REPORT OF THE 85TH 

N AT1 0 N AL CON F E RE NC E 

ON 

MEA 

as adopted by the 85th 

National Conference on 

Weights and Measures 2000 

Nlsl 

National Institute of 

Standards and Technology 

Technology Administration 

US Department of Commerce 

NIST 

Pu bl 

Special 

ica t ion 

957 

2000 
Report of the 85th 

National Conference 

on Weights and 

Measures 

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

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

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

Richmond, Virginia - July 16 - 20, 2000 

Editors U S Department of Commerce 

Technology Adm i n istration 

Henry V Oppermann 

Joan A Koenig 

NlST Office of Weights & Measures 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2350 

Norman Y Mineta, Secretary 

Dr Cheryl L Shavers, Under 

Secretary of Commerce 

for Technology 

National Institute of Standards 

and Technology 

Raymond G Kammer, Director 

957 NlST 

Special Publication 

November 2000 
Abstract 

The 85th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held July 16 through 20, 

2000, at the Omni Richmond Hotel in Richmond, VA. The theme of the meeting was "Basic Standards -- Building the 

Foundation for a New Millennium." 

Reports by the NCWM Board of Directors, Standing Committees, and Special Purpose Committees constitute the major 

portion of this publication, along with the addresses delivered by Conference officials and other authorities from 

government and industry. 

Special meetings included those of the Scale Manufacturers Association, Meter Manufacturers Association, Gasoline 

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

Agriculture, the Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling, Associate Membership Committee, and Metrology 

Subcommittee. 

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

uniform laws, weights and measures. 

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 26-27766 

Note: The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to use metric units of measurement in all of its 

publications. In this publication, however, recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been 

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

commonly used in industry practice. Opinions expressed in non-NIST papers are those of the authors and not necessarily 

those of the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Non-NIST speakers are solely responsible for the content 

and quality of their material. 

Nat. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 957,299 Pages (Nov. 2000) 

CODEN: NSPUE2 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON: 2000 

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

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2250 

Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402-0001 
Contents 

Page 

Abstract ................................................. ........................................................ 

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

State Voting Representatives .................................................................................................. Organization Chart ........................................................................................................ ......................... VI1 

General Session 

Special Address ................................................................ ...................................................................... GS-1 

Dr. Richard F. Kayser, Director, Technology Services, National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Chairman's Address .............. ............................................................................................................................. GS-I 

G. Weston Diggs, Program Supervisor, Virginia Office of Product and Industry Standards 

Honor Award Presentations ................... .................................................................................................. GS-9 

Special Recognition Awards ....................... ................................................................................ GS-9 

Standing Committee Reports 

.................. BOD- I 

ances ....................................... ............................. S&T- 1 

Report of the Board of Directors ...... Report of the Laws and Regulatio 

Report of the Committee on Spec 

.................................................................. 

.................................................................. 

Report of the Committee on Administration and Public Affairs ... 

Report ofthe National Type Evaluation Program Committee ....... ............................................... NTEP- 1 

Acknowledgements ..................................... .... Ack-l ........................................................................... 

Report of the Nominating Committee .......................... 

New Chairman's Address .............. ........................................................................ 

Louis E. Straub, Chief, Maryland Weights 

.......................................................................... N0m-l 

2000 Annual Meeting Attendees ...... ................................................................................... .......... P-l 

... 

111 
Past Chairmen of the Conference 

Conference 

43rd 

44th 

45th 

46th 

47th 

48th 

49th 

50th 

51st 

52nd 

53rd 

54th 

55th 

56th 

57th 

58th 

59th 

60th 

61st 

62nd 

63rd 

64th 

65th 

66th 

67th 

68th 

69th 

70th 

719 

72nd 

13rd 

74th 

75th 

76th 

77th 

78th 

79th 

80th 

8lst 

82nd 

83rd 

84th 

Year 

1958 

1959 

I960 

1961 

1962 

1963 

1964 

1965 

1966 

1967 

I968 

1969 

1970 

1971 

1972 

1973 

1974 

1975 

1976 

1977 

1978 

1979 

1980 

1981 

I982 

1983 

1984 

1985 

1986 

1987 

1988 

1989 

1990 

1991 

1992 

1993 

1994 

1995 

1996 

1997 

1998 

1999 

Chairman 

J. P. McBride, MA 

C. M. Fuller, CA 

H. E. Crawford, FL 

R. E. Meek, IN 

Robert Williams, NY 

C. H. Stender, SC 

D. M. Tumbull, WA 

V. D. Campbell, OH 

J. E. Bowen, MA 

C. C. Morgan, IN 

S. H. Christie, NJ 

R. W. Searles, OH 

M. Jennings, TN 

E. H. Black, CA 

George L. Johnson, KY 

John H. Lewis, WA 

Sydney D. Andrews, FL 

Richard L. Thompson, MD 

Earl Prideaux, CO 

James F. Lyles, VA 

Kendrick J. Simila, OR 

Charles H. Vincent, TX 

Edward H. Stadolnik, MA 

Edward C. Hefion, MI 

Charles H. Greene, NM 

Sam F. Hindsman, AR 

Ezio F. Delfino, CA 

George E. Mattimoe, HI 

Frank C. Nagele, MI 

Darrell A. Guensler, CA 

John J. Bartfai, NY 

Fred A. Gerk, NM 

N. David Smith, NC 

Sidney A. Colbrook, IL 

Allan M. Nelson, CT 

Thomas F. Geiler, MA 

James C. Truex, OH 

Charles A. Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY 

Barbara J. Bloch, CA 

Steven A. Malone, NE 

Aves D. Thompson, AK 

J. F. True, KS 
State Voting Representatives 

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

Standing and Annual Committees. 

2000 STATE VOTING REPRESENTATIVES 

V 
State Voting Representatives 

vi 

__ - 
Organization Chart 

National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc., Organization Chart 

1999-2000 

Board of Directors (BOD) 

OfficelRepresentation 

Chairman: 

Chairman-Elect: 

Past ChairNTEP Committee Chair: 

Treasurer: 

Active Membershipmortheastern: 

Active Membershipicentral: 

Active MembershipiSouthern: 

Active MembershipiWestern: 

At-Large: 

At-Large: 

Associate Membership: 

Name & Affiliation 

G.W. Diggs, VA* 

L. Straub, MD* 

A. Thompson, AK* 

J. A. Rogers, VA" 

R. Andersen, NY* 

S. Malone, NE* 

M. Hile, AR' 

G. West, NM* 

M. Pinagel, MI ' 

R. Murdock, NC 

R. Davis, Fort James Corporation 

Term Ends 

2004 

2000 

2003 

2002 

2003 

200 1 

200 I 

*National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee Member 

'Finance Committee Member 

See Working Groups, Subcommittees, and Special Committees of the BOD after the Standing Committees. 

Honorary NCWM President, 

NCWM Executive Secretary: 

BOD Advisors: 

R. Kammer, NlST Director 

H. Oppermann, NlST Office of Weights and Measures 

J. Koenig, NlST Office of Weights and Measures 

B. Palys, CAE, Executive Director, NCWM Headquarters 

G. Vinet, Canada 

NTEP Committee Technical Advisor: T. Butcher, NlST Office of Weights and Measures 

Laws & Regulations Committee /I 

Chairman: 

Members: 

NlST Technical 

Advisor: 

Canadian Tech. 

Advisors: 

Associate 

Member Rep.: 

S. Morrison, San Luis Obispo 

Co., CA (I) 

P. DErrico, NJ (3) 

D. Johannes, CA (5) 

D. Onwiler, NE (4) 

R. Williams, TN (2) 

T. Coleman 

S. Dupras 

J. Watters 

C. Guay, Procter & Gamble Co. 

Petroleum Subcommittee 

Chairman & Tech 

Advisor: R. Jennings, TN 

NET Handbook 133 Working Group 

Chairman: B. Bloch, CA 

Specifications & Tolerances Committee 

Chairman: M. Hopper, Kern Co.,CA (I) 

Members: C. Cotsoradis, KS (5) 

M. Coyne, Brockton, MA (3) 

G. Shefcheck, OR (2) 

R.W. Wonhlie. MD (4) 

NlST Technical 

Advisor: J. Williams 

Canadian Tech. 

Advisor: T. Kingsbury 

Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices 

Working Group 

Chairman: 

Technical 

Advisor: R Suiter, NlST 

C. Skonberg, United Parcel Service 

Remanufactured Devices Task Force 

Chairman: J. Truex. OH 

'11 
Organization Chart 

Administration & Public Affairs Committee 

Chairman: J. Flanders, GA (3) 

Members: D. Frieders, San Francisco Co., CA (4) 

L. Greenleaf, NJ (I) 

S. Hadder, FL (5) 

Vacant (2) 

J. Land and L. Sebring 

B. Fuehne, Ralston Purina Co 

C. Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY 

NlST Technical 

Advisors: 

Associate 

Member Rep.: 

NCWM Safety 

Liaison: 

Voluntary Program Assessment Working Group 

Chairman: S. Colbrook, IL 

Metrology Subcommittee 

Chairman: R. Balaze, MI 

Vice Chairman: K. Fraley, OK 

Members: 

L. F. Eason, NC 

D. Newcombe, ME 

Technical Advisor: G. Harris, NlST 

J. Rothleder, CA 

J. Torres, PR 

Legislative Liaison 

Chairman: T. Geiler, Barnstable, MA 

Members: W. Corey, American Frozen Foods 

N. D. Smith, NC 

Handbook 44 Working Group 

Chairman: R. Murdock. NC 

Credentials Committee 

Chairman: 

Members: T. Lori, NJ (2) 

H. Hochstetler, Elkhart Co., IN (I) 

1. Bates, VA, (3) 

Coordinator: L. DiTizio 

Nominating Committee 

Chairman: A. Thompson, AK 

Members: B. Bloch, CA 

S. Colbrook, IL 

C. Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY 

T. Geiler, Barnstable, MA 

N. D. Smith, NC 

Jim Truex, OH 

Resolutions Committee 

Chairman: J. Tillson, MS (1) 

Members: C. Kloos, Colgate-Palmolive (2) 

R. Alviene, NJ (3) 

Coordinator: L. DiTizio 

Other Appointed Officers 

Parliamentarian: B. Adams, MN 

Chaplain: M. Hile, AR 

Sergeants-At-Arms: Ran Musser, VA 

Vernon Massey, Shelby County, TN 

Presiding Officers: C. Cooney, OR 

C. Fulmer, SC 

L. Hatfield, KY 

C. Bruckner, PA 

... 

VI11 
Organization Chart 

Associate Membership Committee 

Chairman: 

Vice Chair: 

Secretary/ 

Treasurer: 

Members: 

F. Holland, Southem Enterprises (1) 

A. Nelson, NW Associates (5) 

C. Frye, International Dairy Foods 

Association (4) 

1. Baker, Pier 1 Imports (3) 

D. Cook, Kraft Foods, Inc. (3) 

D. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo (4) 

C. Guay, Procter & Gamble Company (2) 

C. Kloos, Colgate-Palmolive Company (3) 

V. Om, ConAgra Refrigerated Prepared Foods (5) 

D. Quinn, Fairbanks Scales (1) 

Regional Weights and Measures Association Contacts 

for Membership Information 

Northeastern Weights and Measures Assn. (NEWMA): 

Southem Weights and Measures Assn. (SWMA): 

Central Weights and Measures Assn. (CWMA): 

Western Weights and Measures Assn. (WWMA): 

William Wilson, Clinton Co., NY, Secretary 

N. David Smith, NC, SecretaryiTreasurer 

Renee Osterkamp, SD, Executive Secretary 

Charles Green, NM - Retired, Secretary/Treasurer 

840 Camino Del Rex 

Las Cruces, NM 88001 

Telephone: 505-523-0730 

ix 
Organization Chart 

National Type Evaluation Program 

Technical Committee 

Weighing Sector 

=hair: N. Mills, Hobart Corporation 

Technical 

Advisor: R. Suiter, NIST 

Public Sector 

Members: R. Andersen, NY 

A. Buie, MD 

T. Butcher, NIST 

C. Carter, OK 

S. Cook, CA 

G. W. Diggs, VA 

D. Onwiler, NE 

R. Pforr, GIPSA 

D. Ripley, NIST 

G. Shefcheck, OR 

1. Truex, OH 

L. Turberville, AL 

1. Vandenvielen, GIPSA 

J. Watters, Canada 

K. Yee, NET 

Private Sector 

Members: J. Antkowiak, Hottinger 

Baldwin Measurements 

Services, Inc. 

W. Brasher, Southern Company 

L. Burrow, Sensortronics 

L. Cerny, Association of American 

J. Elengo, Contractor 

D. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, Inc. 

W. GeMeiner, Union Pacific RR 

W. Goodpaster, CardinallDetecto 

K. Haker, BLH Electronics 

D. Hawkins, Fancor, Inc. 

J. Hughes, Weigh-Tronix, Inc. 

D. Krueger, NCR 

G. Lameris, Hobart Corporation 

H. Lockery, Lockery Assoc. 

T. Luna, Scales Unlimited, Inc. 

L. E. Luthy, Brechbuhler Scales, Inc. 

V. Pandit, Allegany Technology, Inc. 

D. Tonini, Scale Manufacturers 

J. Wang, A&D Engineering, Inc. 

0. Warnlof, Consultant 

R. Watts, Universal Epsco, Inc. 

Railroads 

Association 

Measuring Sector 

Chair: R. Tucker, Tokheim Corporation 

Technical 

Advisor: R. Suiter, NIST 

Public Sector 

Members: R. Andersen, NY 

T. Butcher, NIST 

S. Cook, CA 

S. Hadder, FL 

T. Kingsbury, Canada 

S. Malone, NE 

R. Murdock, NC 

D. Ripley, NIST 

W. West, OH 

R. Wotthlie, MD 

Private Sector 

Members: R. B. Beahm, Krohne, c. 

F. M. Belue, Belue Associates 

R. Cooper, Schlumberger (Neptune) 

C. Eskind, Shell Oil CompanylAPI 

R. Fonger, Bennett Pump Co. 

M. Hankel, MCH Engineering 

K. Hoffer, Hoffer Flow Controls, Inc. 

F. Holland, Southern Enterprises 

R. Huff, Universal Epsco, Inc. 

D. Joines, Dresser Wayne 

G. Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc. 

M. Keilty, Micro Motion, Inc. 

D. Krueger, NCR 

W. Mattar, The Foxboro Co. 

A. Noel, Schlumberger Industries 

K. Ridenour, Endress + Hauser 

J. Skuce, Smith Meter, Inc. 

D. Smith, Gasboy International, Inc. 

R. Traettino, Liquid Controls Corp. 

0. Wamlof, Consultant 

K. White, Brooks Instrument Div. 

Associates, Inc. 

X 
Grain Moisture Meter Sector and Near-Infrared 

Protein Analyzer Sector 

Chair: R.W. Wotthlie, MD 

Technical 

Advisors: 

Public Sector 

Members: Canadian Grain Commission 

R. Burns, AR 

D. Funk, GIPSA 

D. Onwiler, NE 

R. Pierce, GlPSA 

J. Rothleder, CA 

C. Tew, NC 

R. Wittenberger, MO 

J. Bair, Millers National Federation 

T. Conwell, CSC Scientific Company, 

M. Clements, The Steinlite Corp. 

C. Eigenmann, DICKEY-john Corp. 

M. Hall, Sartorius Instruments 

C. Hurburgh, Jr., Iowa State 

D. Krejci, Grain Elevator & Processing 

R. Oberg, Zeltex, Inc. 

T. OConnor, National Grain & 

Feed Association 

0. Rasmussen, Foss North America, 

Inc.* 

T. Runyon, Seedboro Equipment 

F. Seeber, Shore Sales Co., Grain 

Elevator & Processors Society 

C. Watson, Consultant 

H. Yamahira, Ken Electric Laboratory 

J. W. Barber, J B Associates 

G. D. Lee, NlST 

Private Sector 

Members: 

Inc. 

University 

Society' 

'(Grain Moisture Meter Sector only) 

Belt Conveyor Scales Sector 

Chair: P. Chase, Consultant 

Technical 

Advisor: R. Suiter, NIST 

Public Sector 

Members: A. Buie, MD 

T. Butcher, NlST 

S. Cook, CA 

R. Miller, CO 

L. Turberville, AL 

Private Sector 

Members: K. Alexeff, Stock Equipment Co. 

W. Brasher, Southem Co. 

G. Burger, Consultant 

L. Burrow, Sensortronics 

M. Casanova, Ramsey Technology 

L. Cerny, Association of 

American Railroads 

P. Chase, Chase Technology, lnc. 

D. Cockrell, Consultant 

R. DeSollar, Central Illinois 

Public Service Company 

R. Dietrich, Kaskaskia Valley Scale 

S. Hawkins, ABC Scale 

T. Johnson, Sensortronics 

K. Knapp, Milltronics 

F. Joe Loyd, CSX Transportation 

J. Oliver, Virginia Power 

N. Ortyl, 111, Dresser Industries 

B. Ripka, Ramsey Technology, Inc. 

P. Sanford, Thayer Scale 

D. Tonini, Scale Manufacturers 

Association 

T. Vormittag, Sr, Commercial Testing 

& Engineering Co. 

0. Wamlof. Consultant 

Services 

xi 
General Session 

Special Address 

Richard F. Kayser, Director of Technology Services, National Institute of Standards and Technology, addressed the 

Conference July 18, 2000, at the General Session. He presented the following slides during his address. Mr. Kayser 

spoke from notes, and his remarks were not recorded; therefore, a complete text copy of his remarks was not available for 

this publication. 

GS-I 
General Session 

President's Address 

Richard F. Kayaer 

Director, Technology Servlcss 

86th Annual Meeting of tha National 

Conference on Weights and Measum 

July 10,2000 

Rlchmond. VA 

Update on NIST Staff 

Oil Ugiansky named Deputy Director 

of Office of Meaaurement Sonicer 

Henry Oppermann named Chief of ths 

Ofiice of Welghts and Meaaures 

Charles Ehrlich has auumed 

reaponsibility for activities dated to 

the Intemrtional Organization of 

Legal Metrology (OIML) 

NTEP Transition - NCWM's Role 

m Administration of program and 

processes Including: 

s Technlcally nvlewlng NTEP appllcatlons and maklng dulslons on typo approval. 

s DnRlng snd revlewlng NTEP C.mncates 

e Ansmrlng routlne admlnlstmtive and 

technkal questions 

e Auihorldng Isbontorbs to parform NTEP 

testing (wtul b.chnlcaI Input from NIST) 

s FormaWng and publhhlng type 

evaluatlon CheCkIIs1. 

~ 

2001 -The 100th Anniversary of NET 

NCWM meets In Wsshlngton. DC, in 

2001 

State Metrologlets plan a combined 

regional nmting at NlST 

Centennisl Book on Signlflcant NlST 

Publications include. reference to 

NCWM Reporb, Hsndbook. 130 (L 44. 

Update on Projects in Process - 

NTEP Transition 

NIST/OWM atsff have been meeting 

m NISTand NCWM lsadsnhlp have 

with NCWM Representatives 

deflned ths roles that each will play In 

NTEP in ths future 

has bssn estebliehsd 

TimsJins for tnnaition mllestones 

NTEP Transltion - NiST's Role 

Technical Support including: 

s Serving as a technlcsl resource to the NTEP Labs 

s Provldlng tuhnkal Input on questions arlslng In iypa evaluations 

e Pamctpating In ma NTEP Lab 

authoridon process 

E -1 NTEP Secton s Servlng aa technkal advlson to the 

e Worlclng wlth Labs on some waluations 

NlSTlOWM will not be an NTEP Lab 

".110*., ,*,,,,",I q, .,A*0."0, A*D ,.S**OL00* 

GS-2 
General Session 

3 

0 

z I 

& 

z 

- 

NTEP Transltlon - Time-Line 

NlSTlOWM developed detailed timelines to help facilitate the transition 

Key dates include: 

e August 1,2000. Draft CorUflcatss of 

Conlormsnca (CCs) racelvad bfon this 

date will b Issued by NlST 

be sent to NCWM 

rasponslblllty for NTEP . CCs Issued 

afterthis data ell1 be NCWM CCs 

September I- Nm appllcat(ons should 

e October 1 - NCWM assumes full 

*"II~*LL I*.,ll"ll 0, I,L*V."D. ."m llC""OL0~. 

MEASUREnet-gov: Initial Partlclpants 

Update on Projects in Process - 

State Laboratory Accreditatlon 

B 2 Stab Labs an currently accredited 

by NVLAP 

B 10 State Labs have applied for 

accndltation in FY 2000 

w Ray Kammor approved an addwon of 

SlZ5K to OW. bare funding to continue the accmdihtion program in 

future yean 

B Technology Servlces will pay cwb 

over S125K 

Update on Projects in Process - 

MEASUREnetgov 

Provided necessary software and 

Conducted training in January 

Began pilot testing via point to point 

hardware to 11 Pivot Labs 

connections 

Update on Projects in Process - 

MEASUREnet.gov 

Created a web sits: 

http:/lwww.nlatgov/measurenetqov 

Will give a demo of the system at this 

meeting 

Update on Projects In Process - 

National Key Comparison Project 

B NlST Maw Group, OW, &the Stabs 

are conducting a national key 

comp.rf6on of mau standards 

the State labs during 2000 

B Weight SOb are circulating to 011 of 

GS-3 
General Session 

5 

3 

0 

& 

v) - 

z 

* 

c Kev Commrisons Protocol I 

New Dlrections 

OW has developed a 3yesr plan 

with the following critical elements: 

e stntrplc Planning 

Technlcal Assistance 

e Technical StudlN 

e Maasunment Of E(hctlv0neSs 

presented 

We want your feedback on the idear 

*.,,9*.1 I" ,111 ",I 0, ..A*OA.O. .*o I.S**OLDO" 

2 

3 

0 

5 

$ 

z 

- 

Technical Assistance 

Develop Technology Based Tralning 

Find ways to better use lnfomtion 

Technology to achieve objectivss 

Develop products for different 

audiences 

Develop tralning for WLM 

Admlnistratora 

courses 

Technical Studies 

Investigate technical isaues of 

concern to the WfkM Community 

e Informal d~us8lon of acommma and 

Technlul studlrs nlaw to tnstrumenb 

nlaW WhM huas 

to mruun M on carcassu 

help W&M to be more efflcient 

e LlquM den8hMOn tor pCk8gl chuklng 

e wsucaI sampling tor devIcm Insp.ctlon 

Equipment or atltisticsi models to 

Update on Projects in Process - 

Weights and Measures initiative 

NlST has submitted a welghts and measures InIUaUve for FY 2002 

Current proposal b for $5.4 M 

scope of proposal: 

e Technicsl Asrlstancr (Includlnp tnlnlngl 

e Educational Facllny and Equlpnnnt 

0 Resaarch PWNm 

R.guf.r CsUbnUon of Stat# Prlmsy 

Standards 

Reflects OWM's future plans 

5 

0 

z 

3 

$ 

Strategic Planning 

Hold program revlew meetings with 

Develop s strategic training plan 

Develop the concept of an "Ideal 

Weights and Measurea Program" 

focus groups 

GS-4 
General Session 

Measure Effectiveness 

m Develop my. of measuring: 

a NIST'a effutlveness in gang unlfonnlty 

In W6M lam, mgulatlons, atandanis, and 

pnotlcu 

the UnM Statn 

The effecUvenass of the WkM ayitem In 

Use infomation gathered to allocate 

NlST reaourcss 

GS-5 
General Session 

GS-7

Chairman’s Address to the 85th Annual Meeting 2000 

Presented by G. Weston Diggs 

Virginia Office of Product and Industry Standards 

It has been my privilege to serve as your Chairman for the past year. As you know, we have faced many challenges since 

last July, and I believe the Board of Directors has done a commendable job in meeting the challenges that have come 

before them. At this point, I might add that our task has been made easier because of the support given to us by our 

NCWM staff, our industry members, and the technical staff at the Office of Weights and Measures (OWM); it has been 

greatly appreciated. 

