 30, 1991, all 50 States, the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands had signed Lettei of Agreement with the NCWM and had been accepted as participants in the NTP Certification Program. Althoug

every State is now a participant in the Certification Program, there were (as of June 1991) 18 States that did not ha\ any certified officials. (See Appendix B for a summary of participation in the NTP Certification Program.) Tl Education Committee plans to survey these 18 States to find out why they have not yet certified any officials in ordi to determine if there are actions the Conference might take to facilitate the certification process. A review of the annual reports submitted by participants in the Certification Program indicated some confusion ovi what constitutes certification. An individual who receives Continuing Education Units for successfully completing classroom portion of a module is not automatically certified by the NCWM. To be certified, an individual mu

participate in and successfully complete a period of field training as described in the module or, if the individual experienced in the area covered by the module, must be evaluated at least once in the field after the module cla and demonstrate the ability to conduct an examination as described in the module. After field training or fie evaluation, an individual must be nominated for certification by the State Weights and Measures Director on a for supplied by the NCWM. Certification is not available for all modules, only for those that require the demonstrat

of some technical procedure in the field. 402-3 I Registry Summary

The NTP Registry serves as a permanent record of NCWM courses successfully completed and Continuing Educatii Units (CEUs) earned under the NTP. A summary of information in the Registry as of June 30, 1991, is found Appendix C. For the first time, this summary includes information on credits awarded to NCWM Associate Membe

and to State officials who participated in NIST Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) metrology seminars. 402-4 I Module Revisions

The revision status of all published NCWM training modules as of June 30, 1991, is shown in Table D. Because

of the scales modules were significantly affected by substantial changes made to the tolerances in the Scales Code NIST Handbook 44 in 1990, revisions of all of the Examination Procedure Outlines and the Tolerance Work She

are being developed and will be distributed to the States for their use in teaching the modules until comprehensi

revisions of the modules can be completed. A revision of Module 5, Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales, is underway a a revision of Module 2, Retail Computing Scales - Electronic, is also scheduled for completion in 1991.

316
Education Committee

Table D

Module Revision Status

(As of 6/30/91)

,

id

• odule Date of Pub Date of Last Rev Rev Stat* Comments

1/28/85 10/86 N

11/20/85 11/86 P The Committee does not plan to revise this module in the

future. The feasibility of combining this module with Module 2 is being studied. Revised EPOs and tolerance work sheets for this module have been distributed to the

States. 11/29/85 9/90 N

2/26/86

i

9/89 P,R Revised EPOs and tolerance work sheets for this module

have been distributed to the States. 7/14/86 9/90 N

10/17/86 U Revision of this module is scheduled to be completed in the fall of 1991. 10/31/86 R Module will be reviewed in 1991 to determine the extent of changes required to bring it up to date. 4/3/87 P

5/27/87 P

8/5/87 R Module will be reviewed in 1991 to determine the extent of changes required to bring it up to date. 6/22/88 P

5/18/89

6/8/90

8/90 NN

7/18/90 N

:y to module revision status abbreviations: N = No revision planned in 1991, U = Revision is underway, R = Revision or review of the

dule is planned in 1991, P = Revision of EPOs and work sheets is planned for 1991.

2-5 I Training for Trainers

the last few years, the Education Committee has focused on improving the quality of delivery of the NCWM

ining modules. A trainers list was published last year to help weights and measures offices identify experienced

iners who would be willing to assist in providing module training when the offices do not have their own trainers do not have a trainer experienced in a particular module. This list now consists of 11 individuals capable of

1 senting some or all of the published modules; most of them ask only for reimbursement of their expenses in urn for their services.

o other programs were established to help technical weights and measures staff learn how to become effective

ners. The status of these programs is given below.

317
Education Committee

Videotape Training-the-Trainer Program

In 1989, the Committee purchased a comprehensive videotape/text program on Training the Trainer using $10,0( that the Executive Committee had allocated specifically for training trainers. This program, consisting of 14 half-hoi tapes and accompanying student work books, is available for loan to NCWM members for in-house trainii programs. In 1990, five groups used the tapes to train 21 individuals. As of January 1991, two more groups we

scheduled to use the tapes to train a total of six individuals. Feedback from the participants in the program has be< very positive. The Education Committee plans to follow up with the groups who presented the class to determii how many participants now serve as trainers. Regional Training-the-Trainer Programs

In 1990, the Education Committee recommended to the NCWM Executive Committee that Conference funds up

$2,500 be made available to any regional weights and measures association planning to sponsor a train-the-train course. The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association used the funds in 1990 to sponsor two training sessio

in which 15 individuals from eight States participated. The Western Weights and Measures Association used t funds in May of 1991 to sponsor a training session for seven individuals from five states. It was reported to t Committee that the other two regional weights and measures groups are planing to sponsor trainer training progran 402-6 I Module 5 Revision

At its Interim Meeting, the Committee reviewed the first draft of the revision of Module 5, Vehicle and Axle-Lo

Scales. This major revision, which has been contracted to Industrial Training Corporation, will make the modi

compatible with the 1991 edition of Handbook 44. The revised module will reflect the changes to the scale toleranc

that were adopted by the NCWM last year and will include all of the marking requirements that were adopted afi the publication of the module. The visual aids included in the Instructor's Manual also will be updated. 402-7 I Weights and Measures Administration Module

Work has begun on some sections of this module. At the Interim Meeting, the Education Committee received

first draft of the Weights and Measures Administration Module chapter on metrology that was prepared by R< Andersen, NY Bureau of Weights and Measures. The NCWM Task Force on Safety is working on a report thai scheduled to be issued in 1991; information from this report will be incorporated into the chapter on safety. 1 Committee contracted with Dr. Charles Greene of Verde Ventures to write Chapter 1, Functions of a Weights Measures Program, and Chapter 2, Structure of a Weights and Measures Program, of the administration modi The first drafts of these chapters were reviewed by the Committee at the 1991 NCWM Annual Meeting. 402-8 I Joint Meeting with Executive Committee

The Education Committee met with the Executive Committee and presented a status report on the administrat of the grant funds provided by NIST for the development of training materials (see Item 402-1) and

implementation of the National Training Program. The Committee did not request that any new funds be inclw

in the Conference's 1991-1992 budget for implementation of the training program, but did ask that funding previoi allocated to assist the regions in sponsoring training for trainers and to facilitate the development of module revisii be carried over into the next budget cycle. 402-9 I New Regulatory Strategies in Canada

Renald Marceau, a representative of the Weights and Measures Division of Canada's Department of Consumer ;

j Corporate Affairs, briefed the Committee on Canada's new strategies for organizing its regulatory weights i measures program to meet today's needs. This briefing was part of the Committee's efforts to gather informal

| for the development of the weights and measures administration module. Mr. Marceau described how Cana<

regulatory philosophy had changed considerably over the last 25 to 30 years. In the early 1960's the weights

318
Education Committee

leasures part of Canada's Department of Trade and Commerce was oriented more toward providing assistance to dustry and less toward protecting consumers. The primary methodology used to accomplish the mission of the

'eights and Measures Division was annual inspection of weighing and measuring devices, for which users paid a

:rvice fee; only a small percentage of resources was spent on commodity inspections. The performance indicators

I ;ed to judge the success of the program were the amount of service fees collected by inspectors in a day and the amber of territories covered every year.

9L 1967, the Weights and Measures Division was placed under the new Department of Consumer and Corporate

ffairs and became more oriented toward consumer protection. Emphasis was placed on listening to consumers and

solving complaints. The role of the Division changed from "technical service agency" to "policing body." The

ivision continued to perform annual device inspections and to judge performance based on number of devices

spected. Industry continued to pay for initial inspections of devices or inspections by request, but annual service

n es were dropped and consumers had to pay for Division services.

L the late 1970's and early 1980's, increased workloads and reduced resources resulted in the discontinuation of

\, nual device inspections. The Division began to rethink its regulatory philosophy. A management information

^ stem (MIS) was created to help management decide where it could have the greatest impact. Inspection for its in sake was replaced by controlled inspections conducted on a selective basis to concentrate on problem areas, for ample, areas with low compliance rates.

le focus in the late 1980's was on more controlled inspections and commodity inspections. Zone inspections -- Dse conducted on a non-selective basis planned by geographical areas to maintain a record of device accuracy and

I supply a policing presence - were made only every 3 or 4 years if a device was not targeted for inspection due

a complaint or problem identified by the MIS. Performance was judged by the number of problems resolved and

:reased compliance rates.

•day cost/benefit is a key concern of the Division. A Dollar Inequity Program (DIP) was created to target areas

th a potentially high level of dollars at risk due to device inaccuracy. DIP is a pilot inspection program designed

assess the implications of measuring program effectiveness in terms of inequity found and corrected rather than

, anges in compliance rates. By comparing data on dollars saved (by both the consumer and the device owner) as

esult of correcting inequities found in a specific category of devices with data on the cost of inspecting that type

device, the Division can establish a cost/benefit ratio: for every dollar spent, x dollars were saved. Reductions in

:quities are now the indicators of program success.

the future, the Division plans to emphasize industry and consumer education, greater allocation of resources for

' Timodity inspection programs, and greater access of each inspector to the MIS. They will also evaluate the

sibility of increasing revenues by requiring traders to obtain licenses to operate weighing or measuring devices. 2-10 I Certification of NTP Instructors

its report to the 75th NCWM (see item 402-10), the Education Committee announced that it was considering the ablishment of a certification program for individuals who teach NCWM training modules and requested input on

pros and cons of such a program. The comments received from the regional weights and measures associations

jrc reviewed and the following questions and issues were identified:

- Are the benefits of a certification program worth the time, effort, and resources required to develop and

operate the program?

Should the program be mandatory? In other words, should NTP recognition (in the form of Continuing Education Units and certification) be given only to individuals who have participated in a module class taught by an NCWM certified instructor? Should the program be voluntary? Should participation in the certification program be a way for an

instructor to gain recognition and credentials but not be mandatory in order for the officials taught by the

instructor to receive NTP recognition?

319
Education Committee

Who should certify instructors-the States, the regional weights and measures associations or the NCWA

What criteria should be used to certify instructors? The Committee plans to ask for additional input from the regional groups on the questions listed above. Samp

certification criteria had been developed to aid the regional groups in their discussions of this item. These criter which were modified slightly by the Education Committee at the Interim Meeting, are included in this report Appendix D. 402-11 I Revised EPOs and Tolerance Work Sheets for Scales

Revised Examination Procedure Outlines (EPOs) and tolerance work sheets for all of the Scales Modules we

reviewed by the Committee at the Interim Meeting. These will be distributed to all State weights and measui

offices as an interim measure until comprehensive revisions to the modules can be completed. Major changes to t scales modules were necessitated by changes to the tolerances in the Scales Code that were adopted by the NCW

in 1990.

S. Malone, Nebraska, Chairman

I M. Gray, Florida

J. Harnett, Orange County, California (replacing C. Greene, New Mexico)

R. Kalentkowski, Connecticut M. Coile, Georgia

J. Koenig, NIST, Technical Advisor Committee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs

320
Education Committee

Appendix A - Suggested Format for Certificate of Recognition

CO

to

•3

!

tO

to

toto

to

OS

to vt*

J

s

and or -a * r

nstruct

(Director,

toto

321
Education Committee

Appendix B

322
Education Committee

Appendix B

Certification Summary

(As of June 30, 1991)

State

l ouii ino. oi cerui. lOUU INO. of People Module Number

1 2 4 5 7 8 10 19 20 21 AL 44 22 15 12 4 13 AK 11 10 1 10 AZ 28 28 28 AR 121 38 20 20 g 4 37 12 17 3 CO 7 7 CT 64 22 15 19 2 2 15 5 3 2 DC 3 3 3 FL 36 24 5 g 3 7 12 GA 29 24 8 4 17 ID 9 9 9

IL 17 17 8 9 IN 30 30 30 KS 21 9 7 7 .4 1 2 LA 1 1 1 MD 61 35 28 33 MI 42 14 9 12 14 III 7 MN 15 15 15 MO 24 23 5 19 NE 24 12 2 12 10 NV 2 2 1 1 NH 32 8 6 5 5 2 6 8 NM 8 8 1 7 NC 37 33 18 19 ND 3 3 3 OH 86 48 27 6 3 38 6 6 OR 54 16 16 15 6 10 6 1 PA 31 20 14 6 ii PR 80 47 32 33 15 SD 27 12 7 12

,„,,,?..,, 1 TN 41 30 5 6 30 UT 72 16 15 15 2 11 4 12 12 1 VA 2 2 2 WA 21 16 5 16 WI 4 4 4

Other P&S 14 14 14

•Is 35 1,100 623 70 217 48 120 58 338 141 6 75 27

323
Education Committee

Appendix B

324
Education Committee

Appendix C

NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM REGISTRY

SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY

(As of June 30, 1991)

urses Listed in Registry: Module 1, Retail Computing Scales - Mechanical Module 2, Retail Computing Scales - Electronic Module 4, Medium-Capacity Scales Module 5, Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales Module 6, Meat Beams and Monorail Scales Module 7, Livestock and Animal Scales Module 8, Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers and Consoles Module 10, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

Module 19, Loading-Rack Meters Module 20, Vehicle-Tank Meters Module 21, LPG Liquid-Measuring Devices Module 22, Commodity Regulations Module 24, Introduction to NIST Handbook 44 Module 27, Introduction to Electronic Weighing and Measuring Systems Individuals Trained - By Module

Module Number

State 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 19 20 21 22 24 27 Totals

AL 15 12 4 4 20 26 81 AK 1 10 8 19 AZ 27 6 17 25 1 76 AR 20 20 8 8 37 12 17 3 13 138 CA 1 CO 9 1 1 11 CT 22 20 2 22 18 12 6 2 26 130 DE 1 1 DC 4 4 3 1 12 FL 13 24 15 13 10 27 25 8 40 41 216 GA 11 8 4 17 7 47

HI 14 4 18

ID 9 39 10 10 11 8 87

IL 8 1 9 7 2 1 28

IN 43 46 42 56 47 48 282

IA 3 4 2 9 KS 9 10 14 5 2 17 25 2 3 8 95 KY 8 8 1 5 19 41

I LA 8 1 9 ME 3 9 14 2 4 32 MD 28 4 33 4 6 75 MA 23 4 5 16 3 2 31 1 1 12 98

Ml 50 13 19 2 29 22 13 18 53 219 MN 12 2 1 15 MS 2 3 3 8

325
Education Committee

Appendix C

NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM REGISTRY

SUMMARY OF ACTIVITY

(As of June 30, 1991) Module Number

State 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 19 20 21 22 24 27 Totals MO 13 32 27 60 22 154 MT 5 6 1 8 20 NE 17 4 13 14 15 18 2 15 16 27 141 NV 1 1 1 3 NH 6 5 7 2 7 8 6 41 NJ 21 21 108 109 147 406 NM 12 13 15 25 2 67 NY 74 92 9 175 NC 18 19 16 53 ND 3 3 12 18 OH 40 13 44 4 8 42 14 9 11 38 58 281 OK 2 5 22 17 2 48 OR 18 17 8 12 16 1 16 12 17 16 133 PA 34 69 51 63 45 1 19 27 82 401 PR 32 33 24 29 118

Rl 1 1 1 3 SC 25 2 28 55 SD 7 12 7 10 1 10 10 57 TN 27 6 6 32 5 76 TX 25 8 24 4 5 66 UT 16 15 11 4 12 13 1 13 16 101 VT 5 3 2 9 1 1 2 5 28 VA 24 16 2 17 38 25 4 5 43 174 WA 13 8 16 16 1 13 6 16 89 WV 3 3 Wl 56 53 13 28 16 26 10 65 273 WY 11 16 10 11 3 51 Other

Associate Members 6 2 8 FGIS 13 13 P&S 2 4 16 3 25

Totals 202 714 291 319 22 139 876 535 23 288 133 145 372 770 4,829

326
Education Committee

Appendix C

NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM REGISTRY

SUMMARY OF METROLOGY SEMINAR ACTIVITY

(As of June 30, 1991)

Courses Listed in the Registry:

No. 201, Basic Metrology I No. 202, Basic Metrology II No. 203, Intermediate Metrology Individuals Trained - By Course

Course Number

State 201 202 203 Totals AK 1 1 AZ 1 1 2 CO 2 2 4 CT 1 1 DE 1 1 FL 3 3 6 GA 1 1 2

HI 1 1 2

ID 1 1 2

IL 3 3 6 KY 1 1 2 ME 1 1 2 MD 2 2 3 7 MA 1 1 2

Ml 1 MS 1 1 NY 1 1 2 NC 2 2 2 6 ND 1 1 2 PA 1 1 PR 1 1 Rl 1 3 4 TX 3 3 1 7 VA 1 1 1 3 WV 1 1 2 Wl 1 1 Other Canada 1 1 Totals 27 29 16 72

327
Education Committee

Appendix C

saix) 113 jo jaquiriN

328
Education Committee

Appendix C

Entries in NTP Registry

By Module

Entries

1000

800

600

400

200

1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 19 20 21 22 24 27

Module Number

Number of entries

ta as of 6/30/91

329
Education Committee

Appendix C

I 3|

CD Hi 8 S S 8 £ S 8

<N 00 3 §

3 8 8

8 8 5j

co >o oo

sa

s

T3 3

0> C«

S ? 8 g S 8 ? $ S

£f 2j S 28 S "> a g) S »n $

8 8

I 51

~ g

P CO U wion

c 8 C

03 w

DC _

.5 «

3e?

8 s g g

5

g

00 On

? g

8 S

§ 2 § 9. G 2' 8 Q oo m

8

S

g 8

\d ino

8 a

8

2

o Z

s

8 S 2 2

00 (S % 5

•5b

wos

c

(S O

= 1

1

g g in

c4 (N c«*$

330
Education Committee

Appendix C

Continuing Education Units (CEUs) Awarded

By the National Conference on Weights and Measures

For Attendance at OWM Metrology Seminars

(As of June 30, 1991)

No. of 1990 Grand

Course No * CEUs** Partic. Total Totals

201 3.60 27 97.2 97.2

202 3.50 29 101.6 101.6

203 3.10 16 49.6 49.6

Totals 72 248.4 248.4

* Course No. 201: Basic Metrology I Course No. 202: Basic Metrology II Course No. 203: Intermediate Metrology

One CEU is equivalent to 10 contact hours of participation in an organized continuing education

experience under responsible sponsorship, capable direction, and qualified instruction.

331
Education Committee

Appendix D

Trainer Certification Criteria

Technical Experience

At least 3 years' experience in weights or measures activities such as:

- Device Regulation

- Package Quantity or Labeling Control

- Device Manufacture

- Device Sales or Servicing

- Federal Enforcement or Coordination

Training Experience

At least 10 hours of participation in a professional train-the-trainer course, or Review of at least 10 Videotapes in the Training the Trainer series on loan from the NCWM, or At least 3 years' experience as a full- or part-time teacher.

Demonstration of Teaching Skills

Submittal of a satisfactory lesson plan for one chapter of an NCWM module, and

Submittal of satisfactory class evaluations from one module class, and

Submittal of Supervisor recommendation.

332
Liaison Committee

Final Report of the

Committee on Liaison

Kathleen A. Thuner, Chairman

Agricultural Commissioner and Sealer of Weights and Measures San Diego County, California Reference Key No. 500 Introduction

This is the final report of The Committee on Liaison for the 76th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. This report results from the Interim Report, the Addendum Sheets issued at the meeting, and the actions taken by the membership at the meeting. Reference Key Numbers, Item Titles, and Page Numbers are identified in Table A. Voting items are identified

in boldface print, as well as by the suffix "V." Information items are identified by the suffix "I." Withdrawn items

are identified by the suffix "W."

(This report was informational and adopted in its entirety by a vote of the membership.)

Table A

Reference Key Items and Index

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

501 Federal Agency Activities 334

501-1 I Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) 334

501-2 I Federal Role in Net Content Compliance: USDA 335

501-3 I Labeling of Turkey with Gravy 335

501-4 I Packers and Stockyards Administration 335

501-5 I United States Postal Service (USPS) 336

501-6 I Food and Drug Administration (FDA) 337

502 I OIML Activities 337

503 I OWM Status Report 337

333
Liaison Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Key No. Title of Item

504 I 337

504-1 504-2

II 337

338 505 I 340

506 I 340 507 I 341

Details of All Items

501 Federal Agency Activities

501-1 I Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS)

Railroad Track Scale Testing Mr. Richard Pforr (FGIS) and Mr. Jim Decker (FGIS) reported the following activities for FGIS for 1990:

1. All of the thirteen Master Scales in service were tested during the year. The Burlington Northern Scale ad Havelock, Nebraska, is now out of service until new parts are delivered and installed. The remaining twelve master scales were approved, and the results of the tests were submitted to the Association of American

Railroads, state weights and measures jurisdictions, and appropriate railroads.

2. The Master Scale from Martinsburg, West Virginia was reinstalled at Barboursville, West Virginia and tested and approved the week of September 10, 1990.

l 3. One hundred and seven tests were conducted on scales used for the official weighing of grain. Thirteen railroad-owned track scales, one of them uncoupled-in-motion, and fourteen railroad track scales owned bj other industries were tested by FGIS representatives while on approved itineraries. FGIS also performed

the field calibration of twenty-one railroad-owned test cars at the FGIS Master Scale Depot in Clearing

Illinois.

4. FGIS continues the tolerance testing of standards owned by local scale companies and private industry. Thi5

testing is performed on a request basis, and reports of test are provided to the owner of the standards anc

the State of Illinois. Industry and local scale service companies requested FGIS to increase calibrator

services at the Master Scale Depot in Clearing by providing tolerance testing on 25- and 50-pound fielc standards. The State of Illinois concurs with providing this increase in service.

334
Liaison Committee

FGIS continues to operate the railroad track scale testing program at full capacity. FGIS is considering the addition of a third test car to increase track scale testing capability in the midwestern states.

)l-2 I Federal Role in Net Content Compliance: USDA

r. Irv Dubinsky, USDA, provided a report on the activities of the Food Safety Inspection Service (FSIS) in the area

net weight labeling of meat and poultry products.

ilS has published, in final form, rules dealing with the net weight labeling of meat and poultry products. These rules

e designed to:

(1) create standards that will assure that the net weight statement is as accurate as can be reasonably

required for the consumer;

| (2) enable Federal, State and local regulatory officials to enforce uniform net weight standards at retail and other locations within their jurisdictions where meat and poultry products are sold; and

(3) provide clear and uniform notice to packers, wholesalers, and retailers of net weight compliance

procedures and requirements.

(he new rules incorporate by reference appropriate sections of NIST Handbook 133, Third Edition, and the 1990

3ition of NIST Handbook 44.

SIS has requested that Dr. Carroll Brickenkamp of NIST develop a manual, patterned after Handbook 133, for its spectors; FSIS is also working on the development of a directive or other vehicle for implementing the institution the program. Dr. Dubinsky is working with Dr. Carroll Brickenkamp, NIST, in this development and

lplementation. See also Items 240-1 and 240-2.

01-3 I Labeling of Turkey with Gravy

i conjunction with his presentation to the Committee on Item 501-2, Mr. Irv Dubinsky, USDA discussed the labeling :quirements for turkey with gravy packets. At the July 1988 meeting of the NCWM, the Conference voted to petition SDA to require that poultry and meat products that are packaged with gravy or sauce packets be labeled with both

ie total net weight for the entire product and the net weight of the gravy or sauce packet. The NCWM petition was Emitted to USDA and accepted as a comment on USDA's net weight proposal discussed in Item 501-2. USDA's

:sponse to the petition was to be included in the analysis of comments when USDA published its final action on the

;t weight proposal.

r. Dubinsky reported that his division at FSIS has gone about as far as it can in dealing with this issue, which

:tually falls within the responsibility of another division of FSIS, Standards and Labeling. He referred the Committee

> the director of that division of FSIS, Mr. Ashland Clemons, for future contact. One of the problems in resolving

lis issue is that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) also has jurisdiction over the labeling of this product. A

i «int USDA/FDA Committee has been appointed to study the problem. See items 231-5 and 232-4. 01-4 I Packers and Stockyards Administration

: 1t. John T. Lacy, Chief, Scales and Weighing Branch, USDA Packers and Stockyards Administration (P&S) provided

n update on P&S activities for 1990. In recent years, P&S has had to re-prioritize its scales and weighing activities ^ a result of decreased funding along with increased responsibilities. At present, two regional offices do not have

scales and weighing specialist, and P&S is uncertain if these vacancies can be filled on a full time basis.

335
Liaison Committee

P&S is now giving greater priority to investigative activities than to participation in scale testing. In areas wher

weights and measures jurisdictions are active in the testing of devices, P&S is fairly confident that its reduce

participation in the testing program does not create a problem; however, weights and measures jurisdictions now fac the same budget problems as P&S and participate in the testing of devices less than in the past. In Federal fiscal yea 1990, 24% of subject livestock scales, 56% of monorail scales used for purchasing livestock on a carcass weight basi; and 20% of subject vehicle scales used for purchasing live poultry were not tested by a weights and measures officia This causes P&S some concern because they believe that the absence of an official test for an extended period of tim

will result in decreased accuracy. The agency continues to be active in providing training in scale testing to scale service personnel and to weights an measures officials. Under the auspices of the National Training Program, P&S has conducted seven training sessior ;i on Module 7 and one training session on Module 6. A total of 132 officials from 20 states have participated in th

2 Module 7 training and 20 officials from one State and four P&S offices participated in the Module 6 training. Currei plans for Federal fiscal year 1991 include three training schools for Module 7 training in Louisiana, South Dakot; and Virginia. A summary of the P&S activities for Federal fiscal year 1990 not including special scale testing is available from th OWM upon request. 501-5 I United States Postal Service (USPS)

Mr. Ted Yaffe, USPS, provided the Committee with a report of the activities of the USPS. Mr. Yaffe indicated th three main areas of USPS activity may be of interest to the NCWM:

1) Deployment of the USPS Integrated Retail Terminal (IRT), a combination scale and point- of- salt device, is essentially complete. All post offices with two or more customer windows have receive IRT's and should be using them now or installing them for use in the near future. Some Sta weights and measures personnel have already inspected and tested units in their jurisdictions wii the aid of a special test program supplied by the USPS. Because the response to the test progra has been very positive, the USPS is including the program in the software which accompanies tl IRT's so that it will be available to weights and measures personnel at the scales at all times.

2) The USPS has developed and is now deploying a Weighing and Rating Unit (WRU) for installatk in post office lobbies and self-service units. The WRU consists of a scale similar to that used in tl IRT, a video display, a numeric keypad, and a printer. It is programmed to permit custom

operation without assistance. The scale is an unbiased weight classifier (i.e., the tolerance is applk + /- to both sides of the break point), which assures that a mailed piece will never be rated wi

insufficient postage (as opposed to the Integrated Rate Terminal which incorporates a weig

classifier biased in the customer's favor by the amount of the scale tolerance [i.e., the tolerance on

applies to the customer's advantage] which assures that a customer will never be overcharged). I following the simple operating instructions that appear on the video screen of the WRU, a custom

will be able to weigh mail and determine the correct postage for the mail class plus addition

services, such as insurance, that the customer specifies. On request, the customer will receive printout showing the information he has just developed; the customer may then purchase posta, from a nearby vending machine, thus eliminating the usual wait in line at the countt Approximately 1500 WRU's are scheduled to be in operation by the time the pending rate increa goes into effect. Eventually, almost all mechanical scales now used by customers will be replacu with WRU's.

3) The USPS is now in the process of procuring precision test weights for every post office which h IRT's and WRU's. These weights will be used daily to verify the calibration accuracy of the seal in these systems.

336
Liaison Committee

s indicated by the activities described above, the USPS continues to be actively committed to a policy of accuracy weighing mail pieces and to continued cooperation with the NCWM in this area. 01-6 I Food and Drug Administration (FDA)

t. Christine Lewis, nutritionist with the FDA reported on the status of the nutritional labeling requirements

andated by the "Nutritional Labeling and Education Act of 1990".

t. Lewis reported on the progress being made in the promulgation of regulations which must be published by ovember 8, 1991. She emphasized the importance of comments to the proposed regulations and solicited such jmments by interested parties. She can be contacted at Food and Drug Administration, HFF-2651, 200 C Street SW,

, Washington, DC 20204. Her telephone number is (202) 485-0088.

02 I OIML Activities

lr. Samuel E. Chappell (NIST) described to the Committee, in a joint session with the Executive Committee, the IML activities of interest to the NCWM. See Item 101-19 for details of the presentation.

03 I OWM Status Report

lr. Albert D. Tholen, Chief, OWM reported to the Committee, in a joint session with the Executive Committee, on

ie status of the OWM in terms of staffing and program changes. Mr. Tholen also provided an outline of OWM's

ve-year work plan and invited comments from the Committees concerning OWM/NCWM interaction as described

the work plan. See Item 101-20 for details of the presentation. 04 I Liaison with Regional Associations

04-1 I Reports from Regional Weights and Measures Associations

entral Weights and Measures Association (CWMA)

Hi. DeVern Phillips, Chairperson of the CWMA, presented the Committee with a report of the CWMA's activities.

Ir. Phillips reported that the dates for the CWMA's Interim Meetings have been set for October 21-23, 1991 in St. ouis, Missouri. In addition to its standing committees, the CWMA has established a Public Relations Task Force, Working Committee on Membership Recruitment, and a Working Committee on Training Resources. The Public

elations Task Force is responsible for providing resources and guidance to CWMA members interested in promoting

ablic awareness in the area of weights and measures. The primary goals of the Working Committee on Membership

-e to increase attendance at and participation in the CWMA; this Committee has already increased CWMA

tembership by 158 members through a membership drive. The Working Committee on Training Resources is to ork to obtain information on the training resources and materials available within the member states of CWMA.

ihe next annual meeting of the CWMA is scheduled for May 3-7, 1992 in Topeka, Kansas.

ortheast Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA)

Ur. Bruce Martell, Chairperson, presented the report for NEWMA. Mr. Martell indicated topics for discussion

'uring the recent annual meeting of NEWMA included alternative fuels, and other subjects relating to the 1990 Clean

ir Act Amendments. The next interim meeting is scheduled for October 29 and 30 in Cromwell, Connecticut. The m annual meeting is scheduled for the week of May 10, 1992 in Montpelier, Vermont.

337
Liaison Committee

Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA)

Mr. Victor Page, President of the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA), reported on the activities of the SWMA. The next meeting of the SWMA is scheduled for October 6-10, 1991 in Lexington, Kentucky.

i Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

i Mr. Aves Thompson, President, Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA), reported to the Committed

on the activities of the WWMA.

A "Train the Trainer" course sponsored by the WWMA and supported by the NCWM, Education, Administration anc Consumer Affairs Committee, was held at the Utah Department of Agriculture, in Salt Lake City, Utah, on May 2,3 and 4, 1991. Mr. Thomas M. Stabler conducted the training and seven participants successfully completed the training j The dates for the training were selected in order to economize on air travel by taking advantage of the reduction foi staying over Saturday night. The next annual meeting is scheduled for September 8-13, 1991, in Boise, Idaho, at the Red Lion Inn. Registratioi information has been sent. For further information, please contact Mr. Glen H. Jex at (208) 334-2345. 504-2 I Improvement of Regional/NCWM Interaction The standing committees of each regional weights and measures association currently provide the standing Committee

of the NCWM with a final report of the issues discussed and voted on at the regional meetings along with the result of each voting item. This provides the standing committees of the NCWM with information useful in deliberation

at the national level; however, there is some concern on the part of the NCWM committees concerning the amoun

of background information that accompanies the reports provided by the regional associations. When an NCWM committee deliberates on an issue in the process of developing a recommendation for the NCWM

it should consider a number of parameters before establishing its position. For example, the committee must conside

the technical validity of a position, the consensus of the regional weights and measures community, input received fron the private sector, and the impact of the position on the business community and the consumer. Because the NCWN

committee members often do not have the benefit of attending a particular regional association meeting, they mis

the discussions that take place concerning a particular issue at the regional level, which often include crucia information about the surrounding problems in the field. Such information is often not evident from the informatioi provided to the standing committee by the regional committee since the provided information usually focuses primaril on why an item was or was not supported by a region. While the report from the region may also include some o li the background, the details concerning reasons for opposing viewpoints are often lacking. This type of informatioi jj is often valuable to the NCWM committee members in developing their position. During the discussion of this issue it was noted that the NCWM standing committees are composed of members froi each of the four regional areas. The Committee acknowledged that each member of an NCWM committee has

responsibility to carry to that committee detailed information concerning the discussions surrounding a particular issu

at the regions. Although some NCWM committee members do this, it is evident from the concerns that have bee

raised that some do not. The Liaison Committee views the responsibility for communicating the needed informatio

to the NCWM as shared by both the regional representative to each NCWM committee and the individual(s) writin the final regional committee report to be sent to the NCWM.

In order to be most effective, each regional weights and measures association committee should ensure that at leas | It one person acknowledges responsibility for providing the detailed information to the NCWM committee. This migl be incorporated into the final report of the regional committee or be a separate, more detailed, report accompanyin I |f the regional committee report.

338
Liaison Committee

ie Liaison Committee believes that providing detailed background and discussion information to the NCWM

mmittees would greatly improve the effectiveness of the interaction between the regionals and the NCWM. The

jmmittee acknowledges the importance of the opinions of regional members reaching the NCWM committees. The

>mmittee expressed these concerns to the Chairperson or President of each Regional Association during the NCWM

;erim Meetings. The Committee also plans to express these concerns in writing to the Chairperson or President each regional association as well as to the members of the committees within each regional association. Each

Dposal to a Standing Committee should be submitted using NCWM Form 15 " Proposal to NCWM Standing

jmmittee". The Form is reprinted below. PROPOSAL TO NCWM STANDING COMMITTEE

Committee:

Regional Association Date

Priority Level: (High) 1 2 3 4 5 (Low) Contact Person Telephone.