One of my goals as Conference Chairman was to reorganize and rewrite the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology (NIST) Handbook 44. With the leadership of Ron Murdock, specific recommendations are being made by 

his committee for the reorganization. These recommendations will be open for discussion and comment. However, the 

greatest challenge, which is to rewrite H-44 so that it can be better understood by its users, is yet to come. Based on the 

comments that I have received from weights and measures officials, industry, and service technicians, this must remain a 

high priority project. 

We are a standards development organization and the product of our work is reflected in the model laws published in the 

various NIST/NCWM handbooks produced by the Conference. Over the past several years, NIST and the Conference 

have wrestled with the issue of ownership and copyright of these publications. This has been a real “hot button” issue on 

both sides. The Conference wants to protect the publications from misuse and also have some control over how and by 

whom they are distributed. From the NIST prospective, they believe if the handbooks are copyrighted, it would inhibit 

their ability to use them in fulfilling their mission of uniformity of weights and measures in the United States. A possible 

solution to our dilemma was suggested by Aves Thompson of Alaska. Why doesn’t the Conference enhance the 

handbooks like some of the industry has done for years? Take for example, Handbook 44. Why not add the Examination 

Procedure Outlines, create a handbook version for scale users, and create another handbook for those only interested in 

pumps and meters? Generally, only weights and measures officials would be interested in a handbook with all of its 

sections. Without copyrighting NIST Handbook 44, the Conference’s enhanced handbook could be copyrighted and 

sold. This is an option worth exploring. 

In 1998 at the 83rd Annual Meeting, the Conference voted in new bylaws that changed the make-up of the Conference 

and had a far-reaching impact that most of us never envisioned. Let me say at this point, we made the right decision. In 

fact, I believe it was the only decision we could have made. 

Let me talk about some of the effects the adoption of the bylaws has had. One of the most apparent changes is our 

relationship with NIST and its Office of Weights and Measures. We must keep in mind that we are a 501-C3 not-forprofit corporation. This IRS tax classification, and the fact that we are now incorporated, automatically changed the 

relationship between the two organizations. In previous years, the staff at the OWM accepted the responsibility of 

making many business decisions for the Conference and ran its day-to-day operation. Now the Executive Committee is 

the Board of Directors, and in addition to there being a Chairman of the Conference, we now have a Chairman of the 

Board. Our Conference has income and expenses totaling more than 1.3 million dollars annually. More and more of the 

Board’s time is being spent on financial matters and exercising fiscal responsibility. 

 I would add at this point, the direction the Conference has charted in recent years has been a result of some of the 

policies adopted by the leadership at NIST and OWM. Since last October, NIST has changed its direction in the names 

of Rich Kayser, Tom Gills, and Henry Oppermann. This may be the time to re-evaluate our long-term strategic plan. In 

some of my recent conversations with Tom Gills and Henry Oppermann, they have lead me to believe that they are more 

willing to revisit positions previously taken by both organizations. This doesn’t mean we are going back to the way 

things were prior to 1998. OWM will not manage the Conference’s business affairs and will not be involved in 

“production-meets-type” with the National Type Evaluation Program. However, at this point in time, we are all 

searching for roles that are appropriate and where our role can be the most effective in making our system of weights and 

measures the best in the world. Beginning now, we need to sit down together and better identify what those roles should 

be.
General Session 

GS-8

The last thing I would like to discuss is COMMITMENT. We realized NCWM, Inc., could not be run by part-time 

volunteers. In the fall of 1998, we selected and contracted with Management Solutions Plus to manage our day-to-day 

operations. I might add that our NCWM staff has done an outstanding job. One of their greatest challenges has been to 

get Board members to think as a whole rather than as part-time volunteers representing their individual State’s interest. 

At this year’s Interim Meeting, we were all able to attend a Board Governance Seminar to help us in that direction. 

The Conference is starting to feel a strain on its resources. In this case, I am not speaking of money. I am talking about 

people and the fact that our people resources are part-time volunteers who have full-time jobs. The Conference is an 

organization that depends on its members to do its work and we charge them a $200 registration fee to do it. One of the 

first things I came to realize after becoming Chairman, was how scarce our people resources were. A great many of those 

attending the Annual and Interim Meetings are looking to retirement in the near future. We have many younger members 

with potential, but we have not done a good job in identifying and developing them for future Conference leadership. To 

be involved in the Conference takes a major commitment on the part of the individual and the State or locality they 

represent. As Chairman, my time is not representative of most people’s commitment, but through me, Virginia has 

invested more than 812 hours in the Conference since last July. In most cases, serving on a standing committee requires 

a 5-year commitment. Most States and localities have travel policies that restrict the number of people a jurisdiction may 

bring to an out-of-state meeting. Our best hope in developing our future leaders may be a mentoring program at the 

regional association meetings. 

 In closing, I would like to acknowledge a friend, who I consider a real weights and measures professional, Ken Butcher. 

The “Butcher Block” at OWM has finally been broken. Over the years, Ken has either been on, or served as technical 

advisor to, most of the Conference’s standing committees. He and I have had some real differences of opinion on issues 

over the years but they were professional differences and never became personal. I think I was right some of the time and 

he was right just as many times if not more. For those who were in Chicago, who could forget the discussion on FDA’s 

[Food and Drug Administration’s] Proposed Regulation. I feel Ken has been a model in his commitment to the work of 

the Conference. In the end, none of us are irreplaceable, but replacing Ken Butcher, will be more difficult than most. 

I want to thank you for the honor of allowing me to serve as your Chairman this year. I look forward to working with 

Lou in the coming year. 
General Session 

HONOR AWARDS 

10 YEARS 

Robert K. Feezor, Norfolk Southern Corp. 

Georgia Harris, NlST Office of Weights and Measures 

Gordon W. Johnson, Marconi Commerce Systems 

Walter K. Tkachuk, Consultant 

20 YEARS 

Richard L. Davis, Fort James Corp. 

Henry V. Oppermann, NlST Oftice of Weights and Measures 

Charles A. Gardner, Suffolk County, NY Weights & Measures 

Joe Rothleder, CA Division of Measurement Standards 

25 YEARS 

A. Raymond Daniels 

Steven A. Malone, NE Division of Weights and Measures 

Allan M. Nelson, NW Associates 

Special Recognition Awards 

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

session, the Conference recognized the work of the following members for their contributions over the past years within 

their respective committees and for their contributions to the National Conference in general. 

Board of Directors 

Steve Malone, NE 

Alan Rogers, VA 

Aves Thompson, AK 

Laws and Regulations Committee 

Stephen Morrison, CA 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

Monty Hopper, CA 

Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

Louis Greenleaf, NI 

Presiding Officers 

Charles Bruckner, PA 

Clark Cooney, OR 

Larry Hatfield, KY 

Carol Fulmer. SC 

Sergeants-at-Arms 

Vemon Lee Massey, TN 

Ran Musser, VA 

GS-9 
General Session 

GS-9

HONOR AWARDS 

10 YEARS

Robert K. Feezor, Norfolk Southern Corp. 

Georgia Harris, NIST Office of Weights and Measures 

Gordon W. Johnson, Marconi Commerce Systems 

Walter K. Tkachuk, Consultant 

20 YEARS

Richard L. Davis, Fort James Corp. 

Henry V. Oppermann, NIST Office of Weights and Measures 

Charles A. Gardner, Suffolk County, NY Weights & Measures 

Joe Rothleder, CA Division of Measurement Standards 

25 YEARS

A. Raymond Daniels 

Steven A. Malone, NE Division of Weights and Measures 

Allan M. Nelson, NW Associates 

Special Recognition Awards 

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

session, the Conference recognized the work of the following members for their contributions over the past years within 

their respective committees and for their contributions to the National Conference in general. 

Board of Directors

Steve Malone, NE 

Alan Rogers, VA 

Aves Thompson, AK 

Laws and Regulations Committee

Stephen Morrison, CA 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Monty Hopper, CA 

Administration and Public Affairs Committee

Louis Greenleaf, NJ 

Presiding Officers

Charles Bruckner, PA 

Clark Cooney, OR 

Larry Hatfield, KY 

Carol Fulmer, SC 

Sergeants-at-Arms

Vernon Lee Massey, TN 

Ran Musser, VA 
Board of Directors 

Report of the Board of Directors 

G. Weston Diggs, Chairman 

Supervisor 

VA Products and Industry Standards 

Reference 

Key Number 

100 Introduction 

This is the Report of the Board of Directors (BOD) for the 85th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and 

Measures (NCWM). The Report is based on the Interim Report offered in NCWM Publication 16, Committee Reports; the 

Addendum Sheets issued at the Annual Meeting; and actions taken by the membership at the Voting Sessions of the Annual 

Meeting. 

This Report contains items related to the management of the NCWM (items in the 101 Series). Items addressed by the 

National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee (formerly the 102 Series), are in a separate report (see the 500 Series). 

Table A, which is an index of reference key items included in the report, lists the reference key number, title, and page 

number for each item. An “I” denotes issues thst are reported for information. Items that have been withdrawn are marked 

with a “W.” Table B lists the Appendices to the report, and Table C provides a summary of the results of the voting on the 

Committee’s report in entirety. 

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items 

Reference 

Key No. Title of Item Page 

101-1* I 

101-2; W 

101-3* 1 

101-4* I 

101-5’ I 

101-6 I 

101-7* I 

101-8* I 

101-9 I 

101-10 I 

101-11* I 

101-12 I 

101-13* I 

101-14 I 

101-15* I 

101-16 1 

101-17 1 

101-18 I 

101-19 I 

Strategic Planning ............................................................................................................................................. 3 

NCWM Policies ..................................................................................................................................... Financial Report .................................................................................................................................... Status of Training Grant and Metrology Training Funds ................................................................................. 3 

Associate Membership Committee Rep0 rt ....... ................................................................................. 3 

Organization, Appointments, and Assignments eport ......................................................................... 5 

...................................................................................................... 

ture ............................................................................................... 

Program, OW and NET ............................................................................................... Program, International Organization of Legal Metrology ................................................ 

Special Committee on Legislative Liaison Status Report ................................................ 

Mentoring Program .................................................................................................................... 7 

Service Technician ...................................................................................................... 

Copyright of NlST Handbooks by NCWM ....................................................... 

Revision of NlST Handbook 44 ......................................................................................................... 

Remanufactured Devices Task Force Status Report ......................................... 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Sector Meetings .................................................................. 8 

Handbook 133 Revision Status Report ............................................................................................................. 9 

.................................................................................................................... 7 

‘National Institute of Standards and Technology staff members do not serve as technical advisors for these items. 

BOD- I 
Board of Directors 

Table B 

Appendices 

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page 

A 

B OIML Final Report 

C 

E 

NCWM, Inc., 2000 Strategic Plan 

2000 Final Report of the Metrology Subcommittee 

Sample Joint Sector Meeting Agenda 

D Handbook 44 Working Group Proposed Work Plan 101-16 ................................................................ 33 

F NCWM Budget for Fiscal Year 2001 ...................... 

Table C 

Voting Results 

House of State Associate and 

Reference Key No. Representatives House of Delegates Advisory Members 

Yes No Yes No Yes No Results 

100 (Report in its All Ayes No Nays All Ayes No Nays All Ayes No Nays Passed 

Entirety) 

Voice Vote 

BOD-2 
Board of Directors 

Details of All Items 

101-1 I Strategic Planning 

Chairman-Elect Lou Straub updated the Board on the status of the NCWM, Inc., Strategic Plan. (See Appendix A for a 

detailed report.) 

The items that are currently in progress include: 

* Reorganization and rewriting of NIST Handbook 44. 

* Take-over of administration of the National Type Evaluation Program by October I, 2000. 

The issues under consideration include: 

- Copyright of handbooks and publications that are products of the Conference’s efforts. 

The items completed include: 

- The membership year should coincide with the fiscal year. 

- NCWM should not administer OWM Metrology Funds or Training Grants. 

- Policy of Business versus Technical Issues. 

- Developing a brochure telling the story of weights and measures in the United States and how the National Conference on 

Weights and Measures fits in the process. 

The Board decided that IO complimentary brochures would be sent to each State Director 

Next year, the Board plans to review NCWM’s strategic plan and to consider how it relates to OWM’s strategic plan. 

101-2 W NCWM Policies 

The Board has withdrawn this item for this year due to other priorities. 

At the Annual Meeting, it was announced that the NCWM Headquarters Office is in the process of developing a Policy and 

Procedures Manual for the Board. 

101-3 I Financial Report 

Beth W. Palys, CAE, Executive Director ofNCWM, Inc., provided the Board with a profit/loss statement. She also reported 

that an outside audit of the Conference’s FY 98-99 finances by the independent accounting firm of Dembo, Jones, Healy, 

Pennington, & Ahalt, P.C. had been completed. The Board received copies of the audited financial statements. 

See Appendix F for the NCWM’s budget for fiscal year 2001. 

101-4 I Status of Training Grant and Metrology Training Funds 

NCWM, Inc., will no longer administer the Training Grant from NET or the Metrology Training Funds. Beth W. Palys, 

CAE, reported that, in October 1999, the balance of Training Grant Funds, $8,638, was returned to NIST. The remaining 

amount in the Metrology Training Fund in January 1999 was $4,151. 

At the 2000 Annual Meeting, Mrs. Palys said that all Metrology Training Funds had been spent and that NCWM will not 

collect any additional funds for metrology training activities. 

101-5 I Associate Membership Committee Report 

The Associate Membership Committee (AMC) met during the afternoon on January 20,2000. Rich Philmon, Administration 

and Public Affairs Committee (ABrP) Chairman, reviewed the status of the AMC scholarship awards. He said that he had 

BOD-3 
Board of Directors 

received 73 requests for the 50 available $500 scholarships. There was a discussion about developing guidelines and criteria 

for awarding these scholarships, as well as the need to increase awareness and promote use of the scholarship program. 

Tom Geiler presented the newly developed NCWM brochure for use in promoting NCWM with legislative staff. This 

brochure was funded in part by AMC. The AMC commented that the brochure was professional and comprehensive. 

Rich Davis reported on the activities of the NCWM Board of Directors. He explained that since the incorporation of NCWM, 

the Board is going through a learning process regarding its roles and responsibilities. The Board will act in general oversight 

and guidance of the Conference, delegating detailed responsibilities to the appropriate Standing Committees. 

Chris Guay reported on issues pertaining to the Laws and Regulations Committee including revisions to Handbook 133 and 

debate on an emergency agenda item. He also reported on the continued outreach efforts to North and South America on the 

use and acceptance of NCWM programs, such as recognition of National Type Evaluation Program certificates. 

Frances Holland and Allan Nelson reported on the activities of the A&P Committee. 

The AMC financial statement was reviewed. It was suggested that the AMC work closely with the NCWM management firm 

to gain a better understanding of their accounting practices. The AMC also recommended adding a separate accounting line 

item for AMC scholarship funds rather than retaining this money in the AMC fund balance. 

The AMC met during the afternoon of July 17 at the NCWM Annual Meeting. The financial report was reviewed. It was 

noted that the available AMC fund balance for 1999 had been misinterpreted. The committee did not realize that the $10,000 

commitment for the Legislative brochure had not yet been dispersed. This caused a $10,000 over-allocation to last year’s 

$25,000 scholarship funds, and will result in a lack of funds for the coming year’s scholarships. As a result, the AMC is 

unable to make scholarship awards during the upcoming year. The committee agreed that the current fund balance of $1,100 

be awarded as a grant for the development of the NCWM web page. Additionally, the committee is requesting greater 

assistance from the NCWM management firm for clarification of the AMC finances. 

Rich Davis reported on the activities of the Board of Directors. He explained that changes regarding the make up and duties 

of the nominating committee are being explored. The Board also agreed to discontinue efforts to copyright Handbooks 44, 

130, and 133. He reported that the new NTEP director will be hired and in place by the end of August and that the NCWM 

web will be completed soon. 

Chris Guay reported on the issues pertaining to the Laws and Regulations Committee, The revisions to the 4th Edition of 

Handbook 133 should be completed by October 2000. Once a completed draft is available, it will be distributed to interested 

AMC members for their comments. It is intended that the proposed changes to HB-133 be considered at the 2001 Interim 

Meeting and voted for adoption during the 2001 Annual Meeting. 

Bob Fuehne reported on the activities of the A & P Committee including the Board’s request to develop minimum criteria 

for the weights and measures field inspectors that would include building criteria for a training and certification program. He 

also reported on development of the voluntary checklistkelf-assessment for weighing and measuring devices and presentation 

being made on the checklist at the Annual Meeting. 

Nominations were made and a vote was taken to fill the upcoming vacancies on the AMC Committee: Steve Langford, 

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Company, and Jennifer Banks, National Air Transportation Association, will serve until 2005. 

The committee recognized that the AMC bylaws require the terms of two AMC members to expire each year and adjusted 

the tertii of Dave Cook. Kraft Foods, to expire on 2001 rather than 2002. The following AMC officers were elected: 

Chairman: 

Vice Chair: 

Secretary/Treasurer: 

There was discussion that due to the upcoming expiration of Rich Davis’s 3-year term as industry representative on the 

NCWM Board of Directors, it will be necessary to nominate a replacement. The AMC will seek interested parties to fill this 

posit ion. 

A. Nelson, NW Associates (2004) 

C. Frye. International Dairy Foods Assoc. (2003) 

D. Flocken, Mettler Toledo (2003) 

BOD-4 
Board of Directors 

101-6 I Organization, Appointments, and Assignments Status Report 

The following are appointments that NCWM Chairman Wes Diggs and NTEP Committee Chairman Aves Thompson had 

made as of January 3 I, 2000: 

Board of Directors: 

Ron Murdock, NC, for 2 years replacing Lou Straub, who 

moved to the Chairman-Elect position 

Steve Malone, NE, for I year replacing Barbara DeSalvo 

Presiding Officers: 

Clark Cooney, OR, 1 -year term 

Larry Hatfield, KY, I-year term 

Damon Slaydon, TX, I -year term 

Laws and Regulations: 

Dennis Johannes, CA, 5-year term 

Pat D'Errico, NJ, for 3 years replacing Ross Andersen, 

who started a term on the BOD 

Specifications and Tolerances: 

Constantine Cotsoradis, KS, 5-year term 

Nominating: 

Aves Thompson, AK, Chairman 

Barbara Bloch, CA 

Tom Geiler, Barnstable, MA 

Charles Gardner, Suffolk Co., NY 

N. David Smith, NC 

Sidney Colbrook, IL 

Jim Truex. OH 

Resolutions Committee: 

Robert Alviene, Morris Co., NJ, 3-year term 

Parliamentarian: 

Bruce Adams, MN I-year term 

Chaplain: 

Mike Hile, AR, I-year term 

Administration & Public Affairs: 

Steve Hadder, FL, 5-year term 

Bob Fuehne. Ralston Purina Co., Associate Member 

Representative 5-year term 

Between the Interim and Annual Meetings, the following appointments were made by NCWM Chairman Diggs: 

Presiding Officers: Sergeants -At -Arms: 

Charles Bruckner, PA, I-year term 

Carol Fulmer, SC, I-year term, replacing Damon Slaydon 

Associate Membership Committee: 

Allan Nelson, NW Associates, 5-year term 

Vincent R. Orr, ConAgra Refrigerated Prepared Foods, 

Ran Musser, VA, I-year term 

Vernon Massey, Shelby County, TN, I-year term 

Credentials Committee: 

John Bates, VA. 3-year term 

NTEP Business Plan Work Group: 

Ross Andersen, Chairman 

The following appointments were made by NTEP Committee Chairman Thompson to Sectors ofthe National Type Evaluation 

Technical Committee (NTETC): 

Belt Conveyor Scale Sector: 

Robert Athearn, CO Department of Agriculture 

Lars Marmsater, Merrick Industries, Inc. 

Peter Sirrico, Thayer Scale - Hyer Industries, Inc. 

101-7 I Membership 

The total NCWM membership, as of June 12, 2000, was 3,369. The membership breakdown by category is as follows: 

State Government 1,030 (31%) Associate Members - 1,303 (39%) 

Local Government 696 (21%) Foreign Associate 37 (IYO) 

US. Government 44(1%) Foreign Government - 34 (1 Yo) 

Retirees 225 (6%) 

BOD-5 
Board of Directors 

101-8 I Meetings, Annual and Interim, Future 

AS of July 17,2000, the plans for future meetings are as follows: 

2001 Interim Meeting 

The meeting is scheduled for January 14 to 17 at the Mesa Pavilion Hilton Hotel in Phoenix, AZ. The meeting dates 

were changed so that the meeting could begin on Sunday and end on Wednesday. 

2001 Annual Meeting 

The meeting is scheduled for July 22 to 26 at the Grand Hyatt Hotel in Washington, DC. 

2002 Interim Meeting 

The meeting is scheduled for January 27 to 30 at the Bethesda, MD, Hyatt. 

2002 Annual Meeting 

The meeting is scheduled for July 14 to 18 in Cincinnati, OH, at the Omni Netherland Hotel. 

2003 Annual Meeting 

Sites are being investigated in Reno, NV, for this meeting. 

101-9 I Program, OWM and NIST 

At the 2000 Interim Meeting, Gil Ugiansky, then Chief of the NIST Office of Weights and Measures (OW), provided a 

status report on staffing and other support that OWM and NIST provide to the Conference. He said that Tom Ahrens, who 

worked on the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP), had accepted a job outside NIST. As a result, OWM had three 

vacancies. He said that plans to hire new staff were on hold until funding issues associated with NTEP are resolved. Dr. 

Ugiansky announced that a copy of his presentation to the NCWM Board in October 1999 on planned reprogramming of 

OWM activities as a result of the NCWM’s assuming responsibility for the administration of NTEP was available on the 

NTEP Transition Internet Home Page (www.nist.gov/nteptransition). 

Henry Oppermann, the new Chief of OWM, provided an update for the BOD at the Annual Meeting. He said that OWM is 

in the process of hiring two new staff members: one in the device technology area and one in the laboratory technology area. 

Mr. Oppermann reported that OWM has received funds from NIST Director Ray Kammer to help replace the funding that 

will be lost as a result of the transition ofthe National Type Evaluation Program to the NCWM. Additional funding, expected 

from Technology Services next fiscal year, may make it possible for OWM to hire additional staff. OW is in the process 

of developing a 3-year strategic plan to identify high priority initiatives to pursue. The office has established a focus group 

made up of representatives of State and local weights and measures jurisdictions, industry, and other Federal agencies to 

review and comment on the strategic plan. Lou Straub was asked to participate in the focus group as the NCWM’s 

representative. Mr. Oppermann stated that OWM will eventually review the strategic plan with the NCWM Board annually. 

101-10 I Program, International Organization of Legal Metrology 

Sam Chappell, Chief of the NIST Technical Standards Activities Program, summarized recent U.S. participation in OlML 

standards development activities in legal metrology. A copy of his written report is included in Appendix B. Chairman Diggs 

announced that Dr. Chappell is retiring. Mr. Digs thanked Dr. Chappell for participating in the Conference and contributing 

to legal metrology activities. 

Charles Ehrlich announced at the BOD’S open hearing at the Annual Meeting that Wes Diggs will attend the Sixth AsiaPacific Legal Metrology Forum in Taipei and Ross Andersen will be attending the 35th ClML Presidential Council Meeting 

and the 1 lth International Conference of Legal Metrology to be held in London in October 2000. Dr. Ehrlich said that a 

written report on the activities of the International Organization of Legal Metrology since January 2000 would be provided 

for the Board’s final report (see Appendix B). 

BOD-6 
Board of Directors 

101-11 I Special Committee on Legislative Liaison Status Report 

Tom Geiler, Chairman of the NCWMs Special Committee on Legislative Liaison, reported to the BOD on the Committee’s 

activities. He said that the NCWM brochure had been completed. The brochure was designed to be distributed to U.S. and 

State legislators and others to inform them of the importance of weights and measures activities and the role and impact of 

NCWM in support of those activities. Complimentary copies have been mailed to each State Director. Additional copies 

may be purchased through the Headquarters Office. 

101-12 I Metrology Subcommittee Report 

Ken Fmley presented a status report on the activities of the Metrology Subcommittee since the 1999 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

He told the Board that, during the week of the Interim Meeting, he and a group of other State metrologists were participating 

in training at NIST on MeasureNet., an Internet-enabled, interactive system to support training and collaborative work 

between NIST and the State weights and measures laboratories. Mr. Fraley said that the metrologists thought that this new 

tool would be very useful. A copy ofthe Subcommittee’s complete written report is contained in Appendix C. 

Lou Straub met with Ron Balaze, Georgia Harris, and Henry Oppermann at the 2000 Annual Meeting to obtain more 

information about the Metrology Subcommittee’s request for funds for a meeting with NET management. The Board stated 

that participants in the meeting will receive funds for their hotel expenses and a per diem at the usual Conference rate of $35 

a day if their States cannot pay the expenses. The BOD then unanimously voted to allocate funds not to exceed a total of 

$1,000. It was noted that this would be the total amount of funding to be provided to the Metrology Subcommittee for the 

year. 

101-13 I Mentoring Program 

The Board discussed expanding the role of the Nominating Committee to include efforts aimed at leadership development. 

The Board will discuss this concept more fully at its next meeting. 

101-14 I Service Technician Outreach 

This was item 101-15 in the BOD’s Report to the 84thNCWM. 1999. Past-Chairman Aves Thompson said that he had had 

little opportunity to work on this item. He suggested that, since the A&P Committee had a similar item on its agenda (item 

403-5, Service Personnel Training), the BOD should ask the Committee to take the lead in efforts intended to better serve 

the needs of NCWM members from the service agency sector of the weights and measures community. The Board moved 

this item to the A&P Committee agenda with a broad mandate to explore ways to improve relations with the device sales and 

service industry. 

101-15 I Copyright of NIST Handbooks by NCWM 

This item was carried over from item 101-16 in the BOD’S Report to the 84th NCWM, 1999. The Board reviewed previous 

legal opinions presented by NIST concerning the legality of NCWM copyrighting joint publications. The Board then 

discussed some of the pros and cons of copyrighting the documents. Rich Kayser indicated that NIST would review the issues 

and communicate its positions/concems to the Board. The Board will discuss this issue further at its April meeting. (See 

Issue 2 in Appendix A, NCWM, Inc., 2000 Strategic Plan, for background on this item.) 

At the Annual Meeting, the Board unanimously voted not to pursue the copyright of Handbooks 44, 130, and 133 at this time. 

The Board is going to explore with OWM the possibility of the Conference assuming responsibility for publication of the 

Annual Report. 

101-16 I Revision of NIST Handbook 44 

This item was carried over from item 101-17 in the BOD’s Report to the 84th NCWM, 1999. NCWM Chairman Wes Diggs 

announced in July 1999 that he had appointed a Working Group headed by Ron Murdock, NC, to recommend revisions to 

Handbook 44 that would modernize the Handbook and make it easier to use and understand. The Working Group had its first 

BOD-7 
Board of Directors 

meeting on September 26, 1999, in Olympia, WA. During the meeting, the group developed the proposed work plan shown 

in Appendix D. 

At the 2000 Interim Meeting, Working Group Chairman Murdock gave a status report on the group’s progress. He 

emphasized that the Working Group plans to begin by focusing on the Handbook’s organization and format rather than trying 

to rewrite it. Some changes that the Working Group is considering are putting the User Requirements in the front of the 

various Codes, including some of the information in the Fundamental Considerations section in the relevant Codes, and 

putting the definitions back in the Codes to which they apply. A number of groups are involved in reviewing the various 

Codes to identify changes that would make them easier to use. Mr. Murdock stressed that the reorganization of the Handbook 

could be a long-term project. 

101-17 I Remanufactured Devices Task Force Status Report 

In the spring of 1999, then NCWM Chairman Aves Thompson appointed a Task Force on RemanufactuFed Devices at the 

request of Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee Chairman Darryl Brown. Both the National Type Evaluation 

Program (NTEP) Board of Governors (now the NTEP Committee) and the S&T Committee have addressed various aspects 

of this issue in recent years. (See Board of Governors item 102-7 in the Report to the 819 NCWM, 1996, and item 310-1 in 

the S&T Report to the 84th NCWM, 1999, for more information.) Establishing the Task Force is the latest attempt to resolve 

this issue. 

Members of the Task Force met in July after the NCWM Annual Meeting and again at the lnterim Meeting. Their Chairman, 

Jim Truex, reported to the Board on the group’s progress. The Task Force plans to develop, by August 2000, 

recommendations that can be reviewed by the regional weights and measures associations and then be voted on in July 2001. 

(See Item 3 10-1 in the S&T Committee Report for more information.) 

101-18 I National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Sector Meetings 

Source: 

Recommendation: The NCWM, Inc., Board of Directors is considering implementing a guideline which would consolidate 

the meetings of the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Belt-Conveyor Scales, Measuring, and 

Weighing Sectors into a single meeting held in a central area of the country. It is planned that the Sectors would meet 

consecutively with ajoint meeting in between. For example, the order of the meetings might be as follows: Weighing, BeltConveyor Scales, Joint Meeting, Measuring. The BOD believes that this would represent cost savings to the NCWM, Inc., 

because the costs of scheduling individual meetings would be consolidated and, thus reduced, and the travel costs for public 

members who normally attend separate meetings would be reduced. Additionally, the combined meeting would eliminate 

the need for people on all three sectors to travel to multiple meetings and would result in more consistent and uniform 

decisions on issues that affect all Sectors. 

The BOD is interested in input from Sector members and other NCWM members on this proposed guideline. 

Background: The meeting schedules for the various NTETC Sectors have changed over the years in response to the needs 

of the individual Sectors. The complexity and the number of agenda items have increased as new technology has evolved, 

and the number of different types of devices evaluated by NTEP has grown. As a result, Sector meetings have become longer. 

Several of the Sectors try to meet in conjunction with regional weights and measures associations to minimize the costs of 

the meeting and to reduce the travel requirements for individual Sector members. While these meetings are very successful 

and the Sectors have greatly appreciated the hospitality provided by various organizations, the BOD discussed whether or 

not there might be a more efficient and cost effective approach. 

The current practice of scheduling Sector meetings in conjunction with related meetings causes problems for some members 

because it means they may be away from their oftices for an extended period of time. This can be particularly difficult for 

NTEP laboratory representatives since NTEP laboratory meetings are often scheduled in conjunction with the Sector 

meetings. Additionally, scheduling several meetings is more costly than scheduling a single meeting. 

NCWM, Inc., Board of Directors 

BOD-8 
Board of Directors 

Another aspect of the Sectors’ work that has been observed is that some areas addressed by individual Sectors tend to overlap. 

For example, many administrative issues and NlST Handbook 44 General Code issues apply to the evaluation of all device 

types. However, the Sectors have little opportunity to meet jointly to develop consistent policies for addressing these issues. 

At the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, the BOD asked Tina Butcher of NIST to put together a sample of what the agenda 

would look like for a combined meeting of the Sectors. 

As requested by the BOD, Mrs. Butcher provided a sample agenda for a joint meeting of the Sectors for the Board’s review 

at the 2000 Annual Meeting (see Appendix E). During the discussion of the agenda, it was reported that the Gas Pump 

Manufacturers Association (GPMA) objects to the idea of having a joint meeting that is not associated with a regional weights 

and measures meeting because it would mean that its members would have to attend an extra meeting. A copy of the sample 

agenda was provided to Rich Tucker of GPMA for comment. Gilles Vinet, Measurement Canada, said that he supports 

having one meeting because it would reduce costs for his organization. It was pointed out that some Sector meeting 

participants might have to stay an extra day in order to attend the “General Issues” portion of the meeting. Henry Oppermann 

suggested that the BOD might want to consider having concurrent sessions of the Sectors to avoid this problem. Will Wotthlie 

said that if concurrent sessions were held, people who were members of two Sectors would have to choose which meeting 

to attend. Steve Cook noted that his State will only allow two individuals to attend an out-of-state meeting. 

To reduce costs to the NCWM, Inc., and to reduce the amount of travel required by participating laboratories and NIST 

Technical Advisors, the Board discussed the possibility of holding consecutive meetings of the Belt-Conveyor, Measuring, 

and Weighing Sectors. 

After considering all of the comments, the Board voted to plan for a joint session of the Sectors in 2001 to be held during the 

time period between the end of the Annual Meeting and the end of September. The format would be similar to that shown 

in the sample agenda. 

101-19 I Handbook 133 Revision Status Report 

At a joint meeting of the BOD and the Laws and Regulations Committee, Ken Butcher and Tom Coleman of the NlST Office 

of Weights and Measures reported on the status of the revision of NlST Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of 

Packaged Goods. Mr. Butcher said that the revision of the Handbook had been halted because of a disagreement over the 

format of the revision. He asked for the Board’s and the L&R Committee’s approval to go forward with his plan to: 

- 

- 

- 

After discussing the pros and cons of keeping the present format or changing to a different format, the Board told Mr. Butcher 

to continue with his plan. The L&R Committee Chairman said that the Committee would support the Board’s decision. (See 

the L&R Committee’s Interim Report for more information on this item.) 

At the 2000 Annual Meeting, Henry Oppermann reported that the next draft of the Fourth Edition of Handbook 133 will be 

published in October 2000. 

Continue with the current question and answer format, 

Complete a third draft that incorporates the comments he received on the second draft, 

Put the technical changes on the agenda of the L&R Committee next year. 

G. W. Diggs, VA, Chairman 

A. Thompson, Alaska, Chairman of the NTEP Committee 

L. Straub, Maryland, Chairman-Elect 

J.A. Rogers, Virginia, Treasurer 

R. Andersen, New York 

R. Davis, Fort James Corporation 

M. Hile, Arkansas 

M. Pinagel, Michigan 

S. Malone, Nebraska 

R. Murdock, North Carolina 

G. West, New Mexico 

BOD-9 
Board of Directors 

Executive Secretary: H. Oppermann, NIST 

Advisors: 

J. Koenig, NIST 

B. Palys, Executive Director, NCWM Headquarters 

G. Vinet, Canada 

Board of Directors 

BOD-10 

, 
Board of Directors 

Appendix A 

NCWM, INC. 

2000 STRATEGIC PLAN 

Business Plan 

ISSUES 

1. The National Institute of Standards & Technology Handbook 44 should be reorganized and rewritten. 

NlST Handbook 44 is one of the most important products of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. The last 

major revision of Handbook 44 was in 1949; since then there have been many additions and minor revisions. Many users 

of the handbook believe that it is outdated and needs to be reorganized and rewritten. Many of the requirements in many 

of the specific codes relate to mechanical devices, whereas most of the devices in today’s world are electronic. Most users 

of Handbook 44 agree it is not clearly written and leaves too much to interpretation. 

There is no question that the reorganization and rewriting of handbook 44 would be a major undertaking and require a longterm commitment on the part of the Conference. A committee of 10 to 15 people representing the major interest groups in 

the Conference should be appointed to determine the feasibility of such an undertaking. 

Current status 

Ron Murdock of North Carolina was appointed in July 1999 by NCWM Chairman, Wes Diggs, to chair a work group of 

public and private sector members to make recommendations for the reorganization of Handbook 44. The work group is 

comprised of the following members: 

Johnny Parrish 

Steve Cook 

Steve Hadder 

Bill West 

Michael Keilty 

Ross Andersen 

Tina Butcher 

Gordon Johnson 

Gary Lameris 

Dave Quinn 

Gary West 

Richard Wotthlie 

Robert Traettino 

Otto Warnlof 

Ron Murdock 

Fisher-Rosemount Petroleum 

California 

Florida 

Ohio 

Micro Motion, Inc 

New York 

NIST 

G ilbarco 

Hobart Corp 

Fairbanks Scales 

New Mexico 

Maryland 

Liquid Controls LLC 

NlSTiretired 

North Carolina 

Their first meeting was held September 26, 1999, in Olympia, Washington. Working Group Chairman, Ron Murdock will 

provide a current status report on Thursday, January 20,2000, when Item #101-16 ofthe Interim Meeting Agenda for the 

Board of Directors is presented. 

Assigned to: Estimated completion date: 

Ron Murdock, North Carolina Standards Division. In Progress 

2. The NCWM should move to copyright handbooks and other publications that are products of the 

Conference’s efforts. 

Much of the NCWM’s resources in both time and money go into the development and publication of NCWMMIST 

publications. It would seem prudent to be in a position to protect these documents from misuse and to ensure that NCWM 

can receive compensation for these publications when deemed appropriate. Several private organizations reprint NCWM 

BOD-1 1 
Board of Directors 

publications using their company or association logos on the cover. Those publications are then distributed to clients and 

other interested parties. In some cases, the reprinted documents are given away or sold as a membership inducement or 

otherwise to promote the private organization. 

Another consideration is that because NCWMMIST publications are referenced in many State laws, many attorneys and at 

least one State’s Attorney General believe that it is a part of the State law, and since they are not copyrighted, copies must 

be made available to the public upon request. In the audit of the NCWM 1997 - 98 financial records, the auditor suggested 

that the Conference investigate copyrighting in order to protect all items proprietary in nature and to prevent competition for 

the sales of these publications. 

One of the major issues concerning the copyright of these publications is ownership. Ray Kammer, Director of NlST has 

said that he would not be willing to let these publications be copyrighted until certain questions were addressed. Note: These 

questions may be more related to the free distribution of publications to certain non-private organizations such as depository 

libraries. However, based on a list provided by OWM, the OWM staff believes that all major publications are the property 

of both NlST and NCWM. 

To further complicate the issue of ownership, handbooks have been published with OWM technical advisors’ names listed 

on the title pages as editors. This practice may have started in the early 1980s with Carroll Brickenkamp and NlST Handbook 

133. If one looks at the title page of the present publications, they will find a list of the OWM Technical Advisors as well 

as officials of the Department of Commerce and the statement “as adopted by the 84th National Conference on Weight and 

Measures.” Beyond stating the fact that NCWM adopts the publications, no recognition is given to the NCWM for its part 

in writing and developing the publications. 

If the Conference does move to copyright the publications it may be a major undertaking in terms of cost. Our attorney, 

Simon Stapleton has suggested that, for the purpose of this project, we obtain an attorney who specializes in copyrighting. 

This would be in addition to the legal fees already budgeted. NlST has been paying for the printing and mailing of the 

handbooks, which is a major expense. Will they continue this practice if the publications are copyrighted? 

Current status 

Mike Rubin, NIST Counsel, originally indicated that the publications are owned by NCWM and may be copyrighted by 

NCWM. Some at the NlST OWM believe the handbooks are jointly owned. Aves Thompson has asked the OW at NlST 

to have some of its personnel serve on a committee with Conference officials to bring the issue of ownership to a resolution. 

This item was discussed at the Board of Directors meeting on October 28, 1999, with Rich Kayser and Tom Gills of NIST. 

At that time Dr. Kayser indicated that NlST was not ready to move on the copyright issue. This item first appeared in the 

January 1998, NCWM, Inc., Strategic Plan; however, we have made little progress. 

Assigned to: 

Board of Directors 

Estimated completion date: 

Under Consideration 

3. The Membership year should coincide with the Fiscal Year. 

Not having the Membership and Fiscal Years coincide, requires additional accounting on the part of NCWM Headquarters. 

Depending on when a membership payment is received, a portion of the payment has to be credited to the present FY and 

a portion to the next FY. Also, because the dues payments are divided, it is difficult to obtain a clear picture of NCWM’s 

or the Associate Membership’s financial position. This recommendation will require a change in the by-laws. 

Dues paid for the membership year of July 1999 through July 2000 will he ertended to cover a IS-month period and become 

due October I, 2000, which will coincide with the new Fiscal Year. 

Current status 

At the 1999 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Conference membership voted to delete specific dates for the membership year 

to allow the Board of Directors more flexibility in setting the membership year in accordance with good business practices. 

Assigned to: 

Board of Directors 

Estimated completion date: 

Completed 

BOD-I2 
Board of Directors 

4. The NCWM should not administer OWM Metrology Funds or Training Grants. 

The results of the 1998 audit noted that, for some disbursements from the grant account, NCWM did not have adequate 

documentation of authorization for purchase. Items were at times purchased or contracted for by others on behalf of the 

NCWM, and there was no formal approval process. As a result, a formal approval process was adopted. 

On the surface there may be some concern about giving up the training grants. It may appear that by giving up the grant 

money the NCWM loses control of how the money may be used. We have developed a protocol for national surveys 

involving the NCWM. This protocol was developed because of the Conference’s involvement with the training grants. By 

giving up the training grants, the NCWM is not necessarily giving up control of how the grant money is used. The NCWM 

has decided not to participate in national surveys unless the protocol is followed, regardless of revenue sources. If NIST 

wants to conduct a survey outside the Conference, it is not bound to follow the protocol. As a practical matter, NIST does 

not award the grant money until it agrees with the training for which it is to be used. 

Current status 

The Board of Directors at their June 2, 1999, meeting agreed to refund the Metrology Funds when that account is satisfied 

and not accept any new Training Grants after the money obligated in the current grant has been spent. NCWM, Inc., will 

charge a fee for administering overhead costs. 

As of January IO, 2000, unspent training grant funds of $8,638.00 were returned to NIST. The return of any OWM metrology 

funds will be resolved with the current audit; this should be completed by January 23,2000, during the lnterim Meetings. 

Assigned to: 

Treasurer and NCWM Headquarters 

Estimated completion date: 

In Progress 

5. Procedures should be established to ensure that voting members of the NCWM have the opportunity 

to vote on all non-technical issues before the Conference. 

It is a general belief all issues presented by the technical committees of the NCWM are technical and can only be voted on 

by the Active Membership. It is conceivable that non-technical issues could be developed by these committees. An example 

of this happened at the 1998 Annual Meeting when the S&T and L&R Committees established procedures for getting issues 

before their respective committees. This was not a technical issue and all members should have been given the opportunity 

to vote. 

Current status 

The Board adopted the following policy at the 1999 Annual Meeting: 

Policy of Business Versus Technical Issues 

The initial determination as to whether an item is business or technical shall be made by the Chair of the Standing Committee. 

If the Standing Committee is unable to resolve the issue, the decision shall be made by the Board of Directors. The Standing 

Committee and the Board of Directors shall use the following guidelines in making a determination: 

A. Technical issues include, but are not limited to, the following: 

I. 

2. 

Items that will be published in Publication 14 or Handbook 44, 105 series, 130, and 133 and 

Items that may lead to enforcement action by regulatory agencies. 

B. Business issues include, but are not limited to, the following: 

1. Items concerning training and 

2. Items relating to how the Corporation is managed including, but not limited to, changes to the Bylaws and 

other documents governing the operation of the Corporation. 

The policy will be included in the Corporation’s Policies and Procedures Manual 

BOD- I3 
Board of Directors 

Assigned to: 

Board of Directors 

Estimated completion date: 

Completed 

6. Develop a brochure telling the story of weights and measures in the United States and how the National 

Conference on Weights and Measures fits in the process. 

The NCWM Legislative Liaison Committee meets with United States Senators and Congressmen to explain and promote the 

NCWM. These meeting are usually limited to I5 - 20 minutes. It is important to have a brochure or other suitable material 

that can be left with these individuals giving more detail about the NCWM than can be discussed in a 15-minute meeting. 

These brochures would be designed to be suitable for distribution to legislators or legislative aides at all levels of government. 

Current status 

At the NCWM 1999 Annual Meeting, the Board of Directors authorized an expenditure of $5,000 from Conference reserve 

funds to complete the brochure project in cooperation with the Associate Membership Committee. Elizabeth Jackson, 

Marketing Communications, Owings Mills, Maryland, completed the brochure in December 1999. The brochures have been 

forwarded to the NCWM Headquarters. 

Assigned to: 

Tom Geiler 

Estimated completion date: 

Completed 

7. Take over the administration of the National Type Evaluation Program by October 1,2000. 

At the 1999 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Board of Directors took comments from industry and weights and measures 

officials on three proposed options for administering the National Type Evaluation Program. (Background information on 

the three options can be found in 1999 NCWM Publication 16.) After hearing comments at two open hearings and meeting 

with NlST management officials, the Board of Directors unanimously selected option #l. This option removes NlST from 

the role of issuing NTEP certificates and results in the NCWM assuming responsibility for the administration of NTEP. 

Current status 

NCWM Chairman, Wes Diggs, proposed the following timetable to address the NTEP transition at the Board of Directors 

meeting on October 29, 1999. 

September 2, 1999 - 

September IO, 1999 

September 10-24, 1999 

September 30, 1999 

December 30, 1999 

January 1,2000 

February I, 2000 

April I, 2000 

April 15, 2000 

May I, 2000 

June I, 2000 

Meet with Gil Uganisky and notify him that the NCWM plans to assume the total administrative 

part of NTEP by October I, 2000. 

Notify Gil Uganisky in writing of the October 1, 2000 date. 

Gil Uganisky’s window of opportunity to respond. 