Proposal:

Justification:

Reasons For:

f.

3.Reasons Against:

t

Additional Considerations:

339
Liaison Committee

505 I Weights and Measures Week

Committee member Mr. Aves Thompson has agreed to assume the responsibilities of spokesperson for the Committe

for Weights and Measures Week Activities. Since NCWM, Publication 7, Weights and Measures Week Guide, wj

recently updated, the Committee determined that no additional revision to that publication would be needed in th

;

next year. The current edition of this publication is dated June, 1989. The committee urges each member to contact the Chief Executive of their jurisdiction to request that the week <

j March 1-7 be proclaimed and recognized as "Weights and Measures Week". Sample copies of such proclamatioi j are found in NCWM, Publication 7. The theme for 1992 is "Partners in Progress". NCWM, Publication 7, is available from the OWM, NIST, at a cost of $12.00 for members and $20.00 for noi members. The Committee urges each jurisdiction to obtain a copy of this useful publication. 506 I Liaison with Other NCWHVI Organizations and Committees

Associate Membership Committee Committee member Mr. Rich Davis provided the Committee with a report on the activities of the Associa-; Membership Committee (AMC). Mr. Davis reported that this year's chairperson is Dawn Brydon of the Internation Dairy Foods Association. The AMC this year appealed to the Executive Committee for an increase in the dues fr-j Associate Members. The additional monies realized from the increase in the dues would be provided to the AM

treasurer to help support the dramatically increasing costs of the Associate Membership Reception which is held ( Wednesday night during the annual meeting of the NCWM. The AMC believes this would help to provide mo j equitable and effective support for this function. It would also be the intent of the AMC to use any excess funds

help support NCWM educational programs, training, and publication efforts. This request and some possible solutio were discussed at great length with the NCWM Executive Committee. Refer to Executive Committee Item 101-9 f further comments and recommendations on this issue.

Retiree's Group

Mr. Raymond Wells, spokesperson for the Retiree's Group reported to the Committee on the activities of that grou Mr. Wells indicated that retiree participation is active in both the Southern and the Western Weights and Measur-1; Associations. There has been some discussion of holding meetings of the Retiree's Group outside of the regional ai

1 national weights and measures conferences. In California a statewide retiree's group is being formed. The retire 1

!: in the Central and the Northeastern regions are not active at the present time. The retiree's report that they a'i made to feel very welcome at the national and regional weights and measures conferences.

;

! Mr. Wells discussed with the Committee various ways to involve and utilize the expertise of the retired members NCWM activities. Possible areas in which this might be accomplished include the training, funding, administratic and equipment acquisition involved in a weights and measures program. Richard Smith, retired NIST Regional Coordinator, will take over from Mr. Wells as spokesperson for the Retire'

j Group sometime in early 1991. The Committee will pursue with Mr. Smith possible directions in which the retire I expertise can be utilized by the Conference.

,' Energy Allocation

; When the NCWM Task Force on Energy Allocation Systems was disbanded, the report was assigned to the Liais* Committee to fmd groups who would be able to adopt or utilize our model guidelines.

340
Liaison Committee

Recently, The American Society for Heating, Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE) has chosen

liis topic to propose technical specifications as well as consumer related information. Some members of the NCWM

Task Force are on the ASHRAE Study Group. Members of the National Utilities Allocation Association and two ^CWM Members, Patrick Nichols representing groups of general interest and Peggy Adams representing consumer

ruerests, are members of the study group. At the first meeting of the Study Group, the Chair, Martha Hewitt,

ixecutive Director of the Citizens Energy Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota, stated that the NCWM Task Force had

lone an outstanding job.

The project has a two year time table. The next meeting will be in Anaheim, California in late January.

,507 I Public Liaison

Tonsumer Information Pamphlet

n the 1970's NIST(then the National Bureau of Standards) developed a consumer pamphlet on weights and measures

or distribution by the NCWM. The Committee received a request from the OWM to review and update this pamphlet to include additional and more up-to-date information concerning weights and measures activities and

ransactions involving weighed or measured commodities. The Committee reviewed an outline of a proposed revision

0 the original pamphlet and discussed possible means of printing and distributing the revised pamphlet.

The Committee met with Ms. Annette Duff, United States Consumer Information Center (CIC) to discuss how her

; jffice, a division of the General Services Administration, could assist the NCWM in establishing more consumeriwareness of the proposed consumer pamphlet and in weights and measures in general. The CIC is prepared to help

| he NCWM to develop, publish, promote, and distribute consumer information relating to weights and measures

(ictivities and services. Pamphlets and brochures distributed by the CIC are available to consumers at either no charge

"free"), or a cost of $0.50, $1.00, or higher for each publication. The cost for distribution and handling of a "free" pamphlet is $0.48 per copy for Federal fiscal year 1991; this does not include the cost for printing the material. The CIC indicated that a rise in cost of approximately 30 percent is expected in the next year; however, the CIC will make

1 concerted effort to keep the costs for "free" pamphlet distribution and handling in the range of $0.48. While it is )ossible to put the weights and measures information on the low fee schedule (i.e., $0.50 is paid by the consumer to

obtain the pamphlet), the Committee felt that a free publication would receive much broader distribution. The

Committee will pursue this issue as a priority and invites comments and assistance from all interested parties.

The Committee has targeted Weights and Measures Week 1993 as the time at which the revised pamphlet would be

nade available. This effort will require input from every region on the content of the pamphlet and coordination with

n

t IST and the NCWM for the development and printing of the pamphlet. The Committee plans to distribute an

outline of the proposed pamphlet to members of the education committees of the regional weights and measures

tssociations to obtain their comments and input on the pamphlet by July, 1992. Consumer Groups

National Coalition for Consumer Education

The Committee met with representatives from The National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators, and

he National Coalition for Consumer Education. The Executive Director of the National Coalition for Consumer

Education, Mrs. Carole Glade, gave a presentation to the Conference concerning their goals and objectives. She

ndicated that NCCE is willing to work with NCWM to facilitate the delivery of consumer education regarding weights md measures issues, and looks forward to creating a working relationship with the Committee.

The National Coalition for Consumer Education (NCCE) is a not-for-profit organization advocating consumer

education in the nation's schools and communities. Founded in 1981, it operates through a national volunteer network

jf state coordinators representing business, government, educators and consumer groups. NCCE provides leadership

341
Liaison Committee

in promoting consumer education; serves as a resource and catalyst for the expansion of consumer education; conducts

surveys to identify issues and trends; and publishes a quarterly newsletter. National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators (NACAA)

The National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators is a membership organization of approximately 150 administrators of governmental consumer protection programs at the federal, state and local levels. Members are involved in all aspects of protecting consumer rights; resolving individual consumer complaints, conducting

informational and education programs, enforcing consumer protection laws, and supporting consumer legislation. NACAA members provide direct service to consumers, and receive in return first-hand information regarding; consumer problems and concerns. With encouragement from NCWM's Liaison Committee, NACAA has been considering how our two organizations might effectively combine efforts. NACAA recognizes that weights and measures concerns are a significant pocketbook issue for consumers. Just recently, NACAA identified for the Blue Sky Task Force some weights and measures issues that we believe require the continued attention of consumer protection agencies. Those issues included: odometer accuracy, octane level; claims, accuracy and reliability of scanning devices of retail establishments,

slack fill, uniform unit pricing, downsizing, uniform portions for serving sizes and weight at time of sale. However,

while NACAA and NCWM can see the implications of these matters for consumers, both of our groups have realized

that consumers themselves are often completely uniformed. The common conclusion we have reached is that consumer education efforts are needed. i NACAA Executive Director Sara Cooper will explore with NCWM Liaison Committee Chair Aves Thompson what

concrete steps each group should take in order to pursue a joint consumer education effort. By combining the outreach potential of members from both organizations, we should be successful in our endeavor. NACAA looks forward to a fruitful relationship among our members and members of NCWM in the future. Environmental Labeling

A group of 11 States Attorneys General working together over the last 15 months have published a document titled "Green Report II" containing their recommendations for responsible environmental advertising. A copy of this reporl

is available from the participating Attorney General offices - California, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Missouri. New York, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Washington, or Wisconsin. The "Green Report II" has been filed with the Federal Trade Commission with recommendations that a national regulatory scheme for environmental advertising be developed. A group of trade associations has filed a petition with the FTC recommending that FTC provide national guideline*

for environmental labeling. This petition has been referred to as the NFPA (National Food Processors Association]

petition even though it represents some 11 different trade associations. The FTC has scheduled public hearings on July 17th and 18th, 1991, to hear testimony regarding environmenta

labeling and advertising. Food Labeling Study

Dr. Mary Heslin contacted the Committee regarding the Institute of Medicine's (IOM) Food and Nutrition Boarc

panel to conduct a study of State and local statutes (laws and regulations) dealing with certain misbranding section

of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FDCA), as amended. Section six of the Nutrition Labeling an< Education Act (NLEA) of 1990 (P.L. 101-535, enacted November 8, 1990) mandates preemption of State and loca

statutes that deal with six sections on misbranding. In addition, the Act requires FDA to conduct a study to evaluatf the adequacy of Federal regulations in addressing the six sections of FDCA that NLEA preempts.

Dr. Heslin is the Vice Chair of the Committee on State Food Labeling and is seeking to obtain comments on Stati and local statutes, their impact and rationale in relationship to the adequacy of Federal regulations on the six section

342
Liaison Committee

- the law under study.

le Committee on State Food Labeling continues to seek input on the six sections of the FDCA that NLEA

eempts. The Committee would appreciate your answers to any of the questions that are relevant to your State.

I you have further questions, please call the Project Director, Donna Porter, at (202)707-7032, Institute of Medicine

ational Academy of Sciences, 2101 Constitution Avenue, Washington, DC 20418.

Thuner, San Diego County, CA, Chairman

Davis, State of Maine

Davis, James River Corp.

Lacy, USDA, Packers and Stockyards Thompson, State of Alaska | I

| G. Butcher, NIST, Technical Advisor (Interim Meeting)

I G. Newell, NIST, Technical Advisor (Annual Meeting)

ommittee on Liaison

!

343
Metrology Report

July 14 - 19, 1991

Philadelphia, PA

Georgia Harris (NIST)

Training Program for Metrologists Cancelled The initial response to the Train-the-Trainer program for the metrologists to teach the BASIC laboratory metrology seminar was very limited. There was considerable verbal support and encouragement for the concept; however, budgets are extremely limited at this time and few States felt they could support the program.

Status of Handbook 143 A significant amount of information has been collected during the past year for incorporation into Handbook

143. Material includes position descriptions, grain moisture laboratory requirements, petroleum laboratory requirements, and laboratory design and auditing requirements for MIL-STD-45662A, CFR Title 10 (Nuclear

requirements), ASTM guidelines, NCSL guidelines, ISO guidelines, OIML guidelines. Many standards will be

evaluated to develop a program for State laboratories to meet one set of requirements that will meet as many

of the standards as possible.

Training, Regional Metrology Meetings, and Site Visits

All five regional groups had meetings in the last year. There have been two Basic and two Intermediate Laboratory Metrology Seminars. The following laboratories had site visits: Rice Lake Weighing Systems, Rhode Island, Louisiana, Maryland, Georgia, South Carolina, Savannah

River Site, California, Nevada, Washington, Oregon, Virginia, North Carolina

Atlanta Mass Measurements Seminar

Georgia Harris attended a mass measurements seminar, sponsored by the Institute of Nuclear Materials Management (INMM), that was held in Atlanta, Georgia, April 22 - 24, 1991. The workshop was attended by

a number of State metrologists and industry metrologists (many who participate in the regional metrology

groups) including: David Dikken (MN) who presented initial results of a Mass MAP round robin and spoke as a discussion panel member, Michael Kramer (VA), Martin Coile (GA) who arranged for a number of tours through the Georgia State laboratory, Brenda Whitener (GA), John Pugh (SC) who spoke as a discussion panel member and arranged tours through the South Carolina laboratory, Paul Hadyka (FGIS), Dick Weber (3M, MidMAP), James Reid (Duke Power, SEMAP), Don Brookover (Duke Power, SEMAP), Phil Gibbs (Savannah

River Site, SEMAP), Walter Kupper (Mettler), Mark Kline (Troemner). A significant number of excellent papers were presented in measurement control areas as well as precision mass measurements. The INMM

currently plans to have another such meeting.

NCSL Annual Meeting The annual meeting of the National Conference of Standards Laboratories will meet August 18 - 22, 1991 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. Information has been distributed to the State laboratories regarding NCSL and the I annual meeting. Georgia Harris will attend the meeting in Albuquerque and encourages metrologists to attend.

344
Platform Scale Use Much discussion has taken place at the regional level in the last year regarding the use of platform scales in the weights and measures laboratories for tolerance testing weights. Some of the States have opted for the use of platform scales in addition to or in lieu of the Russell balance. There is concern regarding appropriate transfer

ratios for tolerance testing work in the State laboratories. Most platform scales do not have precision capabilities comparable to the Russell balance. Two States have purchased the Mettler 600-kg platform scale; initial results indicate values approaching those obtainable with the Russell balance. ASTM E691 Software The ASTM E691 data analysis software has been used in several of the regional meetings for demonstration and

for analysis of round robin data. The software was developed at NIST and is sold through ASTM for a very modest price. The software also comes with a copy of E 691, Standard Practice for Conducting an

Interlaboratory Study to Determine the Precision of a Test Method. The package can reduce results very

quickly, is readily available, can be used on any DOS system, and is a standardized package for data analysis. Upcoming Training and Meetings BASIC Seminars, all held at NIST, Gaithersburg, MD

September 23-October 4, 1991 March 16-27, 1992 October 5-16, 1992 INTERMEDIATE Seminars December 2-6, 1991 Gaithersburg, MD

February 10-14, 1992 San Juan, PR (Intensive Basic/Intermediate) December 7-11, 1992 Gaithersburg, MD

Regional Metrology Meetings

SEMAP

WRAP

MIDMAP

NEMAP

SWAP

1991

held

held

July 29-Aug 2 September 16-20 October 21-25

1992

April 6-10 May 4-8

Location

Forest Park, GA

Reno, NV

Bismarck, ND

Hartford, CT

San Antonio, TX

Safety Report, Laboratory Concerns: L. F. Eason, (NC)

The NCWM Safety Task Force has concluded their work as a Task Force with the publication of the final report which is available from the NCWM. L. F. Eason (NC) has made recommendations to Georgia Harris (NIST)

to incorporate suggestions into Handbook 143 and Handbook 145. Until Handbook 145 is revised, it is suggested

that State laboratories use Attachment H of the Task Force Report as a guideline for good laboratory practices. Handbook 143 will have suggestions incorporated into the draft which is in process.

345
Education Report, Metrology Chapter of Module 23: Ross Andersen (NY)

The outline and first draft of the Metrology section of the Administrative module were reviewed during the past

year. A new format for this particular module has been developed and Ross Andersen (NY) is in the process

of preparing a second draft using the new format. Overview of Regional Reports

All five of the regional measurement management program (RMMP) groups have met during the past year. Many topics on the agenda are the same at each group meeting. Each of the meetings usually has had a round

table discussion of what is happening in each State or facility, which has been a useful format for discussing current issues and items of concern. Each meeting also includes discussion of the round robin measurements.

Discussion includes measurement procedures, error analysis, and any systematic errors in individual results. The

meetings also include a laboratory tour. During the past year items of discussion included safety, computer

demonstrations, platform scale use, magnetized weights, auditing requirements, volume uncertainties, plus a

variety of individual technical papers, presentations, and discussions.

1. MidMAP Report: Bob Wittenberger (MO)

The meeting was held July 29 - August 2, 1990 in Rice Lake, Wisconsin. All States were represented.

2. NEMAP Report: Mike Dynia (CT)

The meeting was held September 10 - 14, 1990 in Providence, Rhode Island. Several States were not

represented. These included Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia, New York, New Hampshire.

3. SEMAP Report: L. F. Eason (NC)

The meeting was held March 18 - 22, 1990 in Annapolis, Maryland. Several States were not

represented. These included Tennessee, Mississippi, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands.

4. SWAP Report: Herb Eskew (TX)

The meeting was held October 22 - 26, 1990 in Lafayette, Louisiana. Colorado was the only State not represented.

5. WRAP Report: Joe Rothleder (CA)

The meeting was held May 13 - 17, 1991 in Sacramento, California. All States were represented. Philadelphia City Weights and Measures Tour

Emmett Murphy and Jim Noone of the City of Philadelphia provided the opportunity for metrologists to ask questions about the city weights and measures program and to view the city test equipment. Also, they arranged

for space for Mettler Instrument Corporation and Sartorius Corporation to set up demonstrations. Demonstration of Analytical Balances, Sartorius and Mettler

Balances, accessories, and literature were available. Technical and sales staff from both companies were

available to answer the many questions typical of this group. Equipment demonstrated included the Sartorius RC 210 S and S 4 as well as a density kit installed on a Sartorius AC-series balance with an attached printer. The Mettler MT5 and PM 5003 interfaced with a computer were also demonstrated.