Send out renewal invoices for NTEP Certificates of Conformance (CCs). 

Send out new NCWM CCs to those who have paid their maintenance fee. 

Start preparing RFP (30 days) 

Send out RFP (60 days) 

Screen RFP (1 5 days) 

Conduct interviews (15 days) 

Selection/Acceptance (30 days) 

New Manager is on board 

BOD-I4 
Board of Directors 

June I-Sept 30,2000 

October 1,2000 

Transition (120 days) 

NCWM takes over all administrative activities of NTEP. 

Assigned to: 

Board of Directors 

Estimated completion date: 

In Progress 

BOD- 15 
Board of Directors 

7-1999 

NCWM, Inc. 

2000 Strategic Plan 

As of October 22, 1999 

Completed 

9 

IO 

~~ ~~ 

Determine continued level of participation and liaison with other standards 

writing organizations e.g.. ASTM, API, NCSL 

Provide ongoing liaison to related associations; e.g., SMA, NISA, GPMA, 

FMI. ISWM, APL. NCSL 

Start Date 7 Completed Status 

The National Institute of Standards & Technology Handbook-44 should be 7-1999 In progress 

reorganized. 

The NWCM should move to copyright handbooks and other publications that I2 I are products of the Conference’s efforts. 1-1998 Under 

consideration 

I 3 I Membership year should coincide with the fiscal year 1-1999 7-1999 I Completed 

I 4 I The NCWM should not administer OWM metrology funds or training grants. 6-1999 I In progress 

Procedures should be established to assure that voting members of NCWM 6-1999 

should have the opportunity to vote on all nontechnical issues brought before 

the Conference 

Develop a brochure telling the story of weights and measures in the United 

States and how the National Conference on Weights and Measures fits in the I I nrocess. 

7-1998 

Take over the administration of the National Type Evaluation Program by 

17 I October I, 2000. 

7- I999 

Determine continued level of participation in international standards Is I development organizations. (OIML, APLMF, APEC) 

4-15-97 Ongoing 

4-IS-97 Ongoing 

4-IS-97 I Ongoing 

Establish procedures for prioritizing resource allocations and operations for 4- 15-97 I In progress 

providing technical support and guidance for the NCWM Standing 

Committees and Work GrouDs bv the 1999 meeting. 

BOD- I6 
Board of Directors 

BOD-17

Appendix B 

Report on the Activities of the 

International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML)

and Other Legal Metrology Organizations 

July 2000

 Charles D. Ehrlich, Chief 

 Technical Standards Activities Program 

 Office of Standards Services, NIST 

Personnel Changes in the Technical Standards Activities Program

Dr. Samuel E. Chappell retired from Federal service on May 3, 2000, and I was assigned the position of Chief of the 

Technical Standards Activities Program (TSAP). In April 2000, NIST recommended to the Department of State that I 

replace Dr. Chappell as the United States (U.S.) member of the International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML). The 

International Bureau of Legal Metrology (BIML) confirmed my appointment to the CIML on July 5, 2000.

Deborah M. Ripley of TSAP accepted an appointment in April 2000 with the Department of the Navy. Her responsibilities 

related to National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) activities will be shared by Ken Butcher, formally of 

NIST’s Office of Weights and Measures, and S. Wayne Stiefel who joined TSAP in September 1999 after completing 

previous assignments in another area of the Office of Standards Services (OSS). This final report completes the interim 

report that Dr. Samuel E. Chappell provided to the NCWM at its Interim Meeting in January 2000. 

Report on the 34th Meeting of the International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML)

October 6 to 8, 1999, in Tunisia

Representatives of 48 of the 56 member nations participated in the CIML meeting from October 6 to 8, 1999, in Tunis, 

Tunisia. Representatives of Corresponding Member States and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations participated for the 

first time as a result of recent decisions by CIML. Reports on the following items were presented: 

Technical Activities 

The CIML took the following action on these Recommendations: 

 R 60 – Adopted a revision of OIML R 60 “Metrological Regulation of Load Cells.” 

 R 129 – Adopted a new Recommendation on “Multi-dimensional Measuring Instruments.” 

 R 49 – Adopted a revision of R 49 “Water Meters for Cold Potable Water - including both mechanical and electronic

meters.” 

 R 65 – Adopted a revision of R 65 “Force Measuring System of Uniaxial Material Testing Machines.” 

The United States is Secretariat for the Technical Committees (TC) responsible for developing PR-1 and PR-4 and 

participated significantly in the Committees responsible for the other two projects. Dr. Chappell provided a report on the 

status of the projects in the various OIML Technical Committees and emphasized the importance of keeping the work 

current. It was decided that, in addition to an annual report on the status of the work projects from the Secretariats of the 

Technical Committees, BIML will also request a report on plans for reaffirming or revising any projects that are more than 

5 years old.
Board of Directors 

BOD-18

OIML TC3 “Metrological Control” 

Dr. Chappell reported on an International Working Group (IWG) meeting of OIML TC3 “Metrological Control” held in 

Paris, France from June 1 - 3, 1999. Forty persons attended. The purpose of the meeting was to review the work program 

of TC3 and establish a new subcommittee, to be named SC5 “Conformity Assessment,” with the Secretariat shared by the 

United States and BIML. Projects will include a publication on the OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments” 

and a draft Document on the “Mutual Acceptance Agreement” (MAA). A 4th draft OIML Document on the MAA was 

reviewed at the meeting, and a 5th draft is being prepared. Supplementary documents are also being prepared to facilitate 

implementing an MAA. These documents will include interpretations of applicable International Organization for 

Standardization and the International Electrotechnical Commission (ISO/IEC) guides and standards for assessing laboratories 

and authorities who issue test reports and certificates of conformance, and for conducting testing and preparing test reports. 

Dr. Chappell reported on a meeting of a task group of OIML TC3/SC5 that was established to develop a guidance document 

on the “expression of measurement uncertainty” in legal metrology applications. The task group has representatives from 

France, Germany, and the United States. The title of the draft document will be “Decision Criteria for Conformance of 

Measuring Instruments in Legal Metrology Applications.”

OIML TC6 “Prepackaged Products” 

Dr. Chappell reported on a meeting of a task group for TC6 “Prepackaged Products” to discuss the revision by the United 

States as Secretariat of the OIML R 87 “Net Content in Packages.” The revision will include a proposal for establishing 

within OIML an International Quantity (IQ) Mark System similar to the existing e-mark within the European Union for 

prepackaged products. The task group included representatives of Germany, the Netherlands, and the United States. 

OIML TC5 “Electronic Instruments” 

J.F. Magana, CIML member for France, reported on a CIML Seminar on “software” held in Paris on September 30 to 

October 1, 1999. On the basis of the report, CIML approved establishing a new technical subcommittee, SC2 “Software,” 

within TC5 “Electronic Measuring Instruments.” 

OIML Certificate System

Dr. M. Kochsiek, CIML member for Germany, provided a report on the OIML Certificate System including the new 

Recommendations to be added to the System and numbers of Certificates issued for the various categories of instruments that 

are now a part of the System. The BIML prepares a notice of certificates issued each quarter in the OIML Bulletin and 

reports annually to CIML members on the status of the System. The report identifies participating member nations with 

testing laboratories that are issuing authorities.

Developing Countries 

A meeting of the Development Council took place before the CIML meeting. Mrs. Annabi, CIML member for Tunisia and 

Chair of the Development Council, presented a draft plan of action to CIML members for comment. The Chairman and 

Vice-Chairman will prepare an amended draft with support from BIML staff. Final approval of the plan by CIML will be 

carried out by correspondence. 

Liaisons with International and Regional Organizations 

The OIML President, Gerhard J. Faber of the Netherlands, CIML members, and Bernard Athané, Director of BIML, 

provided reports on information concerning liaisons with various international and regional bodies. These included the 

Mètre Convention, the International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC), the Joint Committee for Guides on 

Metrology (JCGM), the International Standardization Organization (ISO), the International Electrotechnical Commission 

(IEC), the International Accreditation Forum (IAF), the World Trade Organization (WTO), the Western European Legal 

Metrology Cooperation (WELMEC), the Inter-American Metrology System (SIM), the Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum 

(APLMF), and others. In particular, the requests for priority of work projects from APLMF were noted.
Board of Directors 

BOD-19

All regional legal metrology organizations were invited to send representatives to participate in this CIML meeting in an 

effort to better coordinate the work among them and to be aware of the latest developments within OIML. Note: Seton 

Bennett, CIML member for the United Kingdom, called an informal meeting of all regional organizations represented. Dr. 

Chappell along with participants from Uruguay and Argentina were asked to represent SIM. 

Ms. Vivian Liu, Economic Officer of the WTO, gave a presentation on the Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) Committee of 

the WTO and reviewed the development and application of international standards, multilateral recognition agreements, 

accreditation and certification requirements and their influence on world trade. OIML is an observer on the TBT 

Committee.

OIML Long-term policy 

OIML President Gerhard Faber presented a draft OIML “Long-range Policy” prepared by the Presidential Council. The 

basis for this policy was the report on long-term policy prepared by past CIML President Knut Birkeland and the results of 

the Symposium on the “Role of Metrology in Economic and Social Development” in Braunschweig, Germany, in June 

1998. The symposium was co-sponsored by Germany’s Physikalisch-Technische Bundesanstalt (PTB*), OIML, BIPM, and 

the International Measurement Confederation (IMECO). 

* The PTB is Germany’s national institute for science and technology and the highest technical authority of the Federal 

Republic of Germany on metrology and physical safety engineering.

The policy covered four major areas: (1) recommend means for improving and accelerating the technical activity of the 

Technical Committees and Subcommittees and increasing the participation of the OIML members, (2) the need to develop 

procedures for mutual recognition and equivalence agreements, (3) the need to demonstrate the importance of legal 

metrology and identify the basis of legal metrology and its specific place amongst other aspects of metrology and related 

activities, and (4) the need to facilitate and improve the work of CIML members. Several documents are under development 

to facilitate the implementation of this policy.

Report on BIML Activities. 

The BIML Director, Bernard Athané, submitted a written report on BIML activities since the last CIML meeting. This 

report was printed in the OIML Bulletin for January 2000 that is available at http://www.oiml.org on the Internet. 

CIML Presidency

The 6-year term of President Faber and Dr. Chappell’s term as Vice President will end in 2000. Mr. Faber announced that 

he would be a candidate for another term, but Dr. Chappell announced that he would not. CIML will act to fill both 

positions at its next meeting in October 2000.

BIML Director 

See the comments regarding the search for a new Director under the report in the following section on the Presidential 

Council Meeting. 

Next Meeting 

It was announced that the 35th meeting of CIML will be held in conjunction with the 11th Conference of Legal Metrology in 

London on October 9 to 13, 2000.
Board of Directors 

BOD-20

Report on the OIML Presidential Council Meeting 

February 21 to 22, 2000

The meeting took place at BIML on February 21 to 22, 2000. A major subject of the discussions was the 1999-2002 OIML 

“Action Plan” approved at the 34th CIML meeting. (See the report on the 34th CIML meeting.) Also discussed were the 

means by which the assistance to developing countries could be carried out effectively though the Development Council. 

A report on the technical work of OIML was provided by Attila Szilvássy, Assistant BIML Director, based on the results of 

the Annual Reports of the Secretariats of the Technical Committees and Subcommittees including accomplishments and 

plans. Twenty-nine persons applied as candidates for the position of Director of BIML announced in December 1999. The 

number was reduced to seven for further review by a selection committee, identified by OIML President Faber, that met in 

March 2000 in Paris. After an assessment of the candidates by the selection committee, the President of CIML will select 

one candidate for presentation to CIML for consideration and approval at its 35th meeting in London in October 2000. 

Dr. Chappell was among the representatives of the OIML, the “Metré Convention,” and the International Laboratory 

Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) that met at the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM) in Sèvres Cedex, 

France after the Presidential Council meeting. The general purpose of these periodic meetings is to explore areas of mutual 

interest for possible cooperation. The participants exchanged information about activities within each organization. The 

area of greatest interest appeared to be in support of developing countries. It was suggested that a follow-up Symposium 

should be considered for the “Role of Metrology in Economic and Social Development” held in Braunschweig, Germany, in 

1998.

Activities of OIML Secretariats

This section provides a report on the work underway in Technical Committees (TCs) and Technical Subcommittees (SCs) of 

specific interest to the NCWM to develop or revise OIML International Recommendations (Rs) or International Documents 

(Ds). Also included are reports on recent activities of those groups, and schedules of future activities of Secretariats, the 

U.S. National Working Groups (NWGs), and the International Working Groups (IWGs) of committees and subcommittees. 

Ken Butcher and Wayne Stiefel of TSAP presented details of these activities to the NCWM Committees on “Specifications 

and Tolerances” and “Laws and Regulations.” 

TC1 Terminology (Poland)

A draft revision of the “Vocabulary of Legal Metrology” (1978 Edition) was distributed by BIML to CIML for comment 

and vote by March 2000. The United States voted no with comments; however, the draft revision passed. BIML is assisting 

the Secretariat in editing a final revision of the vocabulary taking into consideration comments received from CIML 

members. 

TC3 Metrological Control (U.S.)

The CIML approved the establishment of a new TC3/SC5 “Conformity Assessment.” (See the report on the 34th CIML 

meeting.)

TC3/SC1 Initial and Subsequent Verification (U.S.) 

A draft OIML Document in December 1999 on “Initial Verification Utilizing the Manufacturer’s Quality System” was 

distributed for comment and vote by March 2000. The ballot on the Document was successful. The Secretariat is making 

editorial changes in consideration of comments received prior to publication of this Document by BIML.

TC3/SC5 Conformity Assessment (U.S. and BIML)

The 5th CD OIML Document “Mutual Acceptance Agreement on OIML Pattern Evaluations (MAA)” was distributed by the 

Secretariat to participating members for comment and vote in December 1999. The ballot was not successful, so a 6th draft 

OIML Document on the MAA was distributed for comment and was the subject of an IWG meeting held in Paris in June 

2000. The United States chaired the meeting and had representatives of the NCWM and U.S. instrument manufacturers as a 

part of the U.S. delegation. A 7th draft OIML Document on the MAA will be prepared based on comments received at the 
Board of Directors 

BOD-21

IWG meeting and by correspondence and will be distributed for comment and vote in October 2000. 

TC5 Electronic Instruments (Netherlands) 

TC5/SC1 Electronic Instruments (Netherlands) 

A draft revision of OIML D 11 “General Requirements for Electronic Measuring Instruments” was received from the 

Netherlands, the Secretariat for TC5/SC1 Electronic Instruments. The draft was sent to the U.S. National Working Group 

for TC9 for review and comment. Dr. Ambler Thompson of TSAP will serve as the technical leader to coordinate 

developing the U.S. comments and position on D 11. This coordination is necessary since this Document may have impact 

on all OIML Recommendations on weighing and measuring instruments and on those relating to devices in noncommercial 

applications in the United States (e.g., breath analyzers, and pollution test equipment.) Comments must be submitted by

August 25, 2000. To obtain a copy of the draft revision of D 11 please contact Dr. Thompson at Ambler@nist.gov or in 

writing at:

Dr. Ambler Thompson 

NIST Technical Standards Activities Program 

NIST North (820) Room 133 

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2150 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2150 

Tel: 301-975-2333 or Fax: 301-926-1559

TC5/SC2 - Software (France and Germany)

OIML Symposium on Software: BIML and the Director of Metrology (SDM) of France sponsored a Symposium on 

Software September 30 and October 1, 1999, in Paris, France. Individuals from PTB (Germany); Bureau Roumain de 

Mtrologie Lgale (BRML) (Romania); Nederlands Meetinstituut (Nmi) (Netherlands); the National Conference on Weights 

and Measures (NCWM) (USA); security agencies such as Service Central de la Scurit des Systmes d'Information 

(SCSSI) of France; representatives of the software industry, such as Interface Logic Systems, Inc. (U.S.); and manufacturers 

of flow computer systems, taximeters, and digital tachometers participated. 

The PTB, SDM, and the NMi presentations emphasized analyzing software based on a “model” developed by the issuing 

authority or full-scale testing of the software under pattern approval. This approach requires laboratory personnel who are 

trained in computer science, electronics, and information technology. There were statements that this approach results in 

increased costs to manufacturers; however, it provides a better mechanism for deterring fraud. Charles Gardner (NCWM) 

gave an overview of the National Conference on Weights and Measures National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) 

software policy, which is to evaluate software as part of a complete system. NTEP Certificates are issued based on the 

complete weighing or measuring system, not just the software alone.

The United States and European countries experience many of the same problems with fraudulent use of software. The PTB 

spoke about a situation in Europe where consumers were charged for an amount of gasoline that their vehicle tanks were 

unable to hold. Whenever, inspectors were onsite to test the dispensing systems, the tests proved to be within tolerance. 

Inaccurate readings were undetectable because the microchip installed in the dispenser speeded up or slowed down the 

pulses, increasing or decreasing the amount of fuel displayed. The United States reported that the same problem has been 

experienced in some U.S. States. 

The “zapper” is another fraudulent device detected in the United States A taximeter company in France described how the 

"zapper" works to perpetrate fraud by having a negative influence on the sensor. Dimensionally, the zapper is extremely 

small (approximately 2 cm to 3 cm). It costs approximately $50 U.S. The vehicle operator controls the zapper with a 

switch, magnet, infrared (IR) sensor, or radio. The ability to defraud consumers depends on the control characteristics and 

the zapper technology. Authorities found that the latest generation of zapper technology has greater intelligence. There are 

three types of sensor-generators and five types of zapper-generators. Both types of generators send signals that can be 

modified to increase or decrease pulses. Zapper devices can be manufactured from components purchased at any retail 

electronics outlet. New York State and the City of New York have been working on legislation to assist weights and 
Board of Directors 

BOD-22

measures inspectors in detecting these devices. Both the microchip and the zapper cases demonstrate the importance of field 

surveillance in detecting fraudulent devices. 

The symposium confirmed that software applications are common in the marketplace. Typically, shortly after a software 

program is developed, modifications are made to the source code. Most commonly, modifications are made (1) to correct 

errors in the program code or logic (bugs); (2) to change the compiler or computer system; (3) to update the software to 

meet customers’ needs or adjust to changes in the market; or (4) by a programmer who inserts hidden codes (virus). The 

issuing authority for pattern approval certificates is not always notified of these software changes. A proposal was adopted to

establish an OIML workgroup to investigate software problems in legal metrology and to develop guidelines. As reported 

above, it was announced at the 34th meeting of the International Committee of Legal Metrology, that this project will be 

coordinated by TC5/SC2 “Software,” which is the responsibility of France and Germany. The goal of this project is to 

develop a publication on Software in Legal Metrology. The United States will be a Participating member. Dr. Ambler 

Thompson of TSAP will coordinate the U.S. technical participation in this SC. For more information please contact Dr. 

Thompson at Ambler@nist.gov or in writing at:

Dr. Ambler Thompson 

NIST Technical Standards Activities Program 

NIST North (820) Room 133 

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2150 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2150 

Tel: 301-975-2333 or Fax: 301-926-1559

TC6 Prepackaged Products (U.S.)

Sam Chappell chaired a meeting of TC 6 on February 24 to 25, 2000, at the Maison de la Chimie in Paris. Twenty-nine 

delegates attended the meeting from 16 Participating members and one Observer member, plus representatives of CECIP 

(Committee of European Constructors of Weighing Instruments) and the BIML. The first Committee Draft (CD) revision of 

OIML R 87 “Net Content in Packages” was reviewed in its entirety. Specific and substantive changes to the draft were 

proposed, discussed and agreed upon for the main clauses and annexes. In particular, the Secretariat agreed to add an annex 

on drained weight. 

The International Quantity (IQ) Marking System proposed in Annex C of the CD, intended to facilitate international trade, 

was discussed in detail. The principle of whether the system should be described within R 87 or made the subject of a 

separate document (along the lines of that on the OIML Certificate System) was considered. It was felt that the present 

Annex should remain since it outlined the principles of the system, although a much more detailed separate document would 

also be needed. The Secretariat agreed to revise Annex C in order to provide an explanation of its benefits to affected parties

and simplify its application and implementation by all participants including regulatory bodies and small, medium and large 

packing firms. Resolutions of the meeting were: 

1. To consider comments made at the meeting, and others submitted by correspondence to the Secretariat, on a

first committee draft of R 87 by April 1, 2000. 

2. To prepare a 2 CD revision of R 87 for review and comment by no later than August 2000; 

3. To endeavor to complete the revision of OIML R 87 in time for it to be approved by the CIML at its October 2001 

meeting;

4. To call this work to the attention of responsible authorities within OIML Member States and regions so that its 

requirements could be considered when revising and harmonizing applicable laws and regulations; 

5. To recommend that mutual recognition of net content of product in prepackages be considered as a topic for 

discussion at the Round Table during the Eleventh International Conference in October 2000 in London; 

6. To ensure that the status of this project is made known to all relevant organizations and, in particular, to the 

Technical Barriers to Trade Committee of the WTO. 

The participants in the meeting expressed a special appreciation to the BIML for its efforts in arranging and hosting the 
Board of Directors 

BOD-23

meeting in Paris. John Birch (Australia) thanked Sam Chappell for his work in the development of this CD, which is very 

significant in view of the importance of prepackaged goods in international trade. 

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

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

The CIML approved the draft Recommendation on “Multi-dimensional Measuring Instruments.” A draft of the test report 

format for that recommendation was distributed by BIML to CIML members for comment and vote by March 2000. The 

United States voted yes with comments. Copies will be made available when the document is published by BIML.

TC8 Instruments for Measuring Quantities of Fluids (Switzerland) -TC8/SC3 “Measuring Instruments for Liquids 

other than Water.” (Germany)

At a February 2000 IWG meeting in Paris, the initial topic concerned comments received on the draft Recommendation R 

118 “Test procedures and format of the test report for pattern evaluation of fuel dispensers for motor vehicles” circulated in 

May 1999. This discussion will be used to finalize R 118. The goal is to obtain approval by the CIML in October 2000. A 

new working group TC8/SC3/WG1 will continue to develop additional test procedures and a format of the test report. 

A second topic for this meeting related to the revision of R 117 “Measuring Instruments for Liquids other than Water.” A 

new working group designated TC8/SC3/WG2, which the United States joined with the Netherlands as Convenor, was 

established to revise R 117. 

TC8/SC4 “Dynamic Mass Measurements (Liquids other than Water)” (U.S.) 

A joint February 2000 IWG meeting of TC8/SC3 and TC8/SC4 chaired by the United States was held in Paris. The purpose 

of this meeting was to discuss the merger of OIML R 105 Direct mass flow measuring systems for quantities of liquids (for 

which the USA is the Secretariat) with OIML R 117 "Measuring systems for liquids other than water" (for which Germany 

is the Secretariat). A positive vote resulted from the U.S. Secretariat proposal to accept the merger (combined revision) of 

the two OIML Recommendations. A new Working Group TC 8/SC 4/WG 1 named Combination R 105/R 117 (U.S as 

Convenor) was formed comprising the same members as TC 8/SC 3/WG 2. 