346
Tour of Troemner, Inc. Facilities The metrologists were provided with an informative tour of the Troemner manufacturing facility as well as then- calibration laboratories. LPG SOP 21 Changes and Updates

The compressibility of water information will be added to SOP 21, Handbook 145, and has been discussed at several regional meetings and Intermediate Metrology seminars. An Appendix will be added to SOP 21 with

information as follows: The water compressibility factor is calculated based on an equation given in a paper by George S. Kell, "Density, Thermal Expansivity, and Compressibility of Liquid Water from 0 to 150 °C: Corrections and Tables for Atmospheric Pressure and Saturation Reviewed and Expressed on 1968 Temperature Scale", as published in the

Journal of Chemical and Engineering Data, Vol. 20, No. 1, 1975. The calculated compressibility factor for the

reference temperature 60 °F (15.555 °C) is 46.6287 X 10^/bar. LPG provers are calibrated at a nominal

reference point at a specified temperature and pressure, typically 60 °F and 100 psig. A pressure of 100 psig

correlates to 6.8 atmospheres. The following equation was used to calculate the compressibility factor: r -3 /inn a ,231 in \ ,46.6287* 10"6

, , 1.Q1325 bar. , , T/01 . 3 W Compressibility m

3 = (100 gal) ( ) ( )

( ) (6.8 atm) = 7.421 m

gal bar atm The 1990 Change in the Temperature Scale (IPTS 90) does not have a significant effect on the outcome of the

equation. Thermometers used for testing are not accurate to the level affected by changes to the temperature

scale.

Previously, the value used for adjusting the calculated volume for the compressibility of water was 7.8 in3

. Z60 Equations

Minor technical changes will be made to the equation used for large volume transfer. The change will not have

a significant effect ib results. If delta (the difference between the nominal value and that delivered) is not used,

there is no difference. The change will incorporate the delta into the temperature correction of the prover. The

current and revised equations are given below.

Calculate Z^, the calculated volume of the prover at the time of test, which when corrected to 60 °F will be the nominal volume, using the following equation:

347
2,'so pA iUJl + a(tA - 60)] AA

) P(?[l * fi(tQ

- 60)]

(2) current equation

Pa {(U<*> + *a)U + <*4 - «»]>

P<?[1 + WQ

~ 60)]

(3) proposed

revision

Drift Free Equations

Clarification was made regarding the equations and how they are used. The drift-free equations are also used

in the 3-1 data sets that are being reviewed. Volume Uncertainties, Gravimetric Procedures, Certification Issues

Uncertainties associated with the following measurements were discussed: 1) laboratory volume transfer calibration; 2) laboratory gravimetric calibration; 3) field calibration (volume transfer); and 4) actual field use of the provers. Uncertainties associated with volume calibration has also been discussed at the regional level and lists of variables affecting the measurements have been made and will be included in a formal report. The issue of the uncertainties affects several areas, some of which are the review of API requirements,

Handbook 44 and Handbook 105-3 tolerances, the laboratory certification of field calibrations, and the primary

calibration and traceability of volume measurements made in State laboratories. Computer Examples, Demonstrations & Discussion The use of macros in wordprocessing and spreadsheet software (Wordperfect and Lotus 1, 2, 3 were

demonstrated) were discussed as a tool that can be used to save time in using the computers in the laboratory. Macros in wordprocessing included those to open and close letters and memoranda, create calendars, and macros

for technical characters that are used in laboratory work. Those include such things as: pa, a, °, in3

, /x, etc.. There was a demonstration of creating a macro for the character °. There was a request to have this available on the bulletin board for downloading. The process of creating a macro for adjusting the column width in Lotus 1, 2, 3 was demonstrated. It was

stressed that documentation of macros is extremely important for future reference. The 3-1 data set material that has been prepared by Ken Fraley was discussed. A request for people to "proof

the calculations was made so that the data sets can be distributed to all metrologists. The ASTM software package E 691 was demonstrated. The package is being used for the analysis of

interlaboratory round robin data. The Future of Laboratory Metrology: Professionalism, Training & Organizations

A round table discussion took place regarding the future of the laboratories. The information that follows is a summary of the main discussion items.

348
1. Participants were asked to state concerns and issues that they felt should or will be addressed in the

future. A list was prepared.

2. Participants were asked to suggest visions of the future or ideas for change.

3. From the major topics of discussion, the following projects were discussed further.

a. The development of individualized training modules would include the development of video and workbook material.

b. The development of a mass map for state laboratories could possibly be coordinated through

the Office of Weights and Measures using the Mass Code for data reduction. Computers in the Laboratory: Hardware, Software & Testing

A round table discussion took place regarding the use of computers in the laboratory. The information that follows is a summary of the main discussion items. L Participants were asked to state benefits, advantages, or progress that has been made in the use of computers in metrology laboratories. A list was prepared.

2. Participants were asked to suggest ideas for projects that can be addressed at individual levels to improve the use of computers in the laboratories. Another list was made.

3. From the major topics of discussion, the following projects were discussed further.

1. Update software programs and system recommendations. Prepare an index of available programs which people are willing to share, update programs on the bulletin board, advise metrologists of changes and updates of programs and updates. This will be a joint effort between the regional metrology groups and OWM.

2. Obtain a speaker to discuss interfacing computers with laboratory equipment Rick Calkins agreed to discuss the possibility with Dave Ramos (Sartorius), who gave a presentation at the April 91 Precision Mass Measurements Seminar and Workshop, for giving a presentation at the

next annual NCWM meeting.

3. Use of the Mass Code in the laboratories. Several options exist with coordinated efforts. OWM will contact the Mass Group or Rich Davis regarding possible training options. Weighing designs can be performed in the State laboratories. Data files of the observations can be uploaded to the bulletin board, downloaded and reduced; reports can then be uploaded to the bulletin board. Use of the User-Operated Mass Package would provide many of the

benefits of the Mass Code in State laboratories. Ken Fraley (OK), Magnetism in the Laboratory

During the past year Ken Fraley (OK) found 500-lb weights that were magnetized and affected the Mettler ECC

600 comparator in their laboratory. Ken reported how the problem was found and the effect the magnetism had

on the comparator. A gaussmeter has been purchased by the State of Oklahoma and was available for examination along with a pair of magnetized forceps.

Several important questions were raised regarding magnetized weights.

349
1. How can magnetized weights be tested in the laboratory when errors due to magnetism can exceed tolerance limits?

2. Should Handbook 105-1 address the issue of magnetized cast weights?

3. Will the weights affect other types of balances or scales in other testing or weighing

applications? David Dikken (MN), Use of the Mass Code and Round Robin Data Analysis

David Dikken (MN) demonstrated the preparation of data files for use with the NIST Mass Code program using

wordprocessing software. Information about the system, standards, unknowns, and observations is arranged

according to a set pattern that the Mass Code will reduce into a final report. David has received training from

the NIST Mass Group to use this particular software. David also discussed the report that is produced, the changes he makes in the report to provide a calibration report to clients, and some of the error codes associated with the program. David also discussed results of a national level round robin that was done with other participants of the NIST

Mass MAP program. The round robin was performed to validate the significantly lower uncertainties attainable using the advanced weighing designs and the NIST Mass Code data reduction software. The results of the round

robin were compared to a round robin done by the Western Regional Assurance Program (WRAP) group using

the same nominal values. The uncertainties reported and actualized among participants were significantly lower

for the laboratories using the weighing designs and Mass Code data reduction. Frank Jones (consultant), Air Density Equation and Water Density Equations

Frank Jones (consultant), gave a presentation regarding use of the air density equation. He also gave the presentation at the Mass Measurements Seminar in Atlanta. The presentation and paper show the metrologists how to develop constants for use with the air density equation that are specific to each laboratory environment. The equation used in Handbook 145 should be used unless the laboratory is capable of developing the constants and incorporating their use with computer programs. The minor systematic differences that may be introduced

as a result of using different equations will not be significant unless the laboratory is making very high precision measurements. Frank also discussed water density equations that use updated information regarding water density, air-saturation, and pressure corrections. This information will be made available to facilitate the use of water density equations

when using computer programs. Updated water density tables will also be available. Thermal Effects in the Laboratory

Apparently systematic differences have been noticed in some primary State standards that have had recent

recalibrations. One of the possible causes may be due to thermal effects noticed when the weights are not at the same temperature as the surroundingair. This can be especially noticeable when a single weight is compared

to a summation of weights due to differences in the surface to mass ratios. Randy Schoonover gave a presentation at the 1983 NCWMAnnual Meeting and discussed the results of work done at NIST on this subject. Recent papers (1986 and 1990) have been prepared and two were distributed with information from Rick

Calkins, Rice Lake Weighing Systems, about thermally controlled soaking plates. Soaking plates are used in the NIST mass calibration laboratory and are used for stabilizing the weights to the same temperature as the air in a balance as if a person is performing a calibration.

350
In dealing with possible systematic effects, a couple of approaches may be used. One is to increase the

uncertainty to account for systematic differences; however, this effect is not easily estimated. The preferred approach is to reduce the effects. Several alternatives exist to reduce thermal effects. The proper design of

shields to be used on the balances can limit operator effects. A controlled stable temperature in the laboratory

will help. Thermally controlled soaking plates can be used. Weight designs that reduce surface dependent

thermal effects may be possible. A different measurement control program, where a standard is compared to

a check weight of similar design rather than to a summation, may be another alternative. Auditing Requirements/Update of Handbook 143

Of significant recent concern to laboratories in the United States is the issue of meeting a variety of auditing requirements. In the past these have included military and nuclear requirements. With changes in the

international markets and EC92, the ISO 9000-series documents, and ISO Guide 25 will become increasingly important. This is particularly important to State laboratories providing services to industries that market

internationally. Handbook 143 is in the process of being revised and every effort will be made to address audit requirements for the State laboratories. Continued commitment of laboratory staff and management is required to maintain a

quality laboratory environment in which to meet audit requirements.

Participants

Joe Rothleder California Richard Weber 3M

Jim Akey Wisconsin

Kelly Moody Arizona James Reid Duke Power

Herb Eskew Texas Ken Fraley Oklahoma

Lynda Maurer Rhode Island Jos6 Torres Ferrer Puerto Rico Bob Wittenberger Missouri Rick Calkins Rice Lake Weighing Systems

L.F. Eason North Carolina Mike Dynia Connecticut Ross Andersen New York

Curtis Roberts North Dakota

Archie Corbitt Virgin Islands Vic Gerber Wyoming

Jim Cammel Washington

Paul Hadyka FGIS

David Dikken Minnesota

Holger Schulz Sartorius Alan Little Sartorius Jim Floyd Sartorius Walter Kupper Mettler Dave Baird Delaware

351
Summary Tables of Work Projects

Item # Title, Description, Status Contact PeopleStatus Start Date

1 105-1, Class F Field Standards -adopted by the NCWM at the 1991 Annual Meeting

Georgia

Harris

final 1990

2 105-2, Glassware used as Field Standards -update to be drafted by Kelly Moody (AZ)

Kelly Moody

(AZ)

initial 1991

3 105-3, Field Standard Test Measures and Provers —comments compiled —update to be drafted and circulated to metrologists for initial comments

Georgia

Harris

draft 1990

4 105-4, Field Standard LPG Provers

-drafts prepared by Jim Clifford (OR)

-reformatting to be done to new 105 format

—final editing and suggested changes

Georgia

Harris

final edit and

format

1989

5 105-5, Field Standard Thermometers

—drafts prepared by Joe Rothleder (CA)

-editing and formatting to be done

—circulation to all metrologists for final comments

Georgia

Harris

edit and

review

1990

6 105-6, Field Standard Timing Devices

-drafts prepared by Ross Andersen (NY)

—editing and formatting to be done

-circulation to all metrologists for final comments

Georgia

Harris

edit and

review

1990

7 Comment forms for publication drafts -standardized form developed by L.F. Eason (NC) for use in review of documents completed

Georgia

Harris

final 1990

8 105-series Format Guidelines -new format for 105-series handbooks developed by Ross Andersen (NY) to follow OIML/ASTM patterns completed

Georgia

Harris

final 1990

9 Large Capacity Platform Scales Test Procedure -procedure drafted by Ross Andersen (NY)

-included in the NCWM report —to be included in the training modules

Georgia

Harris final 1989

10 Module 23, Chapter on the Metrology Laboratory

—outline and initial draft prepared by Ross Andersen (NY)

—reviewed and a new format for module suggested —second draft being prepared by Ross Andersen (NY)

Ross Andersen

Georgia

Harris

revised

draft 1990

11 Laboratory Safety —L.F. Eason (NC) completed recommendations to Safety Task Force regarding

laboratory issues -Recommend use of Appendix H of the final report -Issues to be incorporated into HB 143 and HB 145 as updated

Georgia

Harris

final 1989

12 SOP'S -SOP 21 for LPG provers to be circulated by Georgia Harris -SOP for tuning fork tests prepared by Bill Young (CO) —SOP for testing timing devices prepared by Ross Andersen (NY) —SOP for railroad test cars being prepared by Vic Gerber (WY) —SOP for density determination being prepared by James Reid (Duke Power) and David Dikken (MN)

Georgia

Harris final edit draft

initial

initial

1991

352
1 Item # Title, Description, Status Contact People

Status Start Date

13 Data Sets for Testing Computer Software —Air density, circulated 1990 -3-1 weighing design (also double substitution), prepared by Ken Fraley (OK), Herb Eslcew (TX), final evaluation prior to circulation — and LPG data sets in process —Gravimetric data being collected —4-1 and 5-1 design data being collected

Georgia

final edit

draft

draft

draft

1989

14 Speaker for 77th Annual Meeting

-Metrologists would like a speaker to discuss interfacing computers with

laboratory equipment, Rick Calkins (RLWS) agreed to make an initial contact

Georgia

Harris

initial 1991

15 Index of Available Computer Programs

—prepare an index of programs available on the bulletin board and in individual laboratories that people are willing to share

Regional Groupsinitial 1991

16 Index of Available Technical Papers and Reports -prepare an index of papers and reports that people are willing to share Regional Groups

initial 1991

17 Update Computer Programs

-requests made to update computer programs available on the bulletin board —Volume.wkl and Vollpg.wkl are updated Lotus worksheets on the bulletin board

-additional updates will be made as available, a memo will be sent to states regarding programs

Georgia

Harris

inprocess 1991

18 Collect Data to Evaluate Mass Flow Capabilities -requests for information will be made by several metrologists, to their divisions or other organizations: Kelly Moody (AZ), Ross Andersen (NY), David Dikken (UN), Herb Eskew (TX), Bob Wittenberger (MO)

Kelly Moodyinitial 1991

19 Address Issues Associated with Air & Water Contaminants -A memo dealing with contaminant concerns will be shared if anyone is interested in developing the material further

Joe Rothlederinitial 1991

20 Develop Individualized Training Modules for Laboratory Metrology

-draft of a request from the metrologists will be written by LF Eason (NC) -A recommendation to the Office of Weights and Measures at NIST will be made to include this topic in the Long Range Plan

L.F. Eason

Georgia

Harris

initial 1991

21 Coordinate a Project to Provide Training and Use of the Mass MAP and Mass

Code

-draft of a request from the metrologists will be written by LF Eason (NC) -A recommendation to the Office of Weights and Measures at NIST will be made to include this topic in the Long Range Plan

L.F. Eason

Georgia

Harris

initial 1991

22 Handbook 143, Laboratory Program

-Information has been collected for position descriptions, grain moisture and

petroleum quality programs

-Additional information will be reviewed to incorporate accepted auditing requirements

Georgia

Harris

initial 1991

353
Report of the Resolutions Committee

! Dean F. Ely, Chairman

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture

REFERENCE KEY

700 GENERAL

The resolutions committee wishes to express the appreciation of the members of the National Conference on Weight and Measures to those who contributed their time and talents toward the arrangements for the conduct of, and th success of this 76th Annual Meeting. Special votes of thanks are extended:

(1) to Leon Wigrizer, Commissioner, Philadelphia Department of Licenses and Inspection, for his introductor remarks delivered at the General Session of the Conference on Tuesday afternoon;

(2) to the Honorable W. Wilson Goode, Mayor of the City of Philadelphia for his gracious welcome to th conference members and guests;

(3) to Ray Kammer, Deputy Director of NIST, representing Dr. John Lyons, N1ST Director, who conveyed t the Conference Dr. Lyons' spirit of vital support of the ongoing programs and activities of the Conference

to Dr. Lyons for his direction to NIST and the NCWM toward future joint issues including: use of the Metri

(SI) System; enhancement of international trade; implementing the philosophy of Total Quality Managemen

and its application to State weights and measures programs and the operation of the NCWM;

(4) to the staff of the Philadelphia Weights and Measures Bureau, particularly Emmett Murphy and Jim Noonc

for their kindness and assistance in ensuring the success of the 76th Annual Meeting of the Conference;

(5) to Louis Sokol, U.S. Metric Association, and Theodore Wright, American National Metric Council, for thei dedication and tireless efforts in keeping the issue of metrication before the many NCWM government an

industry attendees of this Conference;

(6) to officers and appointed officials of the National Conference on Weights and Measures for their assistanc and service toward progress on national issues;

(7) to committee members for their efforts throughout the past year preparing and presenting their reports; t« the subcommittees and task forces for their discerning and appropriate recommendations;

(8) to regulatory officials of State and local jurisdictions for the advice, interest, and support of weights an

measures administration in the United States;

(9) to representatives of business and industry for their cooperation and assistance in committee and Conferenc

work; to the associate membership organization for the hospitality exhibited in sponsored social functions

(10) to the staff of the Four Seasons Hotel for their assistance and courtesies, all of which contributed to th enjoyment and comfort of the delegates within their fine facilities;

(11) to Albert D. Tholen, former Executive Secretary of the Conference, now appointed Acting Chief of the NIS

r National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program, for his untiring leadership and outstanding efforts o

behalf of the NCWM;

354
:(12) to Carroll S. Brickenkamp for her many contributions to the work of the Laws and Regulations Committee,

with congratulations on her appointment as Acting Chief of the Office of Weights and Measures and

Executive Secretary of the Conference; and

(13) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Office of Weights and Measures for their outstanding assistance in planning and conducting the work and program of the National Conference on -

Weights and Measures, especially to Ann Heffernan-Turner, Terry Grimes, and Elizabeth Loveless for their professional and hospitable operation of the administrative operations of the meeting.