TC8/SC5 “Water Meters” (United Kingdom)

CIML approved a revision of R 49 for “mechanical and electronic” water meters in October 1999. Subsequent meetings of 

TC 8/SC 5/WG 2 were held to develop a test procedure and test report format - November 1999 at NIST, February 2000 in 

Paris and May 2000 in Copenhagen. Working Group 2 intends to present an advanced working draft to OIML TC 8/SC 5 

which will hold its next meeting in November 2000 in Paris with a view to having a 1st CD by the end of the year.

TC8/SC7 “Gas Metering” (Belgium and France) 

An IWG meeting was held in Paris in March 2000 to discuss preparation of a 2nd CD draft OIML Recommendation 

“Measurement Quantities of Gas Distributed by Pipeline” (to include natural and compressed natural gas). The meeting 

focused on discussion of comments on the 1st CD draft Recommendation. A major issue raised by the United States 

involved “restricted technology” by precluding the conversion from mass to volume. The Netherlands, Austria, and the 

United Kingdom also expressed this concern. A task group to be chaired by the United States was created to recommend 

revisions needed to permit conversion in the Recommendation.

TC8/SC8 “Gas Meters” (Netherlands) 

The Secretariat has sent a questionnaire asking for comments to guide the initiation of a work program to revise R 6 

“General provisions for gas volume meters,” R 31 “Diaphragm Gas Meters,” and R 32 “Rotary Piston Gas Meters and 

Turbine Gas Meters.” The U.S. NWG has been asked to provide comments and to participate in the revision of these 

Recommendations.
Board of Directors 

BOD-24

TC9 Instruments for Measuring Mass and Density (U.S.) 

OIML Certificates for Components

In response to a request from the NWG, the Secretariat is preparing a 1st CD Recommendation on “Indicators for Weighing 

Instruments.” This draft will be distributed for review and comment by the U.S. National Working Group in August 2000. 

Load Cells 

The Secretariat prepared an interpretation of the requirements for a manufacturer who has an OIML Certificate of 

conformance for a model meeting the requirements of OIML R 60 (1991) to get an OIML Certificate of conformance for 

that same model to the requirements of R 60 (2000). The document entitled “OIML R 60 Metrological Regulation for Load 

Cells: Certificate Transformation Requirements” has been published by BIML; copies are available from TSAP.

TC9 OIML Recommendation 74 “Electronic Weighing Instruments”

A 2nd Working Draft revision of the 1993 edition of OIML R 74 “Electronic Weighing Instruments” is being prepared for 

distribution to the U.S. National Working Group for comment. The initial focus of this work will be to update the 

Recommendation to reflect changes in International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC) standards and ensure that its revision 

is carried out concurrently with the work on OIML D 11 “General Requirements for Electronic Measuring Instruments” that 

is being coordinated by the Netherlands. The Working Group met at the NCWM Annual Meeting in July and agreed to 

delete references to checking facilities and retain R 74 as an OIML Recommendation. The next meeting of the Working 

Group will be held in conjunction with the NCWM NTEP Weighing Sector meeting in Columbus, Ohio in September 2000. 

TC9/SC1 “Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments” (Germany and France) 

On February 4, 1999, a U.S. NWG Meeting was held. The group discussed some of the open items that should be 

addressed when R 76 is revised. In April 2000, TSAP contacted the TC9/SC1 Secretariats requesting information on any 

plans to begin the revision process or to call an IWG meeting and requesting a joint meeting of TC9 to discuss issues with R 

60 “Load Cells” and R 76 in 2000. At the time of this report no plans have been announced.

TC9/SC2 “Automatic Weighing Instruments” (United Kingdom)

The Secretariat is considering revision of the following OIML Recommendations: R 50 “Continuous Totalizing Automatic 

Weighing Instruments (belt weighers); R 51 “Automatic Catch Weighing Instruments;” R 61 “Automatic Gravimetric 

Filling Machines;” R 106 “Automatic Rail-Weighbridges;” and R 107 “Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing 

Instruments (hoppers).” The United States submitted comments and suggested changes to the Secretariat for its 

consideration.

TC9/SC3 “Weights” (U.S.) 

OIML Recommendation 111 “Weights...” - the OIML International Working Group has adopted the Second Committee 

Draft Revision and Secretariat is in the process of preparing the final draft using the comments received from the working 

group members. A final draft will be forwarded to CIML for adoption and publication by BIML in the near future. 

The International Working Group agreed that OIML R 52 “Hexagonal Weights” will not be withdrawn since its 

requirements may still be utilized in some developing countries. An updated edition of R 52 will be prepared and submitted 

to BIML for review and publication after the work on R 111 is complete. 

OIML Recommendation R 33 “Conventional Value of the Result of Weighing in Air" (U.S.)

At a May 1998 meeting on R 111, a Working Group composed of representatives from Germany, France, and the United 

States was formed to review, revise, and draft an International Document based on the OIML Recommendation, R 33 

“Conventional Value of the Result of Weighing in Air.” The 1st CD has been distributed for review and comment. After 

the comments have been received and considered a 2nd CD will be prepared for distribution in the fall of 2000. 
Board of Directors 

BOD-25

Report on the Sixth Annual - Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF) 

September 7 to 9, 1999

The APLMF met in Bali, Indonesia, from September 7 to 9, 1999; representatives of 17 of the 22 member economies 

attended. Bernard Athané, Director of the International Bureau of Legal Metrology, was also present as an observer 

representing the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML). Dr. Chappell represented the United States and was 

accompanied by Aves Thompson, who represented the NCWM. 

Herudi Kartowisastro of the Department of Trade and Industry, Indonesia opened the 6th APLMF meeting with a 

welcoming address. John Birch, Australia, and Convenor of the APLMF then addressed the meeting. He confirmed the 

report of the 5th APLMF meeting held in Seoul, Republic of Korea, in October 1998 and provided a report for the APLMF 

Executive Committee. 

Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) for the APLMF

Prior to the meeting, Mr. Birch had provided the members a revised MOU that took into consideration comments made by 

the United States on a previous draft MOU that had been distributed to members for consideration in February 1999. All 

members present indicated that they approved the revised MOU and indicated that responsible officials of their economies 

intended to sign. Dr. Richard Kayser, Director of NIST’s Technology Services, signed the MOU for the United States in 

April 1999. 

Working Group Reports

Mutual Recognition Arrangements 

Dr. Chappell provided a report on the development of an International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) effort to 

establish a “Mutual Acceptance Agreement on OIML Pattern Evaluations.” The status of the development of a 5th draft of 

the Mutual Agreement and associated Documents was also reported. Mr. Birch reported on an effort to establish an 

APLMF Mutual Acceptance Arrangement for pattern, or type, approval test reports. 

Training

Kerry Marston of Australia, who is Regional Training Coordinator, reported on: (a) the development of a training course on 

the verification and re-verification of weighing instruments, (b) a train-the-trainer course on “Verification” and “In-service 

Inspection of Non-automatic Weighing Instruments” held in Bandung, Indonesia from August 24 to September 3, 1999, and 

(c) development of a “Regional Directory of Training” and a “Regional Network of Training Providers.” 

Utility Meters 

Mr. Birch provided a report on the results of a survey on “Heat Meters” and the “Refurbishment/reconditioning of Utility 

Meters.”

Goods Packed by Measure 

John Barker, Chair, of New Zealand led a discussion on (a) “mutual recognition of net content in package labeling” and a 

report on (b) the progress of the Western European Cooperation in Legal Metrology (WELMEC) Working Group (WG) 6 

on the e-mark on packaged products. 

Rice Moisture Measurement 

Ms. Marston led a discussion of a questionnaire survey on the problem of rice moisture measurement, including a report of 

a survey of manufacturers of rice moisture measuring equipment. She also gave a report on the effort to identify an expert to 

conduct a survey of rice moisture measurements in several Asian economies. 
Board of Directors 

BOD-26

Country Reports by Member Economies 

Reports were presented by the following member economies: Australia, Canada, Republic of Korea, Lao Peoples

Democratic Republic, Mongolia, Chinese Taipei, and the United States (NCWM – by Aves Thompson). 

Reports of Specialist Bodies of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC)

Reports were provided on the following bodies within the region: APLAC APLMF, APMP, PAC, PASC, APEC Standards 

and Conformance Subcommittee. 

OIML Issues

OIML was asked to give priority to the following projects: (a) development of an OIML Recommendation on “electricity 

meters” with a test procedure and format of a test report so these instruments can be included in the OIML Certificate 

System; and (b) the development of a “statistical sampling plans” for application to the re-verification of utility meters. 

APLMF Work Program for 1999 – 2000

A detailed APLMF work program for the next year was prepared and presented by Mr. Birch. A copy is available from 

TSAP.

President of APLMF for 2000 –2001

It was requested that member economies identify someone to consider accepting the position as President (formally 

Convenor) of APLMF. No candidates were put forth. John Birch was requested to accept the position. He has been the 

Convenor for 5 years but agreed to accept the position as President on a temporary basis until someone from another 

member economy agreed to accept the position. 

Next Meeting of the APLMF

Chinese Taipei agreed to host the next meeting in October 2000. Dr. Ehrlich will attend the meeting as U.S. Representative. 

The NCWM will be represented at that meeting by G. Weston Diggs (Immediate Past Chairman of the NCWM) and 

incoming Chairman of the NCWM National Type Evaluation Program Committee. 

APLMF Inter-laboratory Comparisons 

Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments. 

APLMF has sponsored an intercomparison involving the type evaluation of a nonautomatic-weighing instrument. 

Participants included the United States, Canada, Australia, and other countries. A report prepared by the Australia National 

Standards Commission was published in July 2000 and is currently being studied by participating laboratories and other 

interested parties. 

Mass

An intercomparison involving mass has been delayed, pending information from Asian Pacific Metrology Program (APMP), 

which has also conducted a mass intercomparison. The APLMF Convenor wants to view final results from that 

intercomparison before beginning an APLMF mass intercomparison.

Load Cells

A load cell intercomparison has been completed involving several laboratories, including NIST, Australia’s National 

Standards Commission (NSC), Japan, United Kingdom, and Germany. This intercomparison was conducted using two 250-

kg capacity load cells, and two 20 000-kg capacity load cells. A report is being prepared by the Force Group at NIST and 

will be published in the Fall of 2000 in the OIML Bulletin and NIST's Journal of Research.
Board of Directors 

BOD-27

Flowmeters

Plans for an intercomparison of master flowmeters are being developed. The United States will consider participating in the 

intercomparison once the test protocol and test facility requirements have been developed and are available for review. 

Legal Metrology Seminar for the Americas at the 85th NCWM Annual Meeting 

The NCWM, the NIST Technical Standards Activities Program and the NIST Office of Weights and Measures cosponsored 

a seminar on legal metrology in conjunction with the 85th NCWM in Richmond, Virginia on July 16 to 20, 2000. The 

attendees included legal metrology and industry representatives from Argentina, Brazil, Canada, Chile, Colombia, Costa 

Rica, Ecuador, El Salvador, Jamaica, Peru, the United States, Uruguay, and Venezuela. The participants represented many 

of the members of the Inter-American Metrology System (SIM) “Legal Metrology Working Group,” and a formal meeting 

of this group followed the Seminar. Attendees also observed and participated in the deliberations and other activities of the 

NCWM throughout the week, interacting extensively with their legal metrology colleagues. 

One of the goals of the seminar was to focus the participants on the need to harmonize type evaluation requirements for 

weighing and measuring instruments. Legal metrology officials provided presentations and information on the legal 

requirements of each country, answered questions, and expressed a willingness to cooperate in working towards establishing 

mutual acceptance arrangements to simplify the type evaluation process. Industry representatives from the scale and 

metering industries talked about their experiences and shared their concerns about the multitude of different type evaluation 

programs and requirements that they encounter during the process of getting instruments from the design board to field use. 

Another goal of the Seminar was to highlight the labeling issues faced by importers and exporters of packaged goods 

throughout the Americas. Emphasis was placed on net quantity of contents labeling and verification procedures and on the 

need for OIML to develop and implement an international quantity mark system to ease the burden on packagers and legal 

metrology officials alike to ensure fair competition and consumer protection. These presentations generated much discussion 

among the participants and resulted in several resolutions (see below) aimed at furthering harmonization efforts in these 

areas. A formal report detailing the discussions, resolutions, and future activities of the SIM “Legal Metrology Working 

Group” will be forthcoming. 

Resolutions

Legal Metrology Seminar for the Americas 

Richmond, Virginia 

July 2000 

Resolution 1-- An inquiry should be distributed to develop a listing of the national responsible body for legal measuring 

instruments in each member state of the OAS. Note: the instruments listed initially and addressed in the other resolutions 

should be non-automatic weighing instruments, meters for measuring liquids, and vehicular fuel dispensers. 

Resolution 2 -- An inquiry should be distributed to OAS member states to determine the metrological and technical 

requirements that measuring instruments must meet in order for a manufacturer or importer to market those instruments for 

legal-for-trade applications. 

Resolution 3 -- A Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) for type evaluation of measuring instruments should be 

developed for voluntary consideration in the Americas based on the ongoing work on this subject in OIML. This MAA is 

intended to develop confidence among participants that includes those that accept and issue test reports and certificates of 

conformity and those that only accept test reports and certificates. 

Resolution 4 -- A draft procedure of general requirements for initial verification should be prepared for consideration in 

harmonizing such procedures within the Americas. 

Resolution 5 -- Training courses should be developed and implemented for the testing of measuring instruments during 

initial and subsequent verification. 

Resolution 6 -- An inquiry should be distributed to OAS member states requesting copies of (or references to Internet sites 

containing) their laws on legal metrology. 
Board of Directors 

BOD-28

Resolution 7 -- OIML should be requested to give priority for the revision of Document 1 “Law on Metrology.” 

Resolution 8 -- An inquiry should be distributed to OAS member states requesting: 

 - Copies of their packaging and labeling laws and regulations (or references to Internet sites containing this

 information). 

 - An identification of responsible bodies. 

Resolution 9 -- Training courses should be developed for implementing packaging and labeling based on the requirements of 

OIML Recommendations R79 and R87. 

Resolution 10 -- Information should be exchanged among the member states to educate consumers and others in the area of 

legal metrology.

Resolution 11 -- These resolutions shall be submitted to the SIM Working Group on “legal metrology” for consideration in 

implementing within their scope of their work by December 31, 2000. Consideration shall be given to pursue those items 

not to be covered by the SIM working group.
Board of Directors 

BOD-29

Appendix C 

2000 Report of the Metrology Subcommittee 

Subcommittee Membership: 

Ken Fraley, OK (SWAP), Chair L.F. Eason, NC (SEMAP) 

Dan Newcombe, ME (NEMAP), Vice Chair Jose Torres, PR (CaMAP) 

Ron Balaze, MI (MIDMAP) Joe Rothleder, CA (WRAP) 

This is an update and status report of the NCWM Metrology Subcommittee since the 2000 Interim Meeting. 

ISO 17025 Project

Voting has been completed on ISO DIS 17025, General Requirements for the Competence of Testing and Calibration 

Laboratories, which is the International Standard that is replacing ISO Guide 25. Both the NIST National Voluntary 

Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP) and the American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) indicated a 

2-year phase-in period to require compliance with the new standard. Both accreditation organizations plan to offer ISO 17025 

accreditation by mid-year 2000. The State Laboratory Program is preparing for the standard now. Preparation required 

comparison of ISO 17025 with NIST Handbook 143, Quality Manual Template, and current quality manuals. A database 

comparing these program publications is posted on the OWM Internet site. A training meeting for ISO 17025 was held at 

NIST in December 1999 following the NCWM Metrology Subcommittee meeting with NIST management. Training was 

presented to a group of metrologists who volunteered to work on ISO 17025. Daren Valentine, a representative of A2LA, 

provided this training. Following the training, the working group provided input for a database, which is being used for 

training at all regional metrology meetings during 2000, and to update current documentation to ensure compliance with ISO 

17025. A checklist for evaluating a program against the ISO 17025 criteria was used by Mike Blacik, MN, to evaluate the 

NCWM Voluntary Program Assessment Work Group (VPAWG) Retail Motor-Fuels checklist. Georgia Harris presented the 

completed cross-referencing checklist to VPAWG at the 85th NCWM with additional recommendations to move in the 

direction of entire program evaluations using ISO quality standards. 

Weight Cart Project 

After the 1999 NCWM Annual Meeting, NIST circulated the draft of NIST Handbook 105-XX to all laboratories and directors 

who had previously submitted comments. Comments from the first circulation, results of the 1999 survey that included weight 

cart information, and laboratory testing information were all included in this circulation. Currently several States are collecting

essential follow-up data concerning calibration history and existing cart designs that affect stability. This data will be used by 

NIST to develop the tolerances and specifications for the next draft version of the handbook. A joint meeting was held with 

metrologists, industry representatives, and NIST technical advisors at the NCWM Conference. A NIST working group will be 

established to address concerns including:

x the use and maintenance of weight carts; 

x the development of EPOs for scale testing using weight carts; 

x the collection of additional data regarding the stability of the carts in use; 

x the development of calibration and testing procedures; and 

x the further development of the draft 105-series handbook. 

NIST Handbook 130 – Reciprocal Acceptance of Accredited Lab Reports 

Bruce Adams, MN, and Rick Calkins, Rice Lake, presented proposed changes to the Model Law concerning the voluntary 

service registration, traceability and accreditation portions. The intent of this project was to propose modifications to 1) allow

reciprocal acceptance of calibration certificates from accredited laboratories (whether State or industry) when data supports 

adequate quality and 2) modify the text to recognize accreditation as the method for ensuring traceability. The drafts and 

concerns raised by the metrology subcommittee will be posted on the NIST/OWM Internet site during the year to gather 

additional input prior to developing this as a formal issue before the conference. 

NVLAP Accreditation – Status within the State Laboratory Program

Minnesota and Virginia are currently accredited by NVLAP. Seven other State laboratories have applied and are in the 

accreditation process. Indiana, Illinois, and Washington have submitted their quality manuals and are awaiting on-site audits.

Arizona, Maine, Michigan, and Oklahoma have completed on-site audits and are awaiting accreditation. Several other 

laboratories have indicated they will apply within the coming year. 
Board of Directors 

BOD-30

MeasureNet-Gov

Equipment has been purchased and training was provided in January 2000 for the initial 11 participants in the MeasureNetGov program. This program provides computers with WEB video cameras and sound systems that will connect over the 

Internet with a server at NIST to provide real-time video conferencing among participants. This will allow “virtual” 

participation in training seminars, collaborative data analysis, problem solving and one-on-one help with computer applications

among all participants. The initial equipment for this system has been provided to the 11 pivot laboratories involved in the 

National Mass Intercomparison. In the event that additional funding becomes available, this system could be expanded to all 

SLP participants that express interest. MeasureNet-Gov was demonstrated at the NCWM meeting. The program included 

video tours of the Oklahoma and North Carolina labs through point-to-point contacts and the network server. 

Metrology Subcommittee Positions on S&T, L&R, and A&P Committee Items

The metrology subcommittee spent time reviewing and discussing the agenda items before the Conference to address any items 

of metrological concern. The following section identifies those areas of concern and the general thoughts expressed by the 

metrologists during discussion. 

S&T Committee 

320-3 N.1.4.3(a) Vehicle Scales (Test Patterns) 

The metrology subcommittee has asked for additional information and input from the S&T Committee on this item (and on 

developing item Appendix B, Item 1, Livestock Scales) regarding scale test patterns and the impact to the NIST Handbook 

being developed on weight carts to avoid conflicting requirements. We discussed the impact to the weight cart handbook 

during our meeting on Tuesday evening. 

320-6 Appendix D; Definition of Substitution Test and Test Load 

Metrologists have reviewed the definition of substitution test and find no problems with the definition. However, we have also

reviewed the concept of substitution testing and the associated uncertainties of what amounts to “a calibration of product for 

use as a field standard” with “accurately pre-weighed samples.” We are concerned with the additive uncertainties in this test 

and with trying to meet the H-44 Fundamental Consideration requiring errors on the standard to be less than 1/3 of the 

applicable tolerance. In reality, we believe that expanded tolerances are being applied in practice.

For example: 

Given a 50,000-lb load on a scale with 20-lb divisions, and 10,000 lb of known test weights. 

The tolerance on the 10,000 lb of weights is 1 lb. Calibration requirements are such that the testing uncertainty must be less

than 1/3 of the tolerance (< 0.33 lb). Given procedures that could accurately determine sample weights to within 1/2 division 

or 10 lb (which metrologists find unlikely), the first sample would have a minimum uncertainty of 10.33 lb if we simply add 

the factors. (Using accepted uncertainty guidelines of k=2 and 95% with root sum square methods, the uncertainty would be 

slightly over 20 lb for each substitution test, assuming that the scale actually repeats this well and has a standard deviation for a 

measurement process of zero and that procedures for accurately pre-weighing samples are followed and no other errors are 

introduced).

Uncertainty on Standard: 0.33 lb 

Uncertainty on product sample 1: 10.33 lb 

Uncertainty on product sample 2: 10.33 lb 

Uncertainty on product sample 3: 10.33 lb 

Total added uncertainty on 40,000-lb load (10,000 lb known standards, 30,000 lb product): 31 lb 

Tolerance at 50,000 lb, 20-lb divisions (3 divisions tolerance): 60 lb 

1/3 of 60 lb is 20 lb. This example uses half of the tolerance in possible errors. 

321-1 Accuracy of Material 

The metrologists encourage the use of a reference scale in determining material accuracy for the same reasons given regarding 

uncertainties in substitution testing. However, the same concerns regarding uncertainties apply to the use of a reference scale

under field conditions. 

331-1 Recognition of Temperature Compensation 

The Metrology Subcommittee believes that it is necessary to address temperature compensation in the code and further 

considers that temperature compensation in the entire wholesale/retail system, while economically and politically not viable for
Board of Directors 

BOD-31

petroleum products, is a technically more accurate way to measure volumes. (Related to L&R Item 232-5, we agree that any 

system implemented must be used for 12-month periods.) 

The code, as copied from the LPG code, does not address the adjustable portion of temperature compensators that are set for 

the specific gravity of the product (versus factory adjusted as in the case of LPG compensators). 

More accurate methods for measuring petroleum products also impact taxing structures on petroleum products and 

environmental concerns such as possible “leakage,” which may actually be volume changes based on temperature variation. 

L&R Committee 

232-3 Stored Tare Weights 

The Metrology Subcommittee discourages the practice of using stored tare weights in commercial applications. The practice of 

using stored tare weights does not lead toward more accurate weighing practices. The proposed allowable differences (3.5.1) 

are far greater than any other tolerances that are applied to such devices. In the event that stored tare weights are allowed,

every effort should be made to regulate and closely evaluate their usage. 

A&P Committee 

402-1 VPAWG 

The Metrology Subcommittee supports the checklist concept and encourages its use by all W&M jurisdictions as a selfassessment tool. Based on our experience with program certification/recognition, we can assure you that the process of self 

assessment, using a standardized checklist will provide: 

1) an important tool for uniformity as it is used; 

2) a way to identify areas of deficiencies and areas for improvement and assist with prioritization in program development; 

3) a way for requesting budgets to support programs because deficiencies and areas for improvement have been identified; 

4) ways to identify weaknesses in one area and then share resources across the entire W&M program if they are available in 

other areas;

5) a way for using a nationally recognized program to identify areas of concern and for improvement the system on a 

national level. 

x We encourage ongoing updating of the checklist – especially along the lines of the ISO 17025 standard that is being used 

in the calibration and testing arena.

x We also encourage the A&P Committee to collect completed program self-assessments for review of ways to improve the 

checklist, for providing estimates for the level of effort that will be required for a valid/effective program recognition 

system, and for identification of national-level program weaknesses, for a fixed period of time (e.g., two years) and to 

track participation in such a way as to encourage additional participation. (e.g., scoreboard, maps.) 

x We recommend that the A&P Committee develop additional checklists for other testing areas. 

x We recommend additional investigation into the development of a suitable W&M infrastructure (or recognition body) to 

support an effective program recognition system that can support program recognition, and in the long term, actual 

accreditation. We believe there is a critical difference between "voluntary self-assessment" and "peer-review program 

recognition" that has not been fully explored. 
Board of Directors 

BOD-32

Budget Proposal for 2000 NIST Management Meeting 

Appendix 1 

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 

Proposed Funding for Special Needs During Next year’s (2000) Budget 

Metrology Subcommittee – Submitted by Ron Balaze 

Amendment Title: Funding for Annual NCWM and NIST Management Meeting 

Committee Priority: One 

Description:

Fund travel expenses for an annual NCWM metrology subcommittee and NIST management meeting for the Chair, Vice 

Chair, and past Chair of the Metrology Subcommittee. Three members of the subcommittee assure the continuity of the 

meeting from year to year. The NCWM representatives would meet with representatives from NIST Technology Services 

(OWM and the Calibration Program), Manufacturing Engineering (mass, force, and dimensional), and Chemical Sciences 

Technology (fluid flow, volume, and temperature). 

Rationale:

On November 28th and 29th, 1999, Ron Balaze, Ken Fraley, and L.F. Eason met with NIST management as described in 

this report. 

Continuation of this meeting as an annual event will reinforce and expand the dialog that was initiated during the past few 

meetings. It will serve to review the needs of the State Laboratory Program and the National Conference on Weights and 

Measures in support of accurate measurement standards. It will help to ensure that the States have the technical support, 

measurement standards, and services needed to enforce legal requirements and meet the needs of indigenous agencies and 

industry. It will also serve to communicate the scope and effects of State weights and measures programs and metrology 

laboratories to the relevant groups at NIST. It is critical that communication be maintained and enhanced since our work 

(regulatory and industrial) depends on traceability to NIST. 

Resource Narrative: 

Maximum of $1,500 per person each year for travel and per diem for three representatives to attend a 2- to 3-day meeting. 

 Maximum total expense of $4,500.00 

Proposed Source of Funding: General revenues.

Note:

The BOD supports the concept of this activity and has budgeted $1000.00 to help cover expenses. Other sources of 

revenue will need to be developed to continue the meeting in its present format. The Board asked that the subcommittee 

follow the normal conference practices of asking the employing agency to pay for the travel first and to coordinate 

meetings with other events and training where possible. 
Board of Directors 

BOD-33

Appendix D 

Handbook 44 Working Group 

Proposed Work Plan 

September 26, 1999 

1) Focus on organization and format first. 

2) Include a General Code for the following three main areas: 

 a) weighing devices 

 b) measuring devices 

 c) other devices 

 These three areas will be followed by specific device codes for that area. 

3) Within each “General Code” section, we will group Section 1.1 criteria and common/general device criteria within broad 

categories such as “Specifications,” “User Requirements,” etc. 

4) The order of the sections within both specific and general codes (e.g., “Specifications,” “Notes,” etc.) needs to be 

 revised and each code section uniformly formatted. 

 (Note: Consider formats used by other organizations such as the International Organization of Legal Metrology 

 [OIML], the National Fire Protection Association [NFPA], Measurement Canada, etc.) 

5) The “Fundamental Considerations” section should be moved to the front. 

6) Move the definitions to specific codes. 

 (Note: Each definition will need to be reviewed and identified as a “general” definition applicable to all weighing 

 and measuring devices or a “specific” device definition specific to individual device types.) 

7) Move toward application-driven requirements. 

8) Decide how to incorporate/relate Handbook 44 (H-44) to other criteria such as type evaluation and field testing 

 procedures. 

 For example, maintain the current content of H-44 as a regulatory document with separate Examination Procedures

 Outlines (EPO’s) and type evaluation criteria, or incorporate EPO’s and type evaluation criteria into H-44. 

9) If points 1-8 are acceptable, create a work plan for further developing each area. Smaller work groups will be used 

 to develop various areas. 
Board of Directors 

BOD-34

Appendix E 

Sample Joint Sector Meeting Agenda 

 Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday 

8:30 – 12:00 -- Belt Conveyor Scale 

Sector

Weighing Sector Weighing Sector Measuring Sector Measuring Sector 

12:00 – 1:00 -- Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch Lunch 

1:00 – 5:00 Weighing

Laboratories

Meeting

Belt Conveyor Scale 

Sector

Weighing Sector Joint Sector 

Session for General 

Issues*

Measuring Sector Measuring

Laboratories Meeting 

* Examples of “Joint Issues”: 

Administrative Issues - Changes in administrative policies and procedures, Sector membership and operation criteria, etc. Common General Technical Issues - General Code issues such as marking requirements, permanence of markings, etc. 

- Items of general impact on range of device types such as evaluation of software, audit trails, remanufactured equipment, etc.
Board of Directors 

BOD-35

Appendix F 

NCWM Budget for Fiscal Year 2001

REVENUE FY2001 Budget 

Dues $157,380.00

 NTEP $403,000.00

Publications

 Handbook 44 $ 2,000.00 

 Handbook 130 $ 750.00 

 Handbook 133 $ 2,000.00 

 Publication 14 $ 1,500.00 

 Consumer Brochures $ 250.00 

 Shipping Collected $ 1,500.00

 Total Publications $ 8,000.00

Conference Revenue 

 Interim Meeting

 Registration Fees $ 23,000.00

 Total Interim Meeting $ 23,000.00 

 Annual Meeting

 Registration Fees $ 50,000.00 

 Guest Registration Fees $ 7,500.00 

 Special Event Only Fees $ 2,000.00 

 Exhibitor Fees $ 600.00 

 Guest Tour Registration $ 3,000.00 

 Special Event Sponsorship $ 12,000.00

 Total Annual Meeting $ 75,100.00 

 Total Conference Revenue $ 98,100.00

 Interest $ 30,000.00 

 TOTAL REVENUE $696,480.00

COST OF SALES

Membership Expense 

 Office Supplies $ 100.00 

 Postage $ 2,000.00 

 Applications $ 400.00 

 Membrshp Renewal Brdcst FAX $ 500.00 

 Duplicating $ 100.00 

 Management Fee $ 7,210.00

 Total Membership Expense $ 10,310.00
Board of Directors 

BOD-36

NTEP 

 Management Fee $260,000.00 

 Postage $ 6,000.00 

 General Travel $ 12,000.00 

 Interim Meeting Travel Expense $ 8,000.00 

 Interim Mtg Mgmt Fee $ 5,150.00 

 Annual Mtg Mgmt Fee $ 5,150.00 

 Belt Conveyor Sector Meeting $ 5,000.00 

 Weighing Sector Meeting $ 10,000.00 

 Grain Moisture Sector Meeting $ 7,500.00 

 Measuring Sector Meeting $ 7,500.00 

 Internet Posting $ 10,000.00 

 Staff Travel $ 20,000.00 

 Insurance $ 5,000.00 

 Duplicating $ 400.00 

 Legal Fees $ 7,500.00 

 Laboratory Travel $ 12,000.00

 Total NTEP $381,200.00

Publications

 Management Fee $ 10,300.00 

 Postage $ 2,000.00 

 Publications Brochure $ 500.00 

 Duplicating $ 50.00 

 Handbook 133 $ 1,000.00

 Total Publications $ 13,850.00

 Conference Expenses 

 Interim Meeting $ 50,175.00

 Total Interim Meeting $ 50,175.00 

 Annual Meeting $ 96,200.00

 Total Annual Meeting $ 96,200.00 

 Total Conference Expenses $146,375.00

TOTAL COST OF SALES $551,735.00 

 Gross Profit $144,745.00 

 EXPENSES 

Board of Directors 

 Travel $ 15,000.00 

 Chairman's Travel $ 10,000.00 

 Chair Elect Travel $ 7,500.00 

 Duplicating $ 400.00 

 Board Governance Seminar $ 2,500.00 

 Food & Beverage $ 2,000.00

 Total Board of Directors $ 37,400.00 
Board of Directors 

BOD-37

Committee Contingency Fund $ 7,500.00

Legal & Accounting 

 Legal Fees $ 4,000.00 

 Annual Audit $ 5,000.00

 Total Legal & Accounting $ 9,000.00

Miscellaneous Expenses 

 Office Supplies $ 250.00 

 Postage $ 1,000.00 

 Duplicating $ 400.00 

 Telephone $ 4,000.00 

 Bank Service Fees $ 200.00 

 Charge Card Discount Fees $ 2,000.00 

 Printing $ 1,500.00 

 Legislative Brochure $ 0.00 

 OWM Database Conversion $ 0.00 

 Insurance $ 2,500.00 

 Associate Member Fund $ 15,000.00

 Total Miscellaneous Expenses $ 26,850.00

Administrative Mgmt Fees 

 Headquarters Office $ 20,600.00 

 Financial $ 18,540.00 

 Board Governance $ 3,090.00

 Total Administrative Mgmt Fees $ 42,230.00

Website

 Domain Name $ 50.00 

 Design & Development Fee $ 5,000.00 

 Management Fee $ 8,500.00 

 Maintenance Fees $ 2,400.00

 Total Website $ 15,950.00

Storage Space Rental $ 900.00

TOTAL EXPENSES $139,830.00

 Operating Profit $ 4,915.00 

 Net Profit / (Loss) $ 4,915.00 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R-1

 Report of the Laws and Regulations Committee 

Steve Morrison 

Chairman 

San Luis Obispo County, California 

Reference 

Key Number 

200 Introduction 

This is the report of the Laws and Regulations Committee (Committee) for the 85th Annual Meeting of the National 

Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM.) It is based on the Interim Report offered in the NCWM Publication 16, 

“Committee Reports,” testimony at public hearings, comments received from the Regional Weights and Measures 

Associations and other parties, the Addendum Sheets issued at the Annual Meeting, and actions taken by the membership 

at the Voting Session of the Annual Meeting. The informational items presented below were adopted as presented when 

the Committee’s report was approved. 

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

Key Numbers of the items are assigned from the subject series listed below. Voting items are indicated with a “V” after 

the item number. Consent calendar items are marked with a “VC.” Items marked with an “I” after the item number are 

for information. Items marked “W” have been withdrawn from consideration. Items marked with a “D” after the key 

number are developing issues. The developing designation indicates an item has merit; however, the item is returned 

back to the submitter for further development before any action at the national level. Table B lists the appendices to the 

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

This report contains recommendations to amend National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Handbook 130, 

2001 edition, "Uniform Laws and Regulations," or NIST Handbook 133, "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged 

Goods," Third Edition and Supplements 1 (1990), 2 (1991), 3 (1992), 4 (1994), and other amendments adopted in 1998 

and 1999 that have not been published. Revisions proposed by the Committee are shown in bold face print by crossing

out information to be deleted and underlining information to be added. New items proposed for the handbooks are 

designated as such and shown in bold face print. Proposals presented for information are shown in italic type unless 

identified as informational. The section mark, "§," is used in most references in the text and is followed by the section 

number and title, (for example, § 1.2. Weight.) When used in this report, the term "weight" means "mass." 

Subject Series

Handbook 130 - General 210 Series 

Uniform Laws 220 Series 

 Weights and Measures Law (WML) 221 Series 

 Weighmaster Law (WL) 222 Series 

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

Uniform Regulations 230 Series 

 Packaging and Labeling Regulation (PLR) 231 Series 

 Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation (MSCR) 232 Series 

 Unit Pricing Regulation (UPR) 233 Series 

 Voluntary Registration of Servicepersons and Service Agencies 

 for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices Regulation (VREG) 234 Series 

 Open Dating Regulation (ODR) 235 Series 

 National Type Evaluation Regulation (NTER) 236 Series 

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

Interpretations and Guidelines 238 Series 

Price Verification 239 Series 

NIST Handbook 133 250 Series 

Other Items 260 Series 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R - 2

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items 

Reference Title 

Key Item Page 

221 Weights and Measures Law....................................................................................................3 

221-1 W Retail Price Posting...................................................................................................................................3 

221-2 VC Reference to NCWM Adoption of NIST Handbooks...............................................................................4 

221-3 W Bonus Offers on Package Labels ..............................................................................................................5 

231 Packaging and Labeling Regulation ......................................................................................................................5 

231-1 D Permit Multiple Unit or Total Prices to Appear on a Package Label........................................................5 

231-2 W Principle Display Panel - Regulatory Interpretation...............................................................5 

232 Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation .........................................................................................................6 

232-1 V Construction and Industrial Plywood........................................................................................................6 

232-2 V Sand, Rock, Gravel, Stone, Paving Stone, and Similar Materials.............................................................8 

232-3 D Stored Tare Weights..................................................................................................................................9 

232-4 W Canned Clams.........................................................................................................10 

232-5 I Temperature Compensated Sale of Petroleum Products.........................................................................10 

236 Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation .............................................................................................10 

236-1 I Ensuring the NTEP Regulation is Consistent with NTEP Policies...........................................10 

236-2 VC NCWM Certificates of Conformance....................................................................................................11 

237 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants Regulation ..........................................11 

237-1 I Compliance Procedures for the Premium Diesel Fuel Regulation............................................11 

 237-2 I Petroleum Subcommittee Agenda Items.........................................................................12 

238 Interpretations and Guidelines.............................................................................................................................12 

238-1 VC Guideline on Product Flush Prior to Octane Sampling..........................................................................12 

239 Price Verification.................................................................................................................................................13 

239-1 W Limit Time Allowed for Intentional Undercharges...............................................................................13 

250 NIST Handbook 133............................................................................................................................................13 

250-1 W Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs) for Count Declarations on Seed .........................................13 

250-2 I Developing a 4th Edition of NIST Handbook 133 .................................................................................14 

260 Other Items ..........................................................................................................................................................17 

260-1 W Electronic Price Labels ..........................................................................................................................17 

Table B 

Appendices 

 Appendix Title Reference Key Page 

 A Guidelines for Administrative Decisions on Premium Diesel 237-2 19 

 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R-3

Table C 

Voting Results 

Reference Key House of Representatives House of Delegates 

Number Yeas Nays Yeas Nays 

Results

221-2 44 0 53 0 Passed 

232-1 25 11 27 35 Did Not Pass 

232-2 41 1 65 0 Passed 

236-2 44 0 53 0 Passed 

238-1 44 0 53 0 Passed 

200 

Committee 

Report in its 

Entirety

42 0 65 0 Passed 

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

221 Weights and Measures Law 

221-1 W Retail Price Posting 

Status: The Committee accepted comments on this issue at the Interim Meeting in 2000. For further information, contact 

Don Onwiler, Nebraska Department of Agriculture/Division of Weights and Measures, telephone: 402-471-4292, or at 

donlo@agr.state.ne.us via email.

Source: The Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA). 

Background: The Uniform Weights and Measures Law (UWML) does not require retailers to display the selling price of 

products for consumers. As a result, jurisdictions do not have a standard to guide them if they choose to amend their laws 

to require price information. When price posting is not required, consumers find making value comparisons difficult. 

The CWMA would like to develop a standard to guide jurisdictions that want to adopt retail price posting laws. 

Proposal 1: The CWMA recommends amending the WML to include a price-posting requirement: 

Section XX. Price Posting 

Whenever a commodity is being sold for a non-negotiable price, the price shall 

be clearly and conspicuously posted or displayed by the retailer prior to the sale 

of the commodity. If a commodity is being sold at a discounted price, the exact 

amount of the discount, or the discounted price shall be clearly and 

conspicuously posted or displayed by the retailer prior to the sale of the 

commodity.

Proposal 2: The Southern and Western Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) supports the following amendments 

to further develop this item: 

Section XX. Price Posting 

Whenever a commodity is being sold for a non-negotiable price, the price shall 

be clearly and conspicuously posted or displayed by the retailer prior to the sale 

of the commodity. If a commodity is being sold at a discounted price, the exact 

amount of the discount, or the discounted price shall be clearly and 

conspicuously posted or displayed by the retailer prior to the sale of the 

commodity. NIST Handbook 44, Section 3-30 as it applies to contract sales of 

petroleum motor fuel is exempt from this section.
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R - 4

The Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and other retail trade associations do not support adopting price posting 

requirements. The FMI is concerned that the proposed wording could be interpreted to require retailers to post the regular 

price, the monetary value of the discount, and the sale price on all discounted items. If this is the intent of the 

requirement, according to FMI, retailers will have a costly burden, and consumers will have limited benefits. The 

Committee believes the intent of the proposal is to have retailers post only the price at which an item is offered for sale. 

If this is correct, the requirement could be met with a shelf tag, sign, or individually priced items. 

The Committee requested that the CWMA work with representatives of the retail industry to develop this item. The 

Committee suggested that the CWMA establish an informal work group to develop the proposal and recommend good 

pricing practices for specific price accuracy issues related to percent off items (e.g., 70 percent off all items on a shelf or

rack in a department store). The Committee also requested that the work group recommend how retailers can provide 

more precise information on package labels and signs regarding discounts offered to frequent shopper club cardholders. 

Regional Action: The Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) supports developing this item further. To 

ensure that the proposal receives comments from as many interested parties as possible, the SWMA recommends that 

trade associations and other interested parties be informed about the issue. The SWMA is concerned about the impact the 

proposal will have on the many businesses that post a “non-negotiable” price. The SWMA recommends that the group 

define the term “non-negotiable.” Marketplace history indicates that the “non-negotiable” price may, in fact, be 

negotiable depending on factors such as the number of items a consumer buys, or the motivations of the seller. 

This item was discussed in some detail at the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) meeting. The 

NEWMA report encouraged the Committee to make sure that the requirement is consistent with the price verification 

procedures and does not conflict with any Handbook 44 requirements. NEWMA officials were most concerned that there 

might not be uniformity in adoption of this item since not all jurisdictions adopt every Handbook 130 requirement. 

NEWMA officials also questioned if the requirement would apply prior to sale or during the time the item was on sale? 

Interim Meeting Action: The Committee voted to withdraw this item. This Committee felt that the item was not fully 

developed at the Regional level. 

221-2 VC Reference to NCWM Adoption of NIST Handbooks 

 (This Item Was Adopted) 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association 

Background: Currently twenty-seven States automatically adopt NIST Handbook 133 by reference. For NIST 

Handbooks 44 and 130, the UWML refers to editions of those handbooks that the NCWM has adopted. In the case of 

NIST Handbook 133, however, paragraph (m) of Section 12 of the model law does not include the reference to NCWM 

adoption for Handbook 133. If the model law does not require the handbook to be adopted by the NCWM, the most 

current edition published becomes State law, whether it has been adopted by the NCWM or not. The proposed 

amendment resolves this omission and clearly specifies that the appropriate version of the handbook is the edition adopted 

by the NCWM. 

Recommendation: Amend Section 12 of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law as follows: 

 

Section 12. Powers and Duties of the Director (m) weigh, measure, or inspect packaged 

commodities kept, offered, or exposed for sale, sold, or in the process of delivery, to determine 

whether they contain the amounts represented and whether they are kept, offered, or exposed for 

sale in accordance with this Act or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto. In carrying out the 

provisions of this section, the director shall employ recognized sampling procedures, such as are 

adopted by the National Conference on Weights and Measures and are designated published in 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 133, “Checking the Net Contents of 

Packaged Goods.” 

Interim Meeting Action: The Committee voted to make this a Voting item after verifying that the National 

Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was the correct title when referring to the NCWM, instead of 

National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc. No further comments were received.
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R-5

221-3 W Bonus Offers on Package Labels 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Background: According to the SWMA report Section 15. Misrepresentation of Quantity must be amended to mandate 

that retailers clarify terms found in flyers, mailers, signs, packages, etc. stating language such as "10% More," "18% 

Larger," "25% Free," "Save 50%," etc. One of the basic precepts of weights and measures is that the price or quantity of 

a package may not be presented in any manner calculated or tending to mislead, or in any way deceive a person. Another 

principal is to ensure that consumers have accurate information that will allow them to make informed decisions as to the 

cost and value of a packaged commodity. 

According to the SWMA report, this precept is being violated daily across the United States by countless packers, 

manufactures, and retailers. Weights and measures officials have allowed this to escalate into an accepted practice. 

Advertising in the form of labels attached to packages, flyers and mailers, and signs proliferate the marketplace 

proclaiming "10% MORE," "18% LARGER," "25% FREE," "SAVE 50%." There can be no other possible interpretation 

of these statements; they are obvious qualifications of the package contents and tend to exaggerate the amount, or value, 

of the package. In many instances, the basis for these exaggerations is so vague the consumer has no possible way of 

understanding the actual amount, cost, or value of a particular commodity. The consumer is not given any basis for the 

declaration such as "more than what," "a savings based upon what price," or in the case of "FREE" product, just how 

much product is free. According to the SWMA, report this problem is so widespread and all inclusive that there is no way 

it can be corrected by a single jurisdiction, State, or regional association., It must be addressed by the National 

Conference on Weights and Measures as a united organization on behalf of the American consumer. According to the 

SWMA report, this amendment is needed to ensure that all packers, labelers, etc. are conforming to the same advertising 

and labeling guidelines and to assist consumers in making wise choices.

Interim Meeting Action: The Committee voted to withdraw this item after learning that the Federal Trade Commission 

(FTC) has guidelines addressing deceptive pricing. The FTC guide is located in the Code of Federal Regulations Part 16. 

231 Packaging and Labeling Regulation 

231-1 D Permit Multiple Unit or Total Prices to Appear on a Package Label 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Background: According to the SWMA, retailers are making widespread use of "Bonus Cards," "VIP Cards," etc., and 

placing a wide range of multiple unit and total prices on labels. This approach confuses consumers about the price they 

are paying. Currently, Section 20. Declaration of Unit Price on Random Weight Packages, of the Uniform Weights and 

Measures Law states, "In addition to the declarations required by Section 19 of this Act, any package being one of a lot 

containing random weights of the same commodity, at the time it is offered or exposed for sale at retail, shall bear on the 

outside of the package, a plain and conspicuous declaration of the price per kilogram or pound and the total selling price 

of the package." 

The SWMA recommends that the Committee work with Food Marketing Institute (FMI) and other retail trade 

associations, scale manufacturers, and other interested parties to develop a standard that would allow up to two (2) unit 

prices and total prices on random weight packages. 