D. Ely, Pennsylvania, Chairman

G. Jex, Idaho M. Phillips, Indiana

C. Pittman, Tennessee

- E. Price, Texas

I A. Thompson, Alaska

J. Mindte, NIST, Coordinator

c Resolutions Committee

1 On motion of Mr. Jex, the Resolutions Committee Report, Reference Key Item 700, was adopted by the Conference.
Report of the Nominating Committee

Fred A. Gerk, Chairman

State of New Mexico

Reference Key No. 800

The Nominating Committee met during the Interim Meeting at the Hyatt Regency Bethesda, Bethesda, MD, anc nominated the listed persons to be officers of the 77th Conference. In the selection of nominees from active membership, consideration was given to professional experience, qualifications of individuals, Conference attendance and participation, regional representation, and other factors considered to be important. CHAIRMAN-ELECT:

VICE-CHAIRMEN:

Allan M. Nelson, Connecticut Thomas Geiler, Barnstable, MA

Cathryn Pittman, Tennessee

Kathleen Thuner, San Diego County, CA

James Truex, Ohio EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE: Darrell Guensler, California Steve Malone, Nebraska TREASURER: Charles Gardner, Jr., Suffolk County, NY

Fred A. Gerk, NM, Chairman

Carl Conrad, NJ

L. F. Eason, NC

Charles Gardner, NY

Steve Malone, NE

Allan Rogers, VA

Donald Sobberg, WI

Nominating Committee

On motion of Mr.

Conference. Gerk, the Nominating Committee Report, Reference Key Item 800, was adopted by thi

356
Report of the Auditing Committee

Emmett Murphy, Chairman

Chief

Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Weights and Measures

Reference Key No.

900 The Auditing Committee met on Tuesday afternoon, July 16, 1991, for the purpose of reviewing the financial reports

of the Conference Treasurer, Charles A. Gardner, Jr. The Auditing Committee finds the financial reports of the Conference Treasurer to be in accordance with Conference

procedure and correct.

E. Murphy, Chief, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Weights and Measures

S. Casto, West Virginia

E. Hanish, Indiana

J. Mindte, NIST, Coordinator Auditing Committee

On motion of Mr. Murphy, the Report of the Auditing Committee, Reference Key Item 900, was adopted by the Conference.

357
National Conference on Weights and Measures

Treasurer's Report

Fiscal Year 76 (1990-1991)

July 1991

June Tur>*> Ifl 1 oon ju, iwvj

(Til inriFT^ RFPFIPTS'

J\J,VAAJ)

1 1 d

• 1J. Registrations

(92,500) 1.2 Memberships 126,339.00

(6,500) 1.3 Training Modules 9,985.75

(3,700) 1.4 Interest 5,499.81

(1,000) 1.5 Promotional 2348.20

(8,000) 1.6 Special Events 4,84616

(1,000) 1.7 NTEP Operations 0.00 (300) 1.8 Publications 1,981.00 (15,000) 1.9 Miscellaneous 680.00

(1 « oooi TOTAL RFCFTPTS 178 670 09 TOTAT TNCOMF

DISBI JRSEMENTS'

ooo^ 0 0 Annual X^f^f^rinfr X»V/ /TlIUI Udl iVlCClIlli^ 99 7Y7 70

(5 0001 3.0 Interim Meeting 13 057 79 on 0001 1Q Old 7Q

(43,000) 5.0 Special Programs 32,370.69

(12,500) 6.0 Chairman's Expense 6,85915

(6,000) 7.0 Membership Expense 7,991.49

(12,000) 8.0 Printing & Publications 14,843.32

(10,500) 9.0 Administration 15,849.47

(8,000) 10.0 Special Events 23,319.76

(2,000) 11.0 Promotions 955.43

(24,000) 12.0 Training Modules 11,817.02

(158,000) TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 168,716.79

BANKS

European American (New York)

Signet (Maryland)

Certificate of Deposit #1

Certificate of Deposit #2

Certificate of Deposit #3

77,355.72 314.24

25,226.74

11,881.84 0.00

Grant Account 3,617.54

Date Submitted

Date Audited IfAdviso

^unaries a. uaroner, ireasi ^ ^ ^^ "^u^ting^o^m^^^^fl^

358

BALANCE:

BALANCE: |J$338$$
Treasurer's Report

Fiscal Year 75 (1990-1991)

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Grant Account

July 17, 1991

Start Deposits

Grant #1 HA 4003 Grant #2 8H 0869

Total

Interest

$15,750.00

-0-

6.780.00

15.750.00

314.97

Payments

Grant #1 HA 4003 Grant #2 8H 0869

Total

Interest Transfer Close

17,303.52

1,523.91

18.827.43

400.00

3617.54

Date Submitted Charles A. Gardner, Treasurer

£taff Advisor

359
I New Chairman's Address

Sid Colbrook

Weights and Measures Program Manager

Illinois Department of Agriculture PARTNERSHIPS FOR PROGRESS

We are facing the challenges of the future. We have all heard this week some of the cutbacks being made in government. There has never been a time when we in weights and measures must work more closely together

in order for our programs to grow and continue to prosper than now. The theme this year, partnerships for progress, I believe signifies the importance for us to work together and become more uniform in weights and

measures. One method of achieving uniformity is the adoption of the National Conference on Weights and Measures publications established by regulatory weights and measures officials from throughout the United

States. One of the objectives stated in the Constitution of the National Conference on Weights and Measures

is to encourage and promote uniformity of requirements and methods among jurisdictions. Manufacturers,

distributors and other representatives of industry attend and support the Conference in order to achieve uniformity in weights and measures.

I know if I were a member from industry and supported the National Conference with the understanding that by using this forum, uniform laws, regulations and testing procedures are established, I would be discouraged

to find that some weights and measures jurisdictions are not following the documents adopted by the Conference.

The adoption of the conference standards benefits manufacturers, packagers, other members from industry, weights and measures officials, but most importantly, it benefits all consumers. During the past several years, we have seen the regional associations playing a more active role at the National Conference. It was not that long ago that many issues of the various standing committees were thrashed out during the voting session. Now we see that the agenda items are being thoroughly discussed at the regional and

interim meetings. Very seldom do we see amendments made upon amendments on voting items during the voting session. I recall voting one time for the opposite of what I thought I was voting for. Conference

attendees of today are better informed to make the right decision. A significant accomplishment was reached last year by having all states agree to participate in the National Training Program. This program has developed quite rapidly and has had a positive impact on uniform testing procedures not only for weights and measures officials but also members from industry. It is imperative in order

to keep this program functional, the training modules must be kept up-to-date. Chairman Smith appointed the "Blue Sky Task Force" last year to study weights and measures issues of today and the future. Darrell Guensler this week gave a detailed report on the progress of this task force. Some of the items they are considering include determining the need to have a session on motor fuel quality at the Conference; consider the impact of biodegradable, recyclable, and safety packaging on existing requirements;

make recommendations for new areas which need to be considered by the Conference; and look at new ways

of financing weights and measures programs. These issues are important for the National Conference.

Therefore, I have asked the task force and Darrell as Chairman, to continue their work. One addition, David

Smith has agreed to serve on this Task Force. We have seen in recent years the interaction of other countries to the National Conference on Weights and

Measures. Canada is continuing to work with the Conference to reduce differences between our two countries. Also the Board of Governors have been working with the Specifications and Tolerances Committee about making

the National Type Evaluation procedures more compatible with OIML. We need to consider international standards when establishing national standards to insure that there exists a basis for equity in trade.

360
I have been very pleased with the support of the Scale Manufacturer's involvement with the National Type

Evaluation Program. The presentations which have been made by SMA supporting the adoption of NTEP have

not only answered many questions about the program but have moved some jurisdictions to begin the process

of adopting NTEP. These are all examples of Partnerships formed by the National Conference for Progress. We have found that NTEP has prevented many devices which were never designed for commercial use from

being used commercially. Judging by the number of times I have contacted either Henry, Tina, Terry or Karl

regarding a question I may have about a Certificate of Conformance, I know they must spend a considerable amount of their time on the telephone. As I mentioned earlier, it seems that many of our programs may be reduced due to budgetary cutbacks being made. If you need assistance in supporting your program during these critical times, contact the Office of Weights and Measures. We have a great resource in Carroll Brickenkamp and her staff. A new endeavor being established is the expansion of the National Type Evaluation Program to include performance criteria for grain moisture measuring devices and protein analyzers. The need to standardize commercially used grain moisture measuring devices has existed for years and we are finding that the protein content of some grains is a primary grading factor. The United States Grain Standards Act authorizes the Federal Grain Inspection Service to work with the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the National Conference on Weights and Measures to establish performance criteria for commercial grain inspection instruments and develop a national program to approve grain inspection equipment. We look forward to working

with the Federal Grain Inspection Service, another example of partnerships for progress. There has been much discussion this week about a formal organizational structure for Metrologists with the National Conference on Weights and Measures. The Metrology laboratories are the basis for all of our weights and measures programs. I know in our State that the training of our Metrologist and Metrologist Associates

is the number one priority. Georgia Harris has filled the void by providing the support to the metrology

laboratories and maintaining the state's certification program. On behalf of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, I would like to extend my appreciation to the

task force on safety. To Chairman Charlie Gardner, L.F. Eason, Jim Harnett, Hap Thompson and Don Soberg,

the work you have accomplished will be extremely beneficial to all of us in weights and measures. We should

all become familiar with your glossary of safety key phrases. As addressed in your final report, the end result of establishing a safety program will reduce workplace injury, disability and property damage. One area I would like to see developed is to set time aside at the National Conference for jurisdictions involved

with motor fuel quality testing to discuss issues of interest. This is an item being considered by the "Blue Sky

Task Force". Perhaps a model regulatory program for petroleum testing could be developed which would be

beneficial to all regulatory agencies responsible for the quality of motor fuel and petroleum products. I have been questioned about the standards we have established for motor fuel and have heard that we have more

stringent standards than other states performing motor fuel testing. After making contact with other states, I have found that our standards are sometimes more lenient than their standards. This is why I believe there is a need for model petroleum regulation. Another special thank you goes to Peter Perino, Chairman, and the task force on Belt Conveyor Scales. I know

that in Illinois the testing criteria and procedures for use in the evaluation of belt conveyor scales have been

needed. Pete and his work group has dedicated a lot of their time in putting these standards together. Thank

you. NOW FOR THE COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS.

To the Auditing Committee, Bob Gunja from Kansas City will serve. Dean Ely from Pennsylvania will serve on the Credentials Committee. To the Resolutions Committee, Bruce Martell from Vermont will serve. The Nominating Committee will be David Smith, Chairman; Les Barrows from Missouri, Darrell Guensler

from California, Carl Conrad from New Jersey, Ray Elliott from Oklahoma, Fred Gerk from New Mexico, and

361
Jim Truex from Ohio.

The Budget Review Committee shall be myself, David Smith, Fred Gerk, Harvey Lodge, Charles Gardner and

Carroll Brickenkamp.

To the Specifications and Tolerances Committee, George Shefcheck from Oregon will serve. Lou Straub from Maryland will serve on the Laws and Regulations Committee and Tom Geiler will serve the remainder of Allan Nelson's term to the Committee.

Michelle Phillips from Indianapolis, Indiana will serve on the Committee on Education, Administration and Consumer Affairs. Jim Melgaard from South Dakota will serve on the Liaison Committee. The Chaplain will be Martin Coile from Georgia.

Gerry Hanson from California has agreed to be Assistant Treasurer. The Parliamentarian will be Clayton Davis from Maine. The Associate Membership Committee will be: Chip Kloos of Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson Foods, Chairman

Jim Schnitzler, Accurate Metering Systems, Inc., Vice-Chairman Dave Quinn, Fairbanks Scales, Secretary Tom Stabler, Toledo Scale Corp., Treasurer

Associate Committee Members: Hap Thompson, American Petroleum Institute Ray Wells, Sensitive Measurement, Inc. Richard Davis, James River Corporation

Irving Bell, Coca-Cola Company

Terry James, Cardinal/Detecto Doug Walker, Marathon Petroleum Company

Well, we are at the wind down part of the program. I have really enjoyed visiting each regional association and making new friends and renewing old acquaintances. I look forward to working with Allan Nelson, a person I have known for years and a good friend. Allan and I were both metrologists, both members of the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association for several years and most recently members on the Laws and Regulations Committee. Allan and I will be available to you. Please let us know of any ideas or suggestions which you may

have to benefit the Conference. It takes all of us to work together, as partners to continue the progress of the Conference. I would again like to personally thank David Smith for the support he has given me. Allan and

I will look to you for your guidance and assistance to provide continuity to the conference.

The 77th National Conference will be held July 19 through July 24, 1992 at the Stouffer Hotel in downtown

Nashville, Tennessee. There are many side attractions to see while in Nashville, such as the Grand Ole Opry, Riverboat cruises, a theme park and Printer's Alley. We plan to combine next year the Industry and Conference

outing together. We hope to take a riverboat ride on Wednesday evening which will include dinner and a show.

362
Also Ann Turner who has been in contact with me almost daily, has advised me that there will be tickets available to go to the 9:00 p.m. show on Saturday night at the Grand Ole Opry for those conference attendees who arrive early. Bob Williams mentioned to me that if you have not been to Nashville before, you may want

to spend a few days before or after the Conference to take in all of the sights. The interim meeting will be held again at in Bethesda, Maryland at the Hyatt Regency Hotel January 13 through

17, 1992. The room rate is $69 for a single or a double.

David, do you have anything else to say before we close or is there anyone else who wishes to address the Conference? - if not, I would like to call upon our Conference Chaplain, Dean Ely for the benediction.

I now would entertain a motion to adjourn... Then I declare the 76th National Conference on Weights and Measures adjourned. Have a safe trip home and

I hope to see each of you next year in Nashville, Tennessee.