Interim Meeting Action: The Committee voted to maintain this item as Developmental. The Southern Association will 

work with Gale Prince of the Kroger Company to develop this item further. 

231-2 W Principal Display Panel – Regulatory Interpretation 

Source: Nebraska Division of Weights and Measures 

Background: This item was brought to the NCWM Interim Meeting to be considered for adding to the Committee 

agenda as an emergency item due to legislative action pending in Nebraska that may be in conflict with the Fair 

Packaging and Labeling Act and 21 CFR 101. This item generated much interest and concern from conference members 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R - 6

in attendance at the interim meeting, not only on the proposal, but also regarding the use of emergency procedures to 

bring it forward. 

When an inspector is determining compliance with requirements of the Handbook 130 Packaging and Labeling 

Regulation, he/she must identify which portion, or portions, of the package the manufacturer has designated as the 

principal display panel. In the case of packages manufactured at a location other than the retail outlet, it is that part, or 

those parts, of a label that is, or are, so designed as to most likely be displayed, presented, shown, or examined under 

normal and customary conditions of display and purchase. The issue arises when the retailer is also the manufacturer, 

such as for meat, cheese, deli, and bakery items. 

In 1970, the NCWM adopted an interpretation of the definition of the Principal Display Panel (2.7 Principal Display 

Panel or Panels) to aid the inspector and manufacturer in determining which panel has been designated by the 

manufacturer as the Principal Display Panel. That interpretation is consistent with the FDA 7560 interpretation found in 

NBS Handbook 108 Weights and Measures Labeling Handbook, which reads: 

“It is important to note, however, that the presence of either a statement of identity or a statement of contents 

declaration alone on a label panel does not necessarily qualify the surface as a principal display panel. The 

criterion to be used is whether the manufacturer, either by design or through trade practice, customarily 

designates a specific package surface, or surfaces, for display of the product at retail.” 

A recent interpretation of §2.7 Principal Display Panel or Panels was provided to the Nebraska Legislature in direct 

contradiction to the above. This causes a situation where weights and measures officials are unsure how to determine 

which portion of the package is the Principal display panel. The method used for the past 30 years is now in question. 

This item was offered by Nebraska as a reaffirmation of the original FDA interpretation, as adopted by the NCWM in 

1970, in the absence of a later interpretation to supersede it. 

Interim Meeting Action: Based on testimony from industry and some state officials about the timing of the issue and 

concerns over due process, and because Nebraska received an FDA interpretation which they believe would provide 

support to Nebraska Weights and Measures regarding immediate state legislation, the Committee voted to withdraw the 

item with the support of Nebraska. The Committee recognizes the importance of this item and intends to hear it in the 

future after it has been submitted through regional associations. 

(Editorial Note: Following the January NCWM Interim Meeting, additional information was received from FDA 

concerning § 2.7 Principle Display Panel or Panels. To assist weights and measures officials and industry in their 

interpretation and implementation of § 2.7, NIST will provide a NIST technical memo with further clarification of the 

FDA and FTC regulations along with supporting documentation. For information on obtaining a copy of this technical 

memo, please contact NIST by phone at 301-975-4868 or via the Internet at www.nist.gov/owm.)

232 Method of Sale of Commodities Regulation 

232-1 V Construction and Industrial Plywood 

 (This Item Was Not Adopted) 

Source: Laws and Regulations Committee 

Discussion: The U.S. Department of Commerce-sponsored group accountable for Voluntary Product Standard (VPS) 

PS 1-95 asked the Committee to amend NIST Handbook 133 to recognize the accuracy provisions and tolerances of the 

VPS for plywood. A jurisdiction responding to a consumer complaint about the thickness of plywood sheeting conducted 

a survey in several retail outlets and found that the label claims of several manufacturers were incorrect. The jurisdiction 

notified the manufacturers of the survey results and advised them of the weights and measures legal requirements. In 

response to this notification, the manufacturers advised the jurisdiction that they manufacture plywood sheeting to meet 

NIST Voluntary Product Standard (VPS) PS 1-95 “Construction and Industrial Plywood.” This standard includes 

requirements for dimensions and tolerances, moisture content, and grade marking. Those manufacturers have been 

advised that plywood sheeting must be accurately labeled, and that thickness measurements must meet the lot average and 

individual unit requirements of NIST Handbook 133. The manufacturers were notified that the thickness and dimension 

tolerances specified in the Voluntary Product Standards are not consistent with the maximum allowable variations 

specified in NIST Handbook 133 and that a Voluntary Product Standard does not pre-empt State or local requirements. At 

the 1998 Interim Meeting, representatives of the plywood and hardwood industries presented information on their 

industry’s current measurement and labeling practices. The industry representatives requested that the Committee defer 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R-7

action on this item until the various lumber industry trade associations had time to develop a consensus proposal for the 

NCWM to consider. The Committee agreed to withdraw this issue and provide technical assistance as industry develops 

its proposal. Following the 1998 Interim Meeting, the American Plywood Association (APA) requested that the L&R 

Committee consider the industry’s original proposed addition to Handbook 130. According to the APA, its proposal 

would recognize the methods of sale that have been accepted in the marketplace since the 1940s. The proposal is based 

on the NIST Voluntary Product Standards developed in a consensus process with input from producers, users, and general 

interest parties. The industry proposal, modeled after the precedent established for lumber, calls for full disclosure. The 

APA is prepared to provide information to the retail trade to assist in ensuring that the consumer is fully informed. Wood 

structural panels have been successfully traded since the 1930s. According to the APA, actual dimensions have rarely 

been an issue of commerce. The structural performance of the product and adequate performance under building law 

have always been primary industry focus. Dimensional tolerances specified in the Product Standards are not consistent 

with NIST Handbook 133, yet they have served commerce well as evidenced by the rare instance of dimensional dispute. 

According to the APA, the primary issues that arise between buyer and seller relate to the quality of the glue bond, grade, 

workmanship, and occasionally other performance characteristics rather than dimensions. 

Regional Action: The SWMA recognizes that NIST Handbook 130, Method of Sale Regulation, provides for the sale of 

softwood and hardwood lumber based on nominal dimensions. Therefore, the SWMA recommended that the NCWM 

L&R Committee work with the APA and the Engineered Wood Association to develop language that is consistent with 

the existing methods of sale for softwood and hardwood lumber to address the dimensional requirements for structural 

wood panels. The Western Weights and Measures Association does not support the APA proposal. It submitted an 

alternative proposal to amend the Maximum Allowable Variations for manufactured wood panels. The Northeastern 

Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) recommended that the Committee expand this issue to include an 

investigation of the marking and labeling practices of the entire manufactured wood industry. NEWMA also suggested 

that the best alternative was to permit the use of nominal sizes but require full disclosure of actual dimensions. 

Committee Recommendation: Officials and industry representatives provided the Committee with a great deal of input 

on this issue. Most of the parties agreed that the best approach would be to permit the use of nominal sizes but also 

require full disclosure of actual dimensions. The Committee believes that consumers will be fully informed if both the 

nominal and actual dimensions are clearly displayed at the point of sale or wherever nominal sizes are displayed in retail 

stores (i.e., on shelf labels adjacent to the product where it is displayed or on the wood products themselves.) At the 

Interim Meeting, wood industry representatives agreed to provide information to the retail trade to assist them in the 

labeling of these products. The Committee recommends adopting a new Section 2.29. "Wood and Cellulose Based 

Panels" that is presented below. 

2.29. Wood and Cellulose-Based Panels 

Applies to wood or cellulose-based panels used for construction, industrial and do-it-yourself 

projects. Such panels include, but are not limited to: 

a. Plywood 

b. Oriented Strand Board (OSB) and waferboard 

 c. Hardboard 

 d. Particleboard 

e. Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) 

 f. Cellulosic Fiberboard 

 g. Wood Fiber Cement 

2.29.1 Quantity 

Representations shall be in terms of the length, width, and thickness. Nominal or specified 

dimensions may be used if the actual dimensions are prominently displayed on any retail display 

or advertisement of Wood and Cellulose Based Panels and the term ("nom") or specified is also 

used in conjunction with any representation of nominal or specified dimensions on such retail 

display or advertisement. 

Action at the 1999 Regional Meetings: 

The Southern and Central Weights and Measures Associations (SWMA & CWMA) supports the Committee’s proposal to 

permit the use of nominal sizes if actual sizes are also displayed to consumers. The Northeastern Weights and Measures 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R - 8

Association (NEWMA) continues to support the Committee's original recommendation. According to the NEWMA 

report there was some discussion that the split vote was due to the emotional appeal of some of the arguments that were 

expressed on the floor. The NEWMA believes that "to advertise these items in other than nominal sizes is simply 

unworkable." Actual dimensions provided at the point of sale will provide consumers with specific needs with the 

necessary information to make valid comparisons. This applies equally to sub-cuts of the standard 4 x 8 sheet. 

The Western Weights and Measures Association opposes the Committee’s proposal and submitted an amended method of 

sale that is shown below. 

Western Weights and Measures Association Recommendation: Adopt a new method of sale for wood and cellulosebased panels to require the use of actual size designations as presented below. 

2.29. Wood and Cellulose-Based Panels 

Applies to wood or cellulose-based panels used for construction, industrial and do-ityourself projects. Such panels include, but are not limited to: 

a. Plywood 

b. Oriented Strand Board (OSB) and wafer board 

c. Hardboard 

d. Particle board 

e. Medium Density Fiberboard (MDF) 

f. Cellulosic Fiberboard 

g. Wood Fiber Cement 

2.29.1. Quantity 

Representations shall be in terms of the length, width, and thickness. Nominal or specified 

dimensions may be used if the actual dimensions are prominently displayed on any retail 

display or advertisement of Wood and Cellulose-Based Panels and the term nominal 

("nom") or specified is also used in conjunction with any representation of nominal or 

specified dimensions on such retail display or advertisement. 

Interim Meeting Action: The Committee voted to move the original proposal forward as a Voting item and withdraw the 

proposal submitted by the Western Weights and Measures Association. 

232-2 V Sand, Rock, Gravel, Stone, Paving Stone, and Similar Materials Sold in 

 Bulk. 

 (This Item Was Adopted) 

Status: The Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) developed this item. For further information, contact 

John Moore, AZ Weights and Measures Department, Telephone: 602-255-5211, or by Fax on 602-255-1950. 

Source: The Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Background: According to the WWMA, these commodities are sold by cubic measure, dimensions, weight, and area. 

Methods of sale that are not uniform for the same product at all retail locations frustrate value comparison. The intent is 

to develop a method of sale for each commodity to ensure that consumers can compare values. The Northeastern Weights 

and Measures Association (NEWMA) supports the development of this issue. 

Regional Action: The WWMA submitted the following method of sale for consideration: 

2.2X. Sand, Rock, Gravel, Stone, Paving Stone, and Similar Materials when 

 Sold in Bulk.

2.2X.X. Method of Retail Sale - - All sand, rock, gravel, stone, paving stone, and similar 

materials kept, offered, or exposed for sale must be sold as follows. 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R-9

a. Top-soil, fill dirt, aggregate or chipped rock, sand (including concrete and mortar sand), 

decomposed granite, landscape type rock, and cinders must be sold by the cubic meter or cubic 

yard or by weight. 

b. Flagstone must be sold by weight. 

c. Dimensional cut stone must be sold by square meter, square foot, or weight. 

This requirement does not apply to single stones with engraving such as grave-stones, natural or 

manmade artwork, landscape boulders, and pre-cast uniform size blocks. 

Interim Meeting Action: The Committee received no comments. The Committee supports the proposal and voted to 

change the designation to Voting. 

232-3 D Stored Tare Weights 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Background: According to the SWMA report, vehicle tare weights are being used for lengthy time periods and have 

often been found to be incorrect. The errors found in initial surveys range from a truck weighing 8,900 lb less than the 

stored tare to trucks that weighed 2,680 lb more than the stored tare. A load of sand or gravel at a cost of $5.50 per ton 

with a tare error of 750 lb has a monetary value for each weighing error of $2.06. If this error is multiplied by 4 

transactions per day per truck times 240 working days, it results in an overcharge of more than $1,977. Since the practice 

of using stored tare is used by other types of businesses (e.g., landfills, asphalt plants, etc.) where prices may reach $70 or

more per ton, an error of 750 lb in the tare weight of a truck would equal $26 per weighment. If this truck were involved 

in four transactions per day for 240 working days the overcharge would total more than $25,000. 

The SWMA recommends that the Committee: 

1. Develop a method of sale regulation for stored vehicle tare weights. Require scale operators to maintain accurate 

and up to date tare weights. The SWMA submitted the following suggested requirements for a new method of 

sale.

3.5 – Vehicle Tare Weights - Whenever stored vehicle tare weights are employed 

in the sale of commodities, the following conditions and requirements shall 

apply: 

3.5.1 - Allowable differences. - The difference between actual tare weight and 

stored tare weight must not exceed plus or minus 272 kg (600 lb). 

3.5.2 - All stored vehicle tares shall be accurately determined to the nearest scale 

division. 

3.5.3 - Stored vehicle tares shall be verified at regular intervals, not to exceed 3 

months.

2. Adopt appropriate allowable difference between actual tare weight and stored tare weight. 

3. Develop an examination procedure outline, and enforcement procedures. 

4. Collect data from States that have not yet responded to a survey conducted by the States of Maryland and North 

Carolina. 

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) supports developing this item. According to the 

NEWMA report, some States already prohibit stored tares in present enforcement programs, but many fear that the 

practice is fairly widespread. NEWMA officials support the concept of timely verification of stored tare weights. Stored 

tare weights should also be subject to increased surveillance by officials during device inspections. There was also some 

question that stored tare weights are inconsistent with the provisions of the Uniform Weighmaster Law because the tare 

weight was not actually measured by the weighmaster thus invalidating any weight ticket issued. The Western Weights 

and Measures Association (WWMA) recommends that this item be further developed by considering other States’ tare 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R - 10

regulations. 

Interim Meeting Action: The Committee received comments from the States of Maryland and Mississippi. Maryland 

requested that this item be maintained as developmental and suggested further work to be done by the Southern Weights 

and Measures Association. Mississippi testified that stored tare weights are illegal in its jurisdiction. The Committee 

voted to maintain this item as Developmental. The Committee believes that further work should be done on a regional 

level to clarify the issue and fully develop the proposal. 

232-4 W Canned Clams 

Source: The Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Status: This item is being developed by the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA). For further 

information, contact Steve Morrison, San Luis Obispo County, California at 805-781-5910, or at Sfmorrison@Co.Slo.Ca.Us

via email. The Committee accepted comments on this issue at the 2000 Interim Meeting.

Background: The WWMA recommends developing data to justify adopting a method of sale that would require that 

canned clams be sold by drained weight. 

Interim Meeting Action: Testimony from representatives of the clam industry and FDA revealed that clam juice has 

nutritional value and is included in the nutritional information required under the Nutritional Labeling and Education Act. 

Based on this information the appropriate method of sale is by net weight. The Committee feels that the FDA should 

develop a “Standard of Identity.” The Committee voted to withdraw this item and urges FDA to develop a “Standard of 

Identity” for Clam products. 

232-5 I Temperature Compensated Sale of Petroleum Products 

Source: Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) 

Background: NEWMA is proposing a Specifications and Tolerances Committee item to add temperature compensation 

to the Vehicle Tank Meter Code and recognize it for all devices in the Liquid Measuring Device code. According to the 

NEWMA report, a parallel change needs to be made to the Method of Sale Regulation to permit compensated sales of 

petroleum products. NEWMA notes that Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, and Canada permit compensated sales in 

areas like retail sales of home heating oil and retail sales of gasoline. The development of stable electronic temperature 

compensation permits compensated transactions to take place accurately and inexpensively. This new technology is the 

reason for the reemergence of this issue that the Committee first explored in the 1970s. According to NEWMA, the lack 

of specific guidance in Handbook 130 does not help. States are forced to use the lack of standards in Handbook 44 to try 

to stop compensated sales. Sometimes, as in the case of Maine, this does not hold up. Officials agree that compensated 

sales should include the entire fleet in addition to the traditional requirement that the system be used for a twelve-month 

period. The NEWMA believes it is time for the NCWM to recognize this method of sale as the most equitable way to sell 

products. 

Interim Meeting Action: The Committee feels that further action depends on the outcome of the Specifications and 

Tolerances Committee item number 331-1, Recognition of Temperature Compensation. The Committee voted to 

maintain this item as Informational.

236 Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation 

236-1 I Ensuring the NTEP Regulation is Consistent with NTEP Policies 

Source: Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) 

Background: Recent changes have been made to Publication 14 to institute classes of certificates: active, inactive, and 

withdrawn, but these changes have not been added to the Uniform Regulation for NTEP. The NEWMA requested that the 

Committee determine if changes should be made to harmonize the provisions of Publication 14 and the NTEP regulation. 

Prior to adopting NTEP maintenance fees, Certificates of Conformance (CC) did not expire. Under the maintenance fee 

system, manufacturers can only sell new devices that have an active CC or those manufactured before the CC expired. 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R-11 

The regulation does not prohibit a manufacturer from producing and selling devices with an inactive CC. The NEWMA 

believes that definitions are needed for the class of certificate, and language is needed to clarify the meaning “traceable to 

a CC.” The NEWMA believes the current Section 3 is vague and that if a company is prohibited from selling a new 

device under an inactive or withdrawn certificate, States may be challenged. The Committee conducted a review of the 

regulation and identified several areas where it needs to be modified to reflect recent NTEP changes in Publication 14. 

The Committee carried this item over pending further action by the NTEP Board of Governors. The proposed changes 

will be presented in full after the Committee has had an opportunity to consider the impact of the change in NTEP 

administration. 

Interim Meeting Action: The Committee voted to maintain this item as Informational. The Committee believes that 

additional guidance on NTEP policies is required prior to making a decision on this issue. 

236-2 VC NCWM Certificates of Conformance 

 (This Item Was Adopted) 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association 

Background: The proposed changes make the Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation consistent with the 

NCWM management changes that occurred at the Annual meeting of the National Conference on Weighs and Measures 

on July 27, 1999. It will correctly identify who the issuing authority is for a Certificate by amending the definition of 

Certificate of Conformance. 

Recommendation: Amend the NTEP Regulation as follows: 

Section 2.1. Certificate of Conformance. A document issued by the National Institute of 

Standards and Technology National Conference on Weights and Measures based on testing by a 

Participating Laboratory, said document constituting evidence of conformance of a type with the 

requirements of this document and the NIST Handbooks 44, 105-1, 105-2, or 105-3. 

Section 2.4. National Type Evaluation Program. A program of cooperation between the National 

Conference on Weights and Measures, National Institute of Standards and Technology, other 

Federal agencies, National Conference on Weights and Measures, the States, and the private 

sector for determining, on a uniform basis, conformance of a type with the relevant provisions of 

National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 44, “Specifications, Tolerances, and 

Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices,” and National Conference 

on Weights and Measures, Publication 14, “National Type Evaluation Program, Administrative 

Procedures, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures.” 

Interim Meeting Action: The Committee voted to change the item designation to Voting. The Committee 

requests additional guidance from the Board of Directors on the timing of the change to coordinate with the 

NTEP transition. 

237 Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive 

Lubricants Regulation 

237-1 I Compliance Procedures for the Premium Diesel Fuel Regulation 

Source: Petroleum Subcommittee 

Background: In response to the 1998 NCWM adoption of premium diesel regulations, the SWMA requested the 

Committee to develop guidelines on regulatory procedures to assist States in ensuring compliance with the rule. The 

Premium Diesel Work Group developed an initial draft document based on the request. The draft document was 

presented to the Laws and Regulations Committee at the 1999 Interim Meeting. After reviewing the document, the 

Committee agreed with the recommendation and requested the Premium Diesel Work Group continue to develop the 

document into a final version. In an effort to solicit NCWM membership comments on the desired content of the 

guideline material, the document is presented in Appendix A as an informational item. 

Interim Meeting Action: The Committee was advised that ASTM Standard D6468, Standard Test Method for High 

Temperature Stability of Distillate Fuels, has been adopted. The Committee voted to maintain this item as Informational. 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R - 12

237-2 I Petroleum Subcommittee Agenda Items 

Source: Petroleum Subcommittee 

Background: The Subcommittee has submitted several proposed projects for its 1999-2000 work plan. The Committee 

will develop an agenda for the Subcommittee based on the comments received on the following projects at the Annual 

Meeting. 

Update the Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Lubricants Laboratory 

Guideline – This guideline is contained in the Interpretations and Guidelines Section 

of NIST Handbook 130 and was last updated in 1994. Since then, the cost of 

equipment has changed and new test methods have been developed. The 

Subcommittee proposes to revise and update the guideline. 

Federal Kerosene Dye Information – It was suggested that information on the new 

Internal Revenue Service kerosene dye policies be prepared and distributed to the 

States. The Subcommittee proposes to develop and distribute this information. 

Automotive Lubricants – The Uniform Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and 

Automotive Lubricants Regulation, implies that the document covers lubricants. 

When the regulation was developed, the Subcommittee gave developing engine fuel 

requirements priority, with the understanding that in the future they would address 

lubricants. The uniform law gives broad authority to regulate lubricants; however, the 

regulation has no requirements. The Subcommittee has proposed developing 

requirements for lubricants for the Committee to consider. 

Publication 21: The Western Weights and Measures Association recommends that 

the Petroleum Subcommittee also revise the sampling procedures and container 

requirements in NCWM Publication 21-Petroleum Products Sampling Procedures 

and Safety Manual to provide adequate precautions regarding the use of clear glass 

containers for product specification conformance testing. This recommendation is 

based on data presented to the NCWM by Chevron Products Company and 

Tennessee.

Interim Meeting Action: The Committee recognizes Randy Jennings and his subcommittee for all their work dealing 

with the assigned petroleum issues. The Committee publicly commends and thanks all those involved for a job well 

done. Randy, who serves as chairman of the Petroleum Subcommittee, was unable to attend the Interim Meeting because 

of funding problems hence the Committee did not receive the anticipated update. The Committee was unable to develop 

the Subcommittee agenda because additional information is still required. A new budget has been submitted to the 

NCWM Board of Directors, and the Committee expects that it will be approved allowing the Petroleum Subcommittee to 

complete its assigned tasks. The Committee voted to maintain the subcommittee’s agenda as Informational. 

238 Interpretations and Guidelines 

238-1 VC Guideline on Product Flush Prior to Octane Sampling 

(This Item Was Adopted) 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Background: At the 1989 NCWM, Item 237-1: The NCWM adopted Octane Rating for Blend Dispensers. Passing this 

item was supposed to result in the following language being placed in NCWM Publication 3, Policy, Interpretations, 

Guidelines":

"A minimum of 0.3 gallons of motor fuel shall be flushed from the dispenser before 

taking a sample for octane verification. The flush shall be returned to the storage tank 

containing the lowest octane." 