363
Registration List for Annual Meeting

July 14 - 19, 1991

Deidre Adams 700

Staff Product Planner IBM

2020 Yonkers Road

Raleigh, NC 27604 Telephone: 919-664-5106 FAX: 919-664-5004 Michael F. Adams 11447 Manager of Technical Support

Fairbanks Scales 711 E St Johnsbury Rd

St Johnsbury, VT 05819

Telephone: 802-748-5111 x326 FAX: 802-748-5216 Peggy H. Adams 2735

Retired Consultant Box E

Bedminster, PA 18910 Telephone: 215-795-2149 FAX: 215-795-2694 James H. Akey 2414

State Metrologist WI Department of Agriculture PO Box 7883 4702 University Ave(05)

Madison, WI 53707-7883 Telephone: 608-267-3510 FAX: 608-266-1506

Frederick T. Allen, Jr. 12094 Manager, Reg Affairs (LQ27-00

Pitney Bowes, Inc. Walter Wheeler Dr

Stamford, CT 06926

Telephone: 203-925-5044 FAX: 203-925-5080 Norman A., Alston 2590 Manager, P.D. Meter Sales Daniel Flow Products Inc. 9720 Old Katy Rd., PO Box 19097 Houston, TX 77224 Telephone: 713-827-3857 FAX: 713-827-3880 Ross J. Andersen 2994

Metrologist NY State Bureau of Wts & Meas

State Campus Bldg. 7A

Albany, NY 12235 Telephone: 518^157-4781 FAX: 518^57^780

Sydney D. Andrews 41 Consultant

1133 Myers Park Dr

Tallahassee, FL 3230M525

Telephone: 904-878-3928 David L. Baird 4129

Metrologist Weights & Measures Section 2320 S Dupont Hwy

Dover, DE 19901 Telephone: 302-739^1811 x32 FAX: 302-697-6287

Tom Balmer 16260

International Dairy Foods Asso

888 16th St NW

Washington, D.C., 20006

Telephone: 202-29^4250

Jerry L. Bane 10636

Chief, Wgts. & Measures Bureau

Iowa Department of Agriculture Henry A Wallace Bldg, E 9th Des Moines, IA 50319

Telephone: 515-281-5716 FAX: 515-281-6800

Salvatore A. Barbera 287

President

Digi Matex Inc 80 Oak St Norwood, NJ 07648

Telephone: 201-784-3400 FAX: 201-784-3770

Lester H. Barrows 3926

Director Bureau of Weights & Measures PO Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

Telephone: 314-75 M316

FAX: 314-751-8307

Irving Bell 4473

Senior Executive Staff Rep

Coca-Cola Company PO Drawer 1734/One Coca-Cola Plaza

Atlanta, GA 30313

Telephone: 404-676-2623 FAX: 404-676-8265

Francis X Bellotti 22180 Attorney Mintz & Levin One Financial Centr

Boston,, MA 02170

Telephone: (617) 542-6000 Anthony F. Belmont 2547

Sealer of Weights & Measures Town of Greenwich Con Aff

101 Field Point Road

Greenwich, CT 06830

Telephone: 203-622-7713 FAX: 203-622-3767

F. Michael Belue 691

President Belue Associates PO Box 701, 2004 Liberty St Bonham, TX 75418 Telephone: 903-583-9082 Melvin Bigthumb 4248 Weights & Measures Inspector The Navajo Nation PO Box 663 Window Rock, AZ 86515 Telephone: 602-871-6714 FAX: 602-871-7381

James R Bird 82 Deputy State Supt NJ Retired 57 Bella Road

Medford, NJ 08055 Telephone: 609-267-5520 Michael Blacik 8924

Director of Wts & Meas.

State Of Minnesota

2277 Highway 36

St Paul, MN 55113

Telephone: 612-341-7200 FAX: 612-639-8537 Barbara J. Bloch 7004

Special Assistant CA Div of Measurement Standard

8500 Fmitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-366-5119 FAX: 916-366-5179 David J. Bott 3265 Manager, Technical Services ARCO Chemical Company

3801 West Chester Pike Newtown Square, PA 19073-2387 Telephone: 215-359-5730 FAX: 215-359-5753 Frank J. Bowden, Jr. 22188

Consultant %Sun Refining & Marketing Ten Penn Center 1801 Market St. Philadelphia,, PA 19103 Telephone: (215) 977-3731 FAX: (215) 977-34 Harold D. Bradshaw 2738

Inspector Weights & Measures Dept of Weights & Measures

City County Bldg, Room 314

Jeffersonville, IN 47130

Telephone: 812-283-6289 William D. Brasher 4417

Senior Quality Control Analyst Southern Co Services Inc PO Box 2625 Bin B852

Birmingham, AL 35202

Telephone: 205-877-7653 FAX: 205-877-7288 William H. Braun 2983 American Paper Institute 5743 Jeffrey Place

Fairfield, OH 45014

Telephone: 513-829-2106

Carroll S. Brickenkamp 239 Program Manager

Natl Inst of Stds & Tech A617 Admin

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Telephone: 301-975-4005 FAX: 301-926-0647

364
Robert T. Brumbaugh 297

President Systems Associates Inc 1932 Industrial Dr

Libertyville, IL 60048

Telephone: 708-367-6650 FAX: 708-367-6960 Mike Bryan 10790 C.G.O.

National Corn Growers Assn

1000 Executive Parkway-Ste 105

St Louis, MO 63141 Telephone: 314-275-9915 FAX: 314-275-7061 Dawn M. Brydon 9099

Director of Marketing

Internatl Dairy Foods Assn

888 16th St, NW

Washington, DC 20006

Telephone: 202-296^250 FAX: 202-331-7820 Mark Buccelli 8926

Weights & Measures Div

State Of Minnesota

15580 Hallmark Court Apple Valley, MN 55124

Telephone: 612-341-7200

Charles A Burns, Jr. 7575

Chief Inspector

City of Birmingham W & M

Rm 207,City Hall 710 N.20th St. Birmingham, AL 35203

Telephone: 205-254-2246 FAX: 205-254-2925

Philip S. Bush 3152

Specialist, Corp. Studies Amoco Oil Company

200 E. Randolph Drive

Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312-856-7890 Kenneth S. Butcher 2512 Weights & Measures Coordinator

Natl Inst of Stds and Tech A623 Admin, NIST

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-3991 FAX 301-926-0647 Tina Gaver Butcher 8236

Weights & Measures Coordinator

Natl Inst of Stds & Tech A617 Administration Building

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-2196 FAX: 301-926-0647

Richard Calkins 9100

Senior Metrologist & Manager

Rice Lake Weighing Systems

230 West Coleman St Rice Lake, WI 54868

Telephone: 715-234-9171 xll FAX: 715-234-6967 James H. Cammel 8385

Acting Director Dept of Agric/Wts & Measures

406 General Admin Bldg

Olympia, WA 98504

Telephone: 206-753-5042 FAX: 206-586-7029

Jeffrey D. Canfield 273

President Acme Scale & Supply Co

5401 Butler St

Pittsburgh, PA 15201 Telephone: 412-782-1808 xl FAX 412-782-2658

Charles H. Carroll 4393

Assistant Director MA Division of Standards One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108

Telephone: 617-727-3480 FAX 617-227-6094 Charles D. Carter 9838 Program Administrator W & M

Agricultural Products Division 2800 N Lincoln Blvd Oklahoma City, OK 73105-4298 Telephone: 405-521-3864 x294 FAX: 405-52M912 Max C. Casanova 362 Manager Technical Service Ramsey Technology, Inc. 501 - 90th Avenue N.W.

Minneapolis, MN 55433

Telephone: 612-783-2659 FAX: 612-780-1537 Stephen L. Casto 11187

Director Weights & Measures Division 1800 Washington St E

Charleston, WV 25305 Telephone: 304-348-7890 FAX: 304-348-3797 H. Penny Causgrove 3847

Retired Sealer of Wts & Meas

City of New Haven

18 Davis St New Haven, CT 06515 Telephone: 203-387-4913 Michael J. Cavanaugh 8878

RetiredDistrict Supervisor PA Bureau of Wts & Meas

36 Spicebush Rd

Levittown, PA 19056 Telephone: 215-945-9288 Samuel E. Chappell 10610 Standards Management

Natl Inst of Stds & Tech

Bldg 101, Room 625

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Telephone: 301-975-4024 FAX: 301-963-2871 Fred P. Clem 169 Weights & Measures Inspector

City of Columbus

50 W Gay St Columbus, OH 43215-2821 Telephone: 614-645-7397 FAX: 614-645-6675 Sidney A. Colbrook 47 W&M Program Manager

Illinois Dept of Agriculture PO 19281, 801 E Sangamon Ave

Springfield, IL 62794-9281 Telephone: 217-782-3817 FAX: 217-524^882

Camil Collard 22132 Grain Weighing Systems Inc. CDN. Grain Commission

Montreal Quebec CANADA K1A 0C9, H2Y2P5

Telephone: 514-283-8355

Carl P. Conrad, Jr. 2487

Chief Supervisor

Office of Weights & Measures

1261 U.S. Rte 1 & 9 South

Avenel, NJ 07001 Telephone: 908-815-4840 FAX: 908-382-5298 Archie Corbitt 22153

Chief Inspector Weights and Measures

Goldern Rock Shopping Center

Christiansted-St. Cro, VI 00820 Telephone:

William Corey 16318 American Frozen Foods

355 Benton St

Stratford, CT 06497

Telephone: 203-386-8605 William J. Corey, Jr. 16337

Secretary American Frozen Foods, Inc. 355 Benton Street

Stratford, CT 06497

Telephone: 203-378-7900 FAX: 203-386-8676 Constantine V. Cotsoradis 8232 Program Manager W&M Sect MD Dept of Agric 50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: 301-841-5790 FAX: 301-841-2765 Richard D. Cunningham 150

Inspector Weights & Measures Huron County

2 East Main

Norwalk, OH 44857

Telephone: 419-668-8643 A.R Daniels 343

Director Industry Stds & Rel NCR Corp

1700 S Patterson Blvd WHQ-5

Dayton, OH 45479

Telephone: 513-445-1310 FAX: 513-445-1418

Jeffrey B. Davies 7046

Product Manager-Weighing Sys. Saratec Traffic Group

820 Lafayette Rd

Hampton, NH 03842

Telephone: 603-926-1986 FAX: 603-926-7415 Gerald E. Davis 968 System Supvr Scale Insp

Conrail 6 Penn Center Plaza Room 1634

Philadelphia, PA 19103-2959 Telephone: 215-977-1617

365
Richard L. Davis 3806 Manager Product Compliance James River Corporation

1915 Marathon Ave. P.O. Box 899 Neenah, WI 54956-0899 Telephone: 414-729-8174 FAX: 414-729-8089 Lacy H. DeGrange 27

Retired Chief, W&M Section MD Dept of Agriculture 7123 E. Bradshaw Court

Frederick, MD 21701 Telephone: 301-841-5790 FAX: 301-841-5999 Mike Deisley 4428

Agric Program Supervisor Nebraska Weights & Measures PO Box 94757

Lincoln, NE 68509

Telephone: 4024714292 FAX: 402471-3252 G.W. (Wes) Diggs 9034

Superv, VA Weights & Measures VA Weights & Measures PO Box 1163 Room 402 Richmond, VA 23209

Telephone: 804-786-2476 FAX: 804-786-1571 David Dikken 13899

Metrologist MN Weights & Measures

2277 Hwy 36

Roseville, MN 55113

Telephone: 612-341-7200 Loren Dobyns 12941 Manager Plant & Electrical Thunder Basin Coal Co PO Box 406

Wright, WY 82732 Telephone: 307-939-1300 FAX: 307-939-1300 Louis D. Draghetti 2673

Inspector of Wts & Meas Town of Agawam

36 Main St Town Hall Agawam, MA 01001 Telephone: 413-786-0400 x232 FAX: 413-786-9927 Dennis Druzsba 14361

Assistant Superintendent Middlesex County Wts & Meas

149 Kearny Avenue

Perth Amboy, NJ 08861 Telephone: 201-324-4610 FAX: 201-324-4608 Andrew Dudiak 22159 Manager Product Marketing

7070 Winchester Circle Boulder, CO 80302

Telephone: 303-530-8545 FAX: 303-530-8418 Michael Dynia 7196

Metrologist Weights & Measures Rm G-17 St Off Bl, 165 Capitol Hartford, CT 06106

Telephone: 203-566-5230 FAX: 203-566-7630

L.F. Eason 3886

Metrologist NC Dept of Agric Standards Division PO Box 27647, Dept. SD

Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: 919-7334411 FAX: 919-733-0999

Steve K. Eckhardt 10643 Product/Market Manager

Micro Motion Inc 196 South Brown Road

Long Lake, MN 55356-9407 Telephone: 612475-0067 FAX: 612-832-5316 David E. Edgerly 2999

Acting Depty Dir/Tech Serv

Natl Inst of Stds & Tech

Bldg 221 Room A363

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Telephone: 301-9754500 FAX: 301-975-2183 John J. Elengo, Jr. 440 VP Engr, Wallinford Operations Revere Transducers Inc PO Box 5041

Wallingford, CT 06492

Telephone: 203-284-5102 FAX: 203-284-5142 Dean F. Ely 9648

District Supervisor PA Dept of Agriculture 332 Washington Ave.

Jersey Shore, PA 17740 Telephone: 717-327-3560

Joycelyn Encarnacion 12545

Division of Weights & Measures Dept of Licensing & Con Aff Golden Rock Shopping Center

Christiansted-St.Croix, VI 00820 Telephone: 809-773-2226 Larry J. Enfield 15874

Director Quality Control General Mills Inc. Number One General Mills Blvd

Minneapolis, MN 55440

Telephone: 612-540-2729 FAX: 612-540-7611 David C. English 2153

President Measurement Systems Intl 14240 Interurban Ave, S

Seattle, WA 981684660

Telephone: 206433-0199 FAX: 206-244-8470 James H. Eskew 3435

Chief Metrologist TX Dept of Agriculture 119 Cumberland Rd

Austin, TX 78704 Telephone: 512462-1441

Sy Feinland 7048 SMTS

Pitney Bowes, Inc. Parrot Dr

Shelton, CT 06484 Telephone: 203-925-5211 FAX: 203-925-5333

James Floyd 12946

Director Tech Services

Sartorius Corporation

140 Wilbur Place Bohemia, NY 11716 Telephone: 800-645-3108 FAX: 800-344-2068 Robert L. Fonger 3919

Senior Field Representative Bennett Pump Co PO Box 597 Muskegon, MI 49445

Telephone: 616-733-1302 FAX: 616-739-8832 Cleveland C. Forde 9841

Director Monroe Dept Weights & Measures

1157 Scottsville Rd

Rochester, NY 14624 Telephone: 716436-1330 Ken L. Fraley 4148

Metrologist Lab Div Bur of Standards 2800 N Lincoln Blvd Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Telephone: 405-521-3864 x370 FAX: 405-5214912 George S. Franks 144 Retired County Superintendent Dept Wts & Meas & Cons Prot 1142 E. Landis Avenue

Vineland, NJ 08360

Telephone: 609453-2203 FAX: 609453-2206 Bob Fuehne 10443

Quality Assurance Specialist Ralston Purina Co

Checkerboard Square - 4RN

St Louis, MO 63164

Telephone: 314-982-2916 FAX: 314-9824072

Carol P. Fulmer 4463

Assistant Commissioner SC Dept of Agriculture PO Box 11280 Columbia, SC 29211 Telephone: 803-737-2080 FAX: 803-737-2068 Frank R Gamba 6067

Actin Super./Wgts. & Meas. Cumberland County

788 E Commerce St Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Telephone: 609453-2203 FAX: 609453-2206

Charles A. Gardner 3438

Director Wts & Measures

Suffolk County Consumer Affair County Ctr/N Bldg 340 Hauppauge, NY 11788 Telephone: 516-8534621 FAX: 516-360-7470

366
Charles H. Gardner 9660

President Seraphin Test Measure

30 Indcl Ave

Rancocas, NJ 08073

Telephone: 609-267-0922 FAX: 609-261-2546 Thomas F. Geiler 219

Director, Consumer Affairs Town of Barnstable 230 South St., P.O. Box 2430

Hyannis, MA 02601

Telephone: 508-790-6251 FAX: 508-790-6454

Maxwell H. Gray 7991 Chief Bureau of W&M

FL Dept of Agric/Consumer Serv

3125 Conner Blvd

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650 Telephone: 904-488-9140 FAX: 904-922-6655 Richard D. Greek 2875

Agri Commissioner/Sealer San Luis Obispo County

2156 Sierra Way Suite D

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Telephone: 805-549-5910 FAX: 805-549-5911

Melvin C. Hankel 9094 Manager of Mechanical Engr

Liquid Controls Corporation Wacker Park North Chicago, IL 60064-3599 Telephone: 708-689-7302 FAX: 708-689-0330 Gerald W. Hanson 116

Director San Bernardino County Wts/Meas

777 E Rialto Ave

San Bernardino, CA 92415-0790 Telephone: 714-387-2136 FAX: 714-387-2143 William G. GeMciner 562 Manager-Weights and Measures

Chicago & North Western RR

165 N Canal Street Chicago, IL 60606

Telephone: 312-559-6133 FAX 312-559-7185

Victor L. Gerber 2455

Metrologist Wyoming Dept of Agriculture 2219 Carey Avenue

Cheyenne, WY 82002-0100 Telephone: 307-777-7324 Fred A Gerk 63 Dir Div Stds & Consumer Svcs NM Dept of Agriculture PO Box 30005, Dept. 3170 LasCruces, NM 88003-0005 Telephone: 505-646-1616 FAX: 505-646-3303 Joesph A. Giannina 3905 Manager Bulk Terminal

Port of Corpus Christi Auth PO Box 1541 Corpus Christi, TX 78403

Telephone: 512-883-1162 FAX: 512-883-1652

Charles H. Greene, Ph.D. 64

Retired Division Director NM Dept of Agriculture 840 Camino Del Rex

Las Cruces, NM 88001 Telephone: 505-523-0730 Terry L. Grimes 6275

Secretary

Natl Inst of Stds & Tech A617 Admin Bldg

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Telephone: 301-975^027 FAX: 301-926-0647 Christopher B. Guay 13666 Regulatory Affairs Procter & Gamble

11511 Reed Hartman Highway

Cincinnati, OH 45240

Telephone: 513-626-2222 FAX: 513-626-2407

Darrell A. Guensler 38

Assistant Director CA Measurement Standards 8500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826 Telephone: 916-366-5119 FAX: 916-366-5179

James D. Harnett 7774

Agricultural Commissioner Dept of Weights & Measures

1010 S Harbor Blvd Anaheim, CA 92805-5597 Telephone: 71^447-7100 FAX: 714-774-2741 Georgia Harris 9324

Metrologist, Office Wts & Meas

Natl Inst Stds & Tech A617 Admin Bldg

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4004 FAX: 301-926-0647

Ivan E. Headley 147 Chief Inspector Monroe Cnty Weights & Measures

119 W 7th St, c/o County Health Bid Bloomington, IN 47404

Telephone: 812-333-3566 Thomas J. Healy 16522

Servie Manager

Thayer Scale-Div. Hyer Ind Inc P.O. Box 669 Pembroke, MA 02359

Telephone: 617-826-8101 x320 FAX: 617-826-7944 Dennis B. Giovacco 22184 Colorado Prime Inc. One Michael Ave.

Farmingdale,, NY 11735 Telephone: (516) 694-1111

Carole Glade 22176

Nat. Coalition for Cons.Ed.

434 Main Street, Suite 201 Chatham, NJ 07928

Telephone: 619-694-2778 FAX: 619-565-7046

William V. Goodpaster 1607

Vice President Cardinal/ Detecto

1610 North C St Sacramento, CA 95814

Telephone: 916-441-0178 FAX: 916-441-5606 John Gould 15317 American Meat Institute 1700 N Moore St Room 1600

Arlington, VA 22209

Telephone: 703-841-2400 FAX: 703-527-0938

Robert Gunja 9956

Standards Administrator Kansas City, KS Wgts & Measure

701 North 7th St Kansas City, KS 66101 Telephone: 913-573-5080 FAX: 913-573-5005

Paul Hadyka 9402

Industrial Specialist USDA/FGIS Room 0623-S PO Box 96454 1400 Ind. Ave

Washington, DC 20250-6454 Telephone: 202-382-0262 FAX: 202-447-4628 Edwin M. Hanish 109

Inspector Laporte County

Indiana Weights & Measures

2700 Franklin St Michigan City, IN 46360

Telephone: 219-874-7197

David K Heck 11242

Coordinator-Policy Developemen

Chevron Corporation

575 Market St, Room 966 San Francisco, CA 94105-2856 Telephone: 415-894-0910 FAX: 415-894-8468 Edward C. Heffron, D.V.M. 2452

Director, Food Division MI Dept of Agriculture P.O. Box 30017

Lansing, MI 48909

Telephone: 517-373-1060 FAX: 517-373-9146 Bruce W. Heine 3162

Ethanol Sales Manager New Energy

P.O. Box 2289 South Bend, IN 46680

Telephone: 219-233-3116 FAX: 219-232-1876

367
Sid Hejzlar 4201

Vice President Engineering John Chatillon & Sons Inc 83-30 Kew Gardens Rd Kew Gardens, NY 11415 Telephone: 718-847-5000 FAX: 718^41-4365

Frances P. Holland 15654

Authorities & Stan. Administra Schlumberger Technologies

3601 Koppens Way

Chesapeake, VA 23323 Telephone: 804-36^4400 FAX: 804-487-7350

Ted F. Johnson

Director of Marketing

Sensortronics Inc 677 Arrow Grand Circle Covina, CA 91722 Telephone: 818-331-0502 FAX: 818-332-3418

9899

Raymond H. Helmick

Director

State of AZ Dept of W&M

1951 W North Lane

Phoenix, AZ 85021 Telephone: 602-255-5211 FAX: 602-255-1950

10130 Monty H. Hopper

Director Dept. Of Weights & Measures

1116 E. California Avenue

Bakersfield, CA 93307

Telephone: 805-861-2418 FAX: 805-324-0668

11132 Debbie A. Joines 11709

Sr. Design Engineer Wayne Div-Dresser Industries 124 W. College Ave, P.O. Box 1859

Salisbury, MD 21802 Telephone: 301-546-6699 FAX: 301-548-6913 Michael G. Hendricks 14360

Superintendent Middlesex County Wts & Meas

149 Kearny Avenue

Perth Amboy, NJ 08861 Telephone: 201-324-4610 FAX: 201-324^608

Marilyn J. Herman 9091

President Herman & Associates 2300 M St, NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20037

Telephone: 202-775-1630 FAX: 202-293-3083 Mary M. Heslin 9110 Commissioner CT Dept. Consumer Protection

St Office Bldg 165 Capitol Ave

Hartford, CT 06106

Telephone: 203-56^4999 FAX: 203-566-7630 Sam F. Hindsman 45

Director Arkansas Bureau of Standards 4608 W 61st St

Little Rock, AR 72209

Telephone: 501-562-7605 FAX: 501-562-7605 Donald J. Hine 3448

(Retired) AEM Corp

452 W Tenth St

Elyria, OH 44035

Telephone: 216-323-2041 Herman R Hochstetler 5855

Inspector Elkhart County Weights & Meas

117 N 2nd Room 107 Goshen, IN 46526-3231 Telephone: 219-534-3541 x319 FAX: 219-533^1431 Lee Hock

Manager Field Services BP Oil Co

4850 E 49th St Cleveland, OH 44125

Telephone: 216-271-8211 FAX: 216-271-8717

6238

Richard M. Huff 10608 Vice President Electronics Universal Epsco Inc 1494 Ellsworth Ind Dr/Bx 93544

Atlanta, GA 30318 Telephone: 404-351-2740 FAX: 404-351-2899 Terry Jaffoni 22185

Sales & Marketing Rep.

Cargill 2330 Buoy Street Memphis,, TN 38113 Telephone: (901) 775-5800 W. Terry James 3099

Vice Pres Engineering Services Cardinal/Detecto

203 E Daugherty PO Box 151 Webb City, MO 64870 Telephone: 417-67^4631 FAX: 417-673-5001

Jack Y. Jeffries 2199

Supervisor

Division of Standards 7810 Alafia Dr

Riverview, FL 33569

Telephone: 904-487-2634 FAX: 813-272-2287 Glen H. Jex 7260

Chief Bureau of Weights & Measures

2216 Kellogg Lane

Boise, ID 83712 Telephone: 208-334-2345 FAX: 208-334-2170 Mark R Joelson 4238

General Counsel Morgan Lewis & Bockius

1800 M St, NW

Washington, DC 20036 Telephone: 202^67-7240 FAX: 202-467-7176 Gordon W. Johnson 3351 Regulatory Engineer

Gilbarco, Inc. 7300 W. Friendly Avenue

Greensboro, NC 27420 Telephone: 919-547-5375 FAX: 919-292-8871

Walter Junkins 12589 1309 Strafford Road Camp Hill, PA 17011 Telephone: 717-761-0342 FAX: 717-795-8842 Raymond Kalentkowski 7243

Supervisor Weights & Measures Division

State Office Bldg/Cons Prot

Hartford, CT 06106 Telephone: 203-566-4778 FAX: 203-566-7630 Ray Kammer 22178 Deputy Director

Natl Inst of Stds and Tech

11th Floor, Admin Bldg

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-2300

Gene I. Katz 1069

Vice President Weigh-Tronix, Inc. Po Box 1501 2320 Airport Blvd

Santa Rosa, CA 95402 Telephone: 707-527-5555 x303 FAX: 707-579-0180 Joseph T. Keenen 2968

E.C. Operations Manager

E. W. Saybolt, Inc. 400 Swenson Drive

Kenilworth, NJ 07033

Telephone: 908-245-3100 Michael J. Keilty 11672 Product Mgr-Custody Transfer Micro Motion Inc 9170 Washington Blvd. Beaumont,, TX 77707

Telephone: 409-727-0776 FAX: 303-530-8418 Richard Kelley 13790 Mobil Chemical Co Plastics Pkg

729 Pittsford-Palmyra Road

Macedon, NY 14502-0798 Telephone: 315-986-5350 FAX: 315-986-5033 Thomas W. Kelly Director (Retired) NJ Food Council 737 Evergreen Parkway

Union, NJ 07083

Telephone: 609-392-8899

5892

368
Thomas Kiley 3159

Counsel American Frozen Foods

Suite 820, 1 International Place Boston, MA 02110

Telephone: 617-439-7775 FAX: 617-330-8774 Thomas R Kiley 22181 Attorney Regulatory Counsel American Frozen Foods

Suite 820 One International Place

Boston,, MA 02169

Telephone: (617) 439-7775 Mark Kline 9219 Troemner Inc 6825 Greenway Ave

Philadelphia, PA 19142 Telephone: 215-724-0800 FAX: 215-724-9663 Chip Kloos 3453 Lab Manager-R & D

Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson Foods

1645 W Valencia Dr

Fullerton, CA 92633-3899 Telephone: 714-680-1098 xl098 FAX: 714^49-5166

Kenneth J. Knapp 11120

Product Engineering Manager

Milltronics Inc 709 Stadium Drive, East

Arlington, TX 76006

Telephone: 817-277-3543 xl91 FAX: 817-277-3894 Joan A. Koenig 9036 Weights & Measures Coordinator

Natl Inst of Stds & Tech Admin 101, Rm A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975^007 FAX: 301-926-0647

Curtiss R Kunkel 12862

Senior Engineer Emark Corp

6255 Ferris Square

San Diego, CA 92121 Telephone: 619^157-1180 x312 Walter E. Kupper 3930

Director Tech & Reg Affairs Mettler Instrument Corp

Princeton-Hightstown Rd.-PO Box 71 Hightstown, NJ 08520-0071 Telephone: 800-638-8537 x8861 FAX: 609-443-5972 Dan Kushnir 9902

Sales Manager

Seraphin Test Measure

30 Indel Ave

Rancocas, NJ 08073

Telephone: 609-267-0922 FAX: 609-261-2546 John T. Lacy 246

Chief Scales & Weighing Branch USDA Packers & Stockyards Adm

3414 S 14th & Independence Ave

Washington, DC 20250

Telephone: 202^47-3140

William Lagemann 7976

Administrator Wgts.& Measures

State Of Delaware

2320 S Dupont Hwy

Dover, DE 19901 Telephone: 302-739-4811 x37 FAX: 302-^97-6287 Robert L. Land 187

Inspector of City Anderson Dept of Weights & Measures PO Box 2100, 120 E 8th St Anderson, IN 46011 Telephone: 317-646-9839 FAX: 317-646-5668 Edward G. Levers 12598

Retired Superintendant Union County

629 Norwood Terrace

Elizabeth, NJ 07202

Telephone: 908-352-8331

Raymond J. Lloyd 7

Executive Director

Scale Manufacturers Assn

932 Hungerford Dr #36

Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: 301-738-2448 FAX: 301-738-0076 Harvey M. Lodge 355 Dunbar Manufacturing Inc 307 Broadway

Swanton, OH 43558

Telephone: 419-825-2331 FAX: 419-826-8439

Elizabeth Loveless 11655

Secretary

Natl Inst of Stds & Tech A617 Admin

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Telephone: 301-975^004 FAX: 301-926-0647

Forrest Joe Loyd, Jr. 9086

Engineer-Scales & Weighing CSX Transportation Inc 500 Water St, Room 907

Jacksonville, FL 32202 Telephone: 904-359-1024 FAX: 904-359-7476 David Lunceford 94 Northeast Regional Mgr SGS Control Services, Inc. 20 Lafayette St Carteret, NJ 07008 Telephone: 201-541-7200 FAX: 201-541-1336 Melvin L. Lyons 8632

Asst Director LA Wts & Measure LA Dept of Agri and Forestry 5825 Florida Blvd. Baton Rouge, LA 70806

Telephone: 504-925-3780 FAX: 504-922-1289

Clement Magras 19419 Commissioner

Lie. & Cons Aff Prop & Proc Bl #1 Subbase Room 205

St. Thomas, VI 00820

Telephone: 809-774-3130 James E. Maka 8069

Administrator Div Of Measurement Standards

725 Halo St Honolulu, HI 96813-5524 Telephone: 808-548-7152 FAX: 808-548-7269 Steven A. Malone 554

Director Weights & Measures Division Box 94757/301 Centennial Mall South

Lincoln, NE 68509

Telephone: 402^7M292

FAX: 402-471-3252 Renald Marceau 10211 Program Officer Consumer & Corporate Affairs 207 Queen St, Ottawa CANADA K1A 0C9, 026

Telephone: 613-952-2629 FAX: 613-952-1736

Patrick Marino 9366

Technical Service Manager New Brunswick Intematl Inc 76 Veronica Ave

Somerset, NJ 08873

Telephone: 201-828-3633 FAX: 201-828^884 Glen R Marshall 10444

Staff Engineer

Shell Oil Co

777 Walker - TSP1 130 Houston, TX 77002 Telephone: 713-241-1452 FAX: 713-241-7166 Bruce Martell 10126

Supervisor, Cons. Assur. Div. Vermont Dept of Agriculture 116 State Street SOB

Montpelier, VT 05602

Telephone: 802-828-2436 FAX: 802-828-2361 Keith E. Masser 22183

President PA Cooperative Potato Growers Box 210

Harrisburg,, PA 17968 Telephone: (717) 682-3709 Vernon Lee Massey 3634

Sealer Shelby County Government

157 Poplar Suite 402 Memphis, TN 38103

Telephone: 901-576-3920 FAX: 901-576-37% Lynda Agresti Maurer 32

Supervising Metrologist Dept of Labor/Mercantile Div

220 Elmwood Road

Providence, RI 02907

Telephone: 40M57-1867 FAX: 401-457-1830

369
Robert McCarty 11686 Systems Engineer-Industry Stds NCR Corp PO Box 728, 800 Cochran Ave

Cambridge, OH 43725-0728 Telephone: 614-439-0579 FAX: 614^39-0226

Charles W. Moore 2739 County Inspector Madison County Wghts. & Meas.

Govt. Center,16 E 9th St. Box 15 Anderson, IN 460161

Telephone: 317-641-9662 FAX: 317-641-9486

Oral "Pete" R O'Bryan 2595 QA. Supervisor Foster Farms PO Box 457

Livingston, CA 95334-9900 Telephone: 209-394-7901 x4119 FAX: 209-394-6902 Thomas B. McDonald 12456 Manager Resale Facilities Eng. Mobil Oil Corp

3225 Gallows Road

Fairfax, VA 22037

Telephone: 703-849-5320 FAX: 703-849-5074 William J. McHale 645 Vice President Kanawha Scales & Systems PO Box 569

Poca, WV 25159

Telephone: 304-755-8321 FAX: 304-755-3327 John R McPherson 9392

Senior Staff Engineer Exxon Co USA

PO Box 4415, 1200 Smith St Houston, TX 77210

Telephone: 713-656-7757 FAX: 713-656-6272 James Melgaard 39

Director Div Commercial Insp & Reg

118 West Capitol

Pierre, SD 57501-2080 Telephone: 605-773-3697 FAX: 605-773-4117 Joan Mindte 12500

Training Coordinator

Natl Inst of Stds & Tech A609 Admin

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4003 FAX: 301-926-0647 Daniel H. Moenter 11212 Manager, Government Affairs Marathon Oil Company

539 South Main Street

Findlay, OH 45840

Telephone: 419-121-3756 FAX: 419^2M255

Marvin D. Moist 16512

President Revere Transducers, Inc. 14030 Bolsa Lane

Cerritos, CA 90701 Telephone: 714-739-1991 FAX: 714-522-0931 Kelleen K. Moody 10960 Lab Equip. Technician AZ Dept of Weights & Measures

1951 W North Lane

Phoenix, AZ 85021 Telephone: 602-255-5211 FAX: 602-255-1950

Louis G. Moreno 22182

Director Cumberland Co. W & M Cons Prot 788 East Commerce St. Bridgeton,, NJ 08302 Telephone: (609) 453-2204 FAX: (609)453-22

Paul W. Mueller, Jr. 21806 Manager, Qual. Engr. & Sys.Dev HJ. Heinz Company

1062 Progress Street Pittsburgh, PA 15022 Telephone: 412-237-5474 Ronald D. Murdock 8366 Program Manager, Measure.Sect. NC Dept. of Agri.-Stds. Div. PO Box 27647, Dept. SD

Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: 919-733-3313 Emmett Murphy 6208

Chief

Philadelphia Wts & Meas

1600 Arch St., Cigna Bldg. 9th Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-686-5159 FAX: 215-561-0374 Larry Murray 5879

Chief Engineer Wayne Div-Dresser Industries 124 W College Ave PO Box 1859

Salisbury, MD 21802 Telephone: 301-546-6690 FAX: 301-548-6913 Allan M. Nelson 2515

Director Weights & Measures Dept of Consumer Protection 165 Capitol Ave, Room G17

Hartford, CT 06106

Telephone: 203-566-4778 FAX: 203-566-7630

Karl Newell 9879

Office of Weights & Measures

Natl Inst of Stds & Tech Admin 101, Rm A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975^013 FAX: 301-926-0647

Patrick E. Nichols 110

Director Weights & Measures Dept of Weights & Measures

333 Fifth Street Oakland, CA 94607-4107 Telephone: 415-268-7287 FAX: 415-444-3879 James Noone 9303 Enforcement Supervisor Bureau Of Weights & Measures

1600 Arch St., Cigna Bldg. 9th Fl. Philadelphia, PA 19103 Telephone: 215-686-5156 FAX: 215-561-0374

Henry V. Oppermann 3389 General Physical Scientist Natl Inst of Stds & Tech Admin 101, Rm A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4008 FAX: 301-926-0647 Anthony Padilla 16344

Scale Equipment Specialist ADOT Equipment Services 2225 S 22nd Ave

Phoenix, AZ 85009

Telephone: 602-255-8399 FAX: 602-258-5193

Victor L. Page 3904

Supervisor, Weights & Measures KY Dept of Agric Wts & Meas

106 West 2nd St Frankfort, KY 40601

Telephone: 502-564-4870 FAX: 502-564-5669 James E. Peeples 7505

Director Legislative Affairs Information Resources Inc 499 S. Capitol St Suite 400

Washington, DC 20003

Telephone: 202-554-0614

Peter Perino 3894

Consultant Revere Transducers Inc 681 Nacimiento Lake Dr. Paso Robles, CA 93446

Telephone: 805-239-8024 DeVern H. Phillips 10619

State Sealer Kansas Weights & Measures

2016 SW 37th St Topeka, KS 66611-2570 Telephone: 913-267-4641 FAX: 913-296-2247 Gordon Phillips 11155

President Seedburo Equip Co

1022 W Jackson Blvd

Chicago, IL 60607-2990 Telephone: 312-738-3700 FAX: 312-738-5329

Michelle I. Phillip 9076

Assistant Administrator Dept of Weights & Measures

200 E Washington St. Ste 1760

Indianapolis, IN 46204-3325 Telephone: 317-236-4272 Richard Pierce 13794 Ag Engr, Type Approval Group USDA FGIS

Box 20285 Kansas City, MO 64195 Telephone: 816-891-8553

370
Cathryn F. Pittman 2403

Technologist TN Department of Agriculture PO Box 40627 Melrose Station

Nashville, TN 37204

Telephone: 615-360-0159 Alan Porter 8752

Technical Unit Supervisor Wisconsin Dept of Agriculture 801 W Badger Rd, Box 8911 Madison, WI 53708

Telephone: 608-266-7244 FAX: 608-266-1300 Edwin J. Price 2434 Enforcement Coordinator Dept of Agriculture PO Box 12847

Austin, TX 78711 Telephone: 512463-7607 FAX: 512475-1618

David W. Quinn 11509

Product Manager

Fairbanks Scales 69th Ave Industrial Park

Meridian, MS 39307

Telephone: 6014834311 FAX: 601-4834311

Robert R Rail 3144 Manager of Operations Texaco Refining and Marketing

1111 Bagby St. Houston, TX 77002

Telephone: 713-752-6769 FAX 713-752-6894 James Reid 13763

Production Specialist Duke Power Co

13339 Hagers Ferry Road

Huntersville, NC 28078

Telephone: 704-875-5798 FAX: 704-875-5509 Robert A. Reinfried 9388

Technical Assistant

Scale Manufacturers Assn

932 Hungerford Dr, #36

Rockville, MD 20850

Telephone: 301-738-2448 FAX 301-738-0076 Robert E. Reynolds 10653

President

i Downstream Alternatives Inc 2982 Dogwood Court Bremen, IN 46506

Telephone: 219-5464204 FAX: 219-546-5845 Sharon Rhoades 8157

Administrator

Division of Weights & Measures

1330 W Michigan St, Rm 136N

Indianapolis, IN 46202

Telephone: 317-633-0350 FAX: 317-633-0776

Lyn A. Rhodes 2598 Manager of Quality Control

Foster Farms

843 Davis Street, PO Box 457

Livingston, CA 95334 Telephone: 209-394-7901 x4348 FAX: 209-394-7901 Marsha L. Richardson 11136

Inspector Gibson County Wts & Meas

Courthouse Annex, 800 S Prince St Princeton, IN 47670

Telephone: 812-385-2426 Richard L. Rightmyer 11075

Senior Staff Engineer VA Power PO Box 26666 Richmond, VA 23261 Telephone: 804-771-3862 FAX 804-771-3166

Curtis Roberts 11117

Director Weights & Measures Division

State Capitol Bismarck, ND 58505 Telephone: 701-224-2400 FAX: 701-224-2410 John J. Robinson 743

Sr. Assistant Vice President Assn of American Railroads 50 F St NW

Washington, DC 20001 Telephone: 202-639-2204 FAX: 202-639-2930 Dennis E. Rogers 3151

Supv. - Elect. Systems Arco Products Company

8601 S. Garfield Ave. South Gate, CA 90280

Telephone: 213-8064172 FAX: 213-928-8691 Ronald R Roof 6200

Assistant Director Pa Bureau Of Weights & Measure

777 Blanchard Avenue

Chambersburg, PA 17201 Telephone: 717-787-9089 FAX: 717-772-2780 Terry Rosfelder 9078 Manager of Engineering Project Sun Refining & Marketing Co

1801 Market Street 21st Floor

Philadelphia, PA 19103-1699 Telephone: 215-977-6502 FAX: 215-246-8098 Joseph Rothleder 3495

Principal State Metrologist CA Div of Measurement Standard

8500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

Telephone: 916-366-5119 FAX: 916-366-5179 Joseph E. Ryan 12609

115 Roslyn Avenue North

North Cape May, NJ 08204 Telephone: 609-889-0179

Albert E. Salerno 12232

President Syracuse Scale Co Inc 158 Solar St Syracruse, NY 13204 Telephone: 315476-9696 FAX: 315476-3743 James Schnitzler 10871 Gen Mgr Milk Receiving Sym

Accurate Metering Systems Inc 1651 Wilkening Court Schaumburg, IL 60173

Telephone: 708-882-0690 FAX: 708-882-2695 Holger Schulz 22128 Southern Regional Service Mgr

Sartorius Corporation

140 Wilbur Place Bohemia, NY 11716 Telephone: 800-645-3108 FAX: 800-344-2068 Richard L. Seitz 1032 Manager Mech Petro Engr

Veeder-Root Co

125 Powder Forest Dr, POB 2003

Simsbury, CT 06070-2003 Telephone: 203-651-2722 FAX: 203-651-2719 Jack H. Senter 21729 Truckstop Relations Director CAT Scale Company

P.O. Box 630

Walcott, IA 52773

Telephone: 319-284-6263 George S. Shefcheck 6241

Asst Admin Measmt Stds Div Oregon Dept of Agriculture 635 Capitol St NE

Salem, OR 97310-0010 Telephone: 503-378-3792 FAX: 503-378-6525 Joseph Silvestro 2809

Superintendent

Gloucester Co Wts & Meas Dept

49 Wood St County Bldg Woodbury, NJ 08096

Telephone: 609-853-3358 FAX: 609-853-2770 Kendrick J. Simila 2510

Administrator Measmt Stds Div Oregon Dept of Agriculture 635 Capitol St, NE

Salem, OR 97310-0110 Telephone: 503-378-3792 FAX: 503-378-6525 John C. Skuce 10442 Manager Mechanical Engineering Smith Meter Inc 1602 Wagner Ave-PO Box 10428

Erie, PA 16514 Telephone: 814-898-5405 FAX: 814-899-8927 David Smith 17187 Hi-Tech Scale Company

3014 N. 50th Drive

Phoenix, AZ 85031-3502 Telephone: 602-867-3834

371
Douglas C. Smith 262

Technical Services Rep

William M Wilsons Sons Inc

8th St & Valley Forge Rd

Lansdale, PA 19446-0309 Telephone: 215-361-5236 FAX: 215-855-0341

N. David Smith 2391

Director Standards Division NC Dept of Agriculture PO Box 27647, Dept SD

Raleigh, NC 27611 Telephone: 919-733-3313 FAX: 919-733-0999 Richard N. Smith 237

Retired Tech Coordinator

Natl Institute of Std & Tech

1003 Windemere Rd

Inwood, WV 25428

Telephone: 304-229-5964 Robert A. Smoot 10657

Dir. Weights & Measures Utah Dept of Agriculture 350 North Redwood Rd

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

Telephone: 801-538-7158 FAX: 801-538-7126 Louis F. Sokol 1021

President Emeritus and Editor US Metric Association 255 Mountain Meadows Rd

Boulder, CO 80302-9256 Telephone: 303-443-9728 Edward C. Squire 15310

Sales & Business Develop. Mgr.

E. I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. C&P Dept B16226

Wilmington, DE 19898 Telephone: 302-774-1946 exl946 FAX: 302-774-5205 Thomas M. Stabler 3119 Manager-Weights & Measures

Toledo Scale Corporation PO Box 1705 Columbus, OH 43216

Telephone: 614-4384548 FAX: 614-4384646 Don E. Stagg 3317

Director Weights & Measures Division PO Box 3336 Montgomery, AL 36109-0336 Telephone: 205-242-2613 or 2614 FAX: 205-240-3135 Ernest J. Stebbins 21827

Executive Manager

Nat'l Hardwood Lumber Assn

6830 Raleigh-Lagrange Rd

Memphis, TN 38184-0518 Telephone: 901-377-1818 FAX: 901-382-6419 Louis E. Straub 6248 Program Manager

Weights & Measures Section 50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401 Telephone: 301-841-5790 FAX: 301-841-5999

Chuck Strawn 22148 Petroleum Market Manager

Micro Motion, Inc. 7070 Winchester Circle Boulder, CO 80005 Telephone: 303-530-8506 FAX: 303-530-8118 Richard C. Suiter 2368

Agric. Inspec. Supervisor Nebraska Weights & Measures PO Box 94757

Lincoln, NE 68509 Telephone: 4024714292 FAX: 402471-3252

Chester Szyndrowski 10302

Inspector Weights & Measures

City of East Chicago

1102 W 151 Street East Chicago, IN 46312

Telephone: 219-397-3409 Albert D. Tholen 232

Chief Off of Weights & Measure

Natl Inst of Stds & Tech Admin 101, Rm A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-9754009 FAX: 301-926-0647 Aves D. Thompson 10201 Chief Div of Measurement Standards

12050 Industry Way

Anchorage, AK 99515 Telephone: 907-345-7750 FAX: 907-345-2641 EA. Hap Thompson 715 Marketing Dept. Senior Assoc. American Petroleum Institute 1220 L Street NW

Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: 202-682-8230 FAX: 202-682-8222

Merrill S. Thompson 590 Arnold & Porter

P.O. Box 8500

Bridgeton, IN 47836

Telephone: 317-548-2211 FAX: 317-548-2214 Kathleen A. Thuner 5869

Agric Comm Sealer Wts & Meas

Dept of Agric Wts & Meas

5555 Overland Ave, Bldg 3 San Diego, CA 92123-1292 Telephone: 619-694-2741 FAX: 619-565-7046 Walter Tkachuk 7543

Consultant

Shell Oil Co

17919 Fireside Dr

Spring, TX 77379 Telephone: 713-251-0327 Guy J. Tommasi 214

Sealer of Weights & Measures

City of Middletown

P. O. Box 1300 Middletown, CT 06457

Telephone: 203-344-3492 x492 FAX: 203-344-0136

Daryl E. Tonini 1336

Technical Director

Scale Manufacturers Assn

932 Hungerford Dr, #36

Rockville, MD 20850 Telephone: 301-738-2448 FAX: 301-738-0076

Jose A. Torres-Ferrer 11193 Metrologist/W&M Supervisor Department of Consumer Affairs PO Box 41059 Minillas Station Santurce, PR 00940-1059 Telephone: 809-721-1930 FAX: 809-726-6570 Jonas E. Townsend, Jr. 6068

Assistant Superintendent Cumberland County

788 E Commerce St Bridgeton, NJ 08302

Telephone: 609453-2203 FAX: 609453-2206 James C. Truex 2178 Weights & Measures Insp Mgr

Ohio Dept of Agriculture 8995 E Main St Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399 Telephone: 614-866-6361 FAX: 614-8664174

Richard Tucker 9070 Manager Customer Service Tokheim Corporation

1602 Wabash Ave

Ft Wayne, IN 46801 Telephone: 219423-2552 FAX: 219484-4887 Ann H. Turner 236 Conference Coordinator

Natl Conf on Wts & Meas PO Box 4025

Gaithersburg, MD 20885 Telephone: 301-9754012 FAX: 301-926-0647

Eric Vaughn 3178

President Renewable Fuels Assn.

1 Massachusetts Avenue N.W.

Washington, DC 20001-1431 Telephone: 202-543-3802 FAX: 202-543-6925

Gilles Vinet 11941 Program Officer Weights & Meas CANADA Legal Met Branch

207 Queen St, 2nd Fl, Ottawa CANADA K1A 0C9, Telephone: 613-952-2628 FAX: 613-952-1736 Doug Walker 11688 Measurement Coordinator Marathon Petroleum Co

425 S 20th St Tampa, FL 33605 Telephone: 813-248-6730

372
Charles Jr. Walters 22152

Inspector II Weights and Measures Golden Rock Shopping Center

Christiansted-St.Cro, VI, 00820

Telephone: 809-773-2226

Irene B. Warnlof 7145

Retired Wts & Meas Official 9705 Inaugural Way

Gaithersburg, MD 20879

Telephone: 301-926-8155 Otto K. Warnlof 233 Manager-Technical Services Natl Inst of Stds & Tech Admin Bldg A625

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-975-4026 FAX; 301-926^)647

Stanley L Warshaw, Sc.D. 4426

Director, Office of Stds Serv. Natl Inst of Stds & Tech A603 Admin Bldg

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

Telephone: 301-9754001 FAX: 301-963-2871

Clifford A. Watson

Consultant

Perstorp RR 1, Box 129A

Gower, MO 64454

Telephone: 816424-3195

Richard H. Weber

Metrology Lab 3M Co

Bldg 544-1-02, 3M Center

St Paul, MN 55144-1000 Telephone: 612-733-2674 FAX 612-736-7325 Donald J. Weick Consumer Protection Weights & Measures

215 E 7th, Rm 353 Topeka, KS 66603

Telephone: 913-235-9630

16558

3996

Raymond R Wells 3484

President

Sensitive Measurement Inc 200 SMI W Hampton St-PO Box 72 Pemberton, NJ 08068

Telephone: 609-894-2292 FAX: 609-894-0387 Gary D. West 8345

Multi-Purpose Bur. Chief NM Dept of Agriculture PO Box 30005 Dept 3170 LasCruces, NM 88003-0005 Telephone: 505-646-1616 FAX: 505-646-3303

Larry Wheeler 22134 Food Eqipment Corp. Hobart World Headquarters

Troy, OH 45374

Telephone: 515-332-2672

Richard L. Whipple 3486 W & M Coordinator

Natl Inst of Stds and Tech

Quince Orchard & Clopper Roads

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 Telephone: 301-975-3990 FAX 301-926-0647 Robert Wittenberger 91 Metrologist Weights & Measures Laboratory PO Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102 Telephone: 314-751-3440

Robert W. Zube

Brownie Tank Mfg Co

1241 72nd Ave, NE

Minneapolis, MN 55432

Telephone: 612-571-1744 FAX: 612-571-1789

10669

Charles W. Wolfe 22186

Fairbanks Inc. 821 Locust Kansas City,, MO 64106 Telephone: (816) 471-0231 FAX: (816)471-02

William J. Wolfe, Sr. 12624

State Superintendent

Office of Weights & Measures

1261 US Route 1 & 9 South

Avenel, NJ 07001 Telephone: 908-815-4840 FAX: 908-382-5298 Theodore O. Wright 12832

Director American Natl Metric Council 9644 Hilltop Road

Bellevue, WA 98004-4006 Telephone: 206-154-5548 FAX: 206-861-0609 Courtney Yelle 16354

Chief Sealer County of Bucks Cons. Protect. 50 North Main Street Doylestown, PA 18901 Telephone: 215-348-7442 FAX: 215-348-2019 Richard S. Yurek 3153

Regional Lab Manager

E.W. Saybolt & Co. Inc. 400 Swenson Drive

Kenilworth, NJ 07080 Telephone: 908-245-3100

Paul Zalon 7312

Director Regulatory Affairs Nestle Foods Corp

100 Manhattanville Rd

Purchase, NY 10577 Telephone: 914-251-3487 FAX: 914-251-2961 Andrew A. Zards 1344

Specialist Facilities Engineer Amoco Oil Co

200 E Randolph Dr

Chicago, IL 60601 Telephone: 312-8564073 FAX: 312-856-3401 Harold Zorlen

Regional Supervisor MI Dept of Agric Reg VII

23777 Greenfield, Suite 320

Southfield, MI 48075

Telephone: 313-752-9369

9009

373