This statement included a footnote related to multi-product dispensers that the NCWM deleted in 1993. All technical 

information supporting the 1-liter (0.3-gallon) flush can be found in the Report of the 74th NCWM (1989) and in the 

Report of the 78th NCWM (1993). NCWM Publication 3 has since been discontinued, and the guideline does not appear 

in the Interpretations and Guidelines Section of NIST Handbook 130. The SWMA recommends that this guideline be 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R-13 

added to NIST Handbook 130 because it provides for uniform sampling and agrees with NCWM Publication 21, 

Petroleum Products Sampling and Safety Manual.

Recommendation: Add the following guideline to the Interpretations and Guidelines Section of Handbook 130. 

2.6.16. Minimum Fuel Flush for Octane Verification 

A minimum of 1.2 liters (0.3 gallon) of motor fuel shall be flushed from a dispenser before taking a sample 

for octane verification. The flush shall be returned to the storage tank containing the lowest octane." 

Interim Meeting Action: The Committee believes the intent of this requirement is to use a minimum of 0.3 gallons for 

an adequate flush. The 0.3 gallons converts to 1.136 liter and not 1 liter as the guideline states. The Committee believes 

that it would be very difficult to use a 1.136 liter flush. After consulting with several interested parties, the Committee 

voted to change 1 liter to 1.2 liter and move the item to voting status. 

239 Price Verification 

239-1 W Limit Time Allowed for Intentional Undercharges 

Source: Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA)

Background: The City of Boston, Massachusetts, reported a problem with intentional undercharges. Early drafts of 

Publication 19 had a twenty-four-hour time limit on intentional undercharges to permit retailers time to complete price 

changes. This was removed prior to adoption by the Conference at the request of the retail industry. The lack of a time 

limit leads to non-uniformity because some jurisdictions still allow 24 hours, while neighboring jurisdictions may choose 

different time limits. In principle, any pricing error is an error. Errors should be corrected in a timely manner. To promote 

uniformity and set reasonable limits, NEWMA proposes that the language of Section 2.14 (e) be amended to limit 

intentional undercharges to 48 hours. This should be more than sufficient time to complete price changes. 

Interim Meeting Action: The Committee believes that numerous and very different pricing systems exist around the 

country. In principle, price changes and errors should be corrected in a timely manner. The Committee believes that 

establishing a specific time limit for changes and corrections would be detrimental to the NCWM. The Committee 

believes that each system should be evaluated individually and that the regulatory officials should use their training, 

experience, and personal knowledge of the system to determine if any violation has occurred. The Committee voted to 

withdraw this item. 

250 NIST Handbook 133 

250-1 W Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs) for Count Declarations on Seed 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association 

Background: This issue relates to the value of the Maximum Allowable Variation (MAV) permitted for count 

declarations on packages of agricultural seed such as corn and soybeans. According to the seed industry, farmers prefer 

to purchase seed by count because count is used in calculating acres per bag of seed and in calibrating seeding machines. 

The Committee worked with members of the seed industry, trade associations, and other interested parties to develop a 

proposal for NCWM to consider. The American Seed Trade Association (ASTA) established a work group comprised of 

industry and university representatives to study this issue and prepare recommendations for consideration at the 1998 

Interim Meeting. The ASTA work focused on standardizing the procedures used to ensure the accuracy of electronic seed 

counters and developing uniform operational procedures for their use. The work group studied other issues such as the 

need to determine the impact of moisture loss on the accuracy of seed count and the need for a simplified test method to 

determine count. Prior to the Interim Meeting, the Committee received a letter from the Association of Official Seed 

Analysts (AOSA) about its study on seed count accuracy. The AOSA is an organization of regulatory agencies and/or 

seed laboratories from the U.S. and Canada whose mission is to promote uniform laws, regulations, and laboratory test 

methods. AOSA’s letter described their proposed test method for counting soybeans which requires that the variation 

between test results be limited to 2 percent. The test method also includes procedures for sample selection and equipment 

calibration. The American Association of Seed Control Officials (AASCO), and the States of Maryland and Michigan 

submitted letters supporting the AOSA proposal. At the Interim Meeting, ASTA and Iowa State University presented the 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R - 14

results of their studies and explained the difficulties encountered in verifying seed counts. They also described how 

moisture loss impacts the accuracy of net weight and count declarations. The ASTA proposed that the NCWM adopt an 

MAV of 6 percent for seed count and requested that one or more packages be allowed to exceed the MAV. 

Discussion: Due to the disparity between the recommended allowances determined by the two studies (Iowa State and 

AOSA), the Committee made this issue an information item. It recommended further review of the study methodologies 

and test results submitted by the interested parties. The Committee also encouraged the ASTA and AOSA to resolve the 

differences in their recommendations and resubmit a mutually agreeable proposal for future consideration. Regardless of 

the disparities, the Committee believes that the appropriate method of sale of packaged seed is by net weight and, if 

desirable, a seed count declaration should be included as supplemental information. If the seed industry selected this 

method of providing count information as a supplemental declaration, it would still be useful and easily accessible to 

farmers. This approach reduces the need for weights and measures officials to devote resources to verify the declaration 

which the seed control officials could control as part of their other regulatory duties. The Committee believes this is one 

way to resolve this issue because seed control officials have test equipment and can often verify count declarations as part 

of the seed certification process conducted in a laboratory. 

At the 1998 NCWM Annual Meeting, a representative of the ASTA reported that its members had met with officials from 

the American Association of Seed Control Officials (AASCO) to develop a joint proposal regarding the appropriate MAV 

for count. At the 1999 Interim Meeting the Committee learned that both organizations agreed to support a proposal for a 

4 percent MAV on declared count for soybean and corn. ASTA also urged the NCWM to adopt the AOSA sampling 

procedures for seed, and indicated desire to work with the Committee to develop a gray area for different seed similar to 

those the NCWM had adopted for dry pet food and flour. 

1999 Regional Action: At the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) Interim Meeting, a jurisdiction stated 

that for some seeds, the primary declaration should be count. Farmers use count to determine how many acres can be 

planted. Weight is not considered in the price of the seed. It was pointed out that if count is used as the primary 

declaration, test procedures in HB 133 should be reviewed. Under current test procedures, a package containing 80,000 

seeds would require the inspector to manually count 8,000 seeds. 

1999 Interim Meeting Action: The Committee carried this item over pending final action by the Association of Official 

Seed Analysts (AOSA) Seed Count Committee on a recommendation for test procedures and an MAV for corn and 

soybeans. 

Interim Meeting Action: The Committee believes that variations on seed count make it impossible to determine and 

establish an appropriate MAV. The Committee believes that it will be some time before such standards can be 

determined and considered. The Committee voted to withdraw this item. 

250-2 I Developing a 4th Edition of NIST Handbook 133 

Source: Laws and Regulations Committee 

Background: Currently, NIST Handbook 133, "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods," is comprised of the 

Third Edition (1988) and Supplements 1 (1990), 2 (1991), 3 (1992), 4 (1994). Amendments adopted by the NCWM in 

1998 and 1999 have not been published in supplemental form. There is little doubt that a new edition of the handbook 

must be published to eliminate the confusion caused by the supplements and to reduce the burden on inspectors and 

others who use the handbook. Developing a new edition is important so that the amendments to the handbooks adopted 

in 1998 and 1999 can be published and adopted by jurisdictions that incorporate Handbook 133 by reference. Following 

guidance received from the NIST Handbook 133 Working Group and the Committee, the Office of Weights and 

Measures (OWM) prepared two drafts of the 4th Edition of NIST Handbook 133. Comments on the second draft 

generally support the plain language, the question and answer format, and the elimination of some of the detailed 

explanations, examples, and other information included in the original Third Edition of the Handbook published in 1988. 

While most of the comments have been supportive, several jurisdictions expressed concern over the new format and the 

elimination of some explanatory information. One comment was that the new format is appropriate for use as a field 

inspector’s manual, but is not an acceptable replacement for the current handbook. This comment suggested that OWM 

update the Third Edition published in 1988, retaining all of the current information, pictures, and examples. A second 

comment proposed a different organization of the handbook, while a third suggested an extensive preface addressing State 

and local adoption and use of the handbook. The proposed preface would explain Federal preemption, and describe the 

procedures officials should follow before taking legal action on small lots of packages in retail stores. One of the most 

significant comments pointed out the need to use a more statistically valid method to compute the sample correction 

factor.
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R-15 

OWM has requested guidance from the NCWM on how to proceed with this project. OWM would like to know what the 

NCWM wants concerning format and content in a 4th Edition of the handbook if the content, plain language, and question 

and answer format in the second Draft does not meet the users’ needs. 

The Committee held a public hearing at the Interim Meeting to receive comments on the following proposals: 

1. OWM staff continues to develop a fourth draft of the 4th Edition of the handbook using the question and answer/plain 

language format presented in the third draft of the 4th Edition. OWM will issue a fourth draft in 2000 incorporating the 

comments received on the third draft. 

2. The second proposal is to return to the format in the 1988 version of the Third Edition of the Handbook retaining all of 

the detailed examples and interpretations. If this alternative is selected, the NIST Handbook 133 Working Group will 

take the lead on developing and preparing a draft revision. OWM will provide technical assistance to the Working Group. 

3. The third proposal the Committee is considering is to reorganize and restructure the handbook to the format presented 

below. This reorganization would provide even more of the detailed examples and interpretations than were provided in 

the Third Edition of the Handbook. 

NIST HANDBOOK 133 – Outline of Proposed Reorganization & Structure 

The handbook is to be self-contained and independent of any other handbooks or documents. There should be no 

references to requirements contained in other documents because not all have been adopted by every jurisdiction. 

A. Preamble 

Introduction from the existing Handbook 133, Third Edition 

Synopsis of the theory of statistical sampling 

Overview of the sampling and testing procedures used in the Handbook 

B. Regulation 

1. Application and Requirements of the Regulation, Definitions. 

2. Compliance Determination. Core Procedure based on testing by weight, for Category A and B Sampling Plans, 

including adjustments or differences specific to Moisture Loss Allowance, and Established Gray Areas for wet 

tare jurisdictions. 

3. Compliance Determination for Sampling Plans used for Packages Labeled by Count and Packages with 

Allowable Differences. 

4. Tables 

C. Information, procedures, and instructions for the Inspector. 

1. Question and answer format for the detailed steps used in conducting tests according to this regulation. 

2. Additional information concerning theories, inspections, and techniques of interest to sampling and testing 

programs. 

D. Test Procedures 

1. Weight procedures: General: net weight, drained weight, and substitution method, etc. 

Specific commodity: aerosol, frozen food, drained weight frozen food, glazed seafood & fish, canned coffee, 

borax, flour, meat and poultry from Federally-inspected plants, etc. 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R - 16

2. Liquid volume test procedures: General: direct measure, gravimetric, depth gage, headspace, displacement, etc. 

 Specific commodity: milk, paint, very viscous materials, ice cream, etc. 

3. Dry Volume: General and specific commodity tests. 

4. Count. 

E. Appendix: Random Number Tables, Glossary, Acknowledgements and References, Model Inspection Report Forms.

If the third proposal is accepted, the NIST Handbook 133 Working Group will take the lead in developing a draft 

revision. OWM will provide technical assistance to the Working Group. 

Interim Meeting: At the Interim meeting, the Committee solicited comments on these proposals. The Committee met 

with the Board of Directors to discuss these proposals, request funding for the NIST Handbook 133 Working Group, and 

develop timetables so that this project can be concluded in a timely manner. 

Interim Meeting Action: The Committee met with the Board of Directors and formulated the following plan: OWM will 

continue to develop the 4th edition using the question and answer format. Any technical changes from the current 

requirements will be subject to review and approval of the L&R Committee and will be forwarded to the conference as 

informational items. No time line has been established for completing the handbook; however, OWM will maintain this 

item as a high priority. The Committee has requested that a “roundtable” discussion concerning HB 133 be scheduled at 

the 2000 Annual Meeting of the National Conference. The Committee voted to continue this item as Informational. 

Technical Changes and Corrections to NIST Handbook 133 

The Committee received hundreds of comments and suggestions on the second and third drafts of the 4th Edition of NIST 

Handbook 133. Several comments addressed statistical issues, lot sizes, and the need for officials to follow due process 

procedures when they take action on packages that fail to meet the average or individual package requirements in the 

handbook. The Committee solicits comments on the suggested changes to the handbook that are detailed in items 1,2, 

and 3 below. 

1. The Sample Correction Factors in Table 2-1. Sampling Plans for Category A were originally computed using 

2/square-root of n. Numerous comments on the second draft pointed out that the statistically correct approach to 

computing the SCF should use the t-statistic that sets the correction factor to match the sample size. NIST agrees that this 

change should be made to make the handbook correction factors statistically correct, bringing it into closer harmony with 

the OIML 87 “Net Contents in Packages.” If this change is adopted, the following correction factors will replace those 

currently in Table 2-1. 

Sample Size Sample Correction Factor 

1 Apply MAV 

2 8.984 

3 2.484 

4 1.591 

5 1.241 

6 1.050 

7 0.925 

8 0.836 

9 0.769 

10 0.715 

11 0.672 

12 0.635 

24 0.422 

48 0.291 

2. Comments received on the second draft pointed out some concern that the 48-item sample for lots with more than 

3200 packages resulted in actions being taken against lot sizes up to 200,000 packages. Field inspectors have difficulty 

properly collecting a random sample from very large lots, so most inspectors try to divide very large lots into more 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R-17 

manageable sizes. Even though the inspectors determine the lot size, the current version of the handbook provides no 

guidance on dividing lots. OIML 87 "Net Contents in Packages" recommends that lots of more than 10,000 packages be 

divided into smaller lots. NIST recommends that similar guidance be added to the 4th Edition of the handbook in the form 

of a note to the sampling plans so the handbook provides guidance that is consistent with OIML 87. 

3. Industry provided comments on the need for officials to follow due process procedures when taking action on lots of 

packages. According to the comments, one of the most frequent problems is that many jurisdictions do not follow the 

model guidelines on due process procedures adopted by the NCWM in 1997. OWM has suggested that Section 2.6.10. 

Model Guidelines for the Administrative Review Process in the Interpretations and Guidelines Section of NIST 

Handbook 130 be incorporated as appendices in the 4th Edition of the handbook along with Section 2.6.12. Point-of-Pack 

Inspection Guidelines. Including these in the handbook will stress their importance, and they will be available to every 

official who conducts net content verifications. 

4. Other notes: several comments correctly pointed out that the ratios and number of packages to be opened in the tare 

determination tables in the 4th edition draft are not consistent with the 3rd Edition. OWM is in the process of recomputing all of the tare determination tables to identify and correct any errors that may have occurred in calculating or 

rounding the values. The third Draft of the 4th Edition of the handbook will include updated tables set to ensure that the 

contribution of tare to overall variation is no more than 5 percent, the limit NCWM adopted in 1994. 

260 Other Items 

260-1 W Electronic Price Labels 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association 

Background: In 1998 the Committee received the following correspondence from the Hobart Corporation. 

"Hobart now offers an ‘Electronic Shelf Labeling System.’ As this new product enters the market, we 

are encountering variations in requirements from state to state. We are requesting that a Uniform 

Regulation for Electronic Price Labels be developed as a standard for electronic price labeling at the 

retail shelf. We would like to request that you raise this issue at the Southern Regional meeting of the 

NCWM in October so that the proposal may begin receiving due process toward completion of a 

regulation. 

Electronic Shelf Tags provide a near certain way to assure accurate pricing and 1:1 correlation 

between the displayed price and that stored in a retail store's central computer files. As a 

manufacturer, we are facing the prospect of having to design and tool shelf tags unique to each 

jurisdiction. This will be an expensive process for us and will reflect ultimately on the price and, 

consequently, acceptance of this technology. We feel confident that a Model Regulation will facilitate 

the acceptance of electronic price labeling and will lead to a more rapid implementation to the benefit 

of the consumer. 

Currently, states are attempting to apply their paper tag requirements. We are seeing variations in 

requirements including but not limited to: use of background colors, use of ‘bold’ type for ‘Unit Price,’ 

special locations for unit and total price information and differing minimum character size 

requirements. All in addition to the stipulations of the Unit Pricing Regulation in Handbook 130.” 

Regional Meeting Action: The Hobart Corporation and Southern and Western Weights and Measures Associations 

(SWMA) recommend that this item be withdrawn. The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) 

believes there is merit in continuing to look for some national uniformity in this area. This is an emerging technology that 

will be less expensive and better in the long term if the States can adopt uniform standards. Certainly it would be less 

expensive for industry to implement and would benefit consumers. NEWMA supports the idea of a work group to 

explore standardization. 

Interim Meeting Action: The Committee believes that placing restrictions on such new technology would be detrimental 

to further developing of such technology and voted to withdraw this item. 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R - 18

S. Morrison, San Luis Obispo County, California, Chairman 

R. Williams, Tennessee 

D. Onwiler, Nebraska 

D. Johannes, California 

P. D’Errico, New Jersey 

Associate Membership Committee Representative: C. Guay, Procter & Gamble Company 

NIST Handbook 133 Working Group: B. Bloch, California, Chairman 

Petroleum Subcommittee: Randy Jennings, Tennessee, Chairman 

Canadian Technical Advisors: J. Watters and B. Lemon 

NIST Technical Advisor: T. Coleman 

NIST Technical Advisor on the Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation: T. Butcher 

Committee on Laws and Regulations 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R-19 

Appendix A 

Guidelines for Administrative Decisions Regarding Premium Diesel 

Introduction 

Premium diesel was first defined in 1998 as a result of voting action at the NCWM annual meeting. Prior to that, there 

was no uniform definition approved through a standards development organization. Because the scope of the NCWM 

definition goes beyond traditional fuel testing parameters, certain administrative aspects for a regulatory agency justify 

discussion. 

The NCWM definition encompasses five parameters from which the marketer may choose when formulating a premium 

package: Cetane Number, Low Temperature Operability, Energy Content, Fuel Injector Cleanliness, and Thermal 

Stability. Requirements for claiming cetane number, low temperature operability, and energy content are more traditional 

elements of diesel fuel testing and do not warrant a detailed discussion in this document. Because fuel cleanliness and 

thermal stability have traditionally been less familiar parameters for diesel fuel, this document will focus primarily on 

those properties. Additionally, this document will offer guidance on sample volumes necessary to conduct laboratory 

testing. 

Fuel Cleanliness Guideline 

The fuel cleanliness criterion of the NCWM Premium Diesel regulation is based on performance in the Cummins L10 

Injector Depositing Test. This criterion can be met by either the use of a detergent additive or by demonstrating that the 

fuel as sold can pass the Cummins L10 test due to inherent cleanliness. Compliance testing initiated by the weights and 

measures official should be conducted with the Cummins L10 Injector Depositing Test using the latest test method as 

approved by the ASTM Cummins L10 Injector Depositing Test Surveillance Panel. As of September 1, 1998, this is draft 

test procedure number 4a. 

From an enforcement point of view, the marketer must be prepared to provide sufficient data to substantiate the 

detergency claim to a state weights and measures director. 

When using a detergent additive that meets the criterion, the marketer must have passing results from a Cummins L10 

Injector Depositing Test. The test must be conducted using Cat 1K reference fuel. The test data must also include the 

treatment level (amount) of additive that was used in the performance test to achieve the passing result. 

To verify the proper addition of additive into diesel fuel, the marketer is expected to maintain records that allow 

reconciliation between additive consumption at the required additive treatment rate shown in the test data and the volume 

of premium diesel fuel sold. It is recommended that this Volume Additive Reconciliation be compiled on a quarterly 

basis and that records be maintained for a minimum of one year. A sample additive usage form is provided as a guide at 

the conclusion of this document. 

The marketer must also maintain a chemical and physical description of the detergent additive that is being used. This 

description can be compared to the chemical and physical properties of an additive sample drawn from the marketer’s 

facility. This allows the inspector to assure that the additive being used is substantially similar to the additive used in 

developing the required supporting documentation. The chemical and physical description of the detergent additives 

should include as a minimum: 

x Specific Gravity 

x Viscosity @ 20 qC and 100 qC

x Elemental Analysis or Fourier Transformation Infrared Analysis 

It is important to note that many diesel fuel additives that can be used under the NCWM regulation may contain a number 

of different components, including active ingredients and solvents. All documentation and additive descriptions should 

reflect the additive package that the inspector will encounter in the field. Additionally, it is common practice in the 

industry to switch additives between summer and winter to meet seasonal performance and additive handling needs. The 

director of the responsible jurisdiction should consider this when determining the timing of additive package testing for 

performance criteria or compositional analysis. 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R - 20

To check the actual performance of the detergent additive in use, the inspector may collect a sample of the actual additive 

used at the marketer’s facility to produce premium diesel fuel. This sample can be tested using the latest test procedure in 

the Cat 1-K fuel as recommended above. This proof testing is at the discretion of the inspecting agency. 

If the marketer chooses to demonstrate the inherent cleanliness of the fuel being sold (fuels that can meet the requirement 

without detergent additive or by using a lower than recommended concentration of additive), the fuel must be tested 

annually at the marketer’s expense. The regulatory agency must agree with the test date. If the annual test fails to comply 

with the rule, the marketer pays for any additional testing. If the test fails to comply with the rule, the director has the 

authority to initiate enforcement as authorized by the governing law of that jurisdiction. To continue to market the fuel as 

premium diesel, the marketer may be requested to provide a description of production adjustments along with a newly 

acquired L-10 pass certificate to the Director. 

All documentation associated with the detergency criterion should be made available to the director within a reasonable 

period of time upon request. It is recommended that the data be provided within 30 days of the request. Data sharing 

among the various regulatory agencies may be an especially useful tool for assurance of fuel cleanliness compliance. If a 

regulatory agency has reason to suspect a detergent package being used is less than adequate to meet premium diesel 

standards, the regulator may benefit from obtaining any available data on testing conducted on that package by other 

regulatory agencies. Additionally, when fuels that rely on the inherit cleanliness of the fuel to qualify as premium diesel 

are marketed across jurisdiction lines, it would be reasonable to request data from the director of the jurisdiction in which 

the point of product distribution is located prior to requiring the marketer to provide new test data. 

Thermal Stability Guidelines 

The test method adopted by the NCWM, Octel America F21-61, is a well-established and reliable indicator of the ability 

of the fuel to withstand high temperature exposure for a prolonged period of time (180 minutes, 150 °C). This test is 

currently being developed into an ASTM test method. The procedure has been drafted into ASTM format and a roundrobin test program to determine the test’s repeatability and reproducibility limits has been conducted. While this method 

will not be official until accepted by ASTM, it is expected that the reproducibility of the test method will be 

approximately 10% at the 80% reflectance level based on the use of the prescribed reflectance meter. 

Sample Volume Guidelines 

Detergency 

Test Method: Cummins L10 Injector Depositing Test, draft test procedure number 4a 

Volume of Fuel Required/Test: 320 - 340 gallons 

Volume of Additive for testing with CAT-1K reference fuel as specified by the additive producer 

Energy Content (Btu)

Test Method: ASTM D240 Heat of Combustion of Liquid Hydrocarbon Fuels by Bomb Calorimeter 

Volume of Fuel Required/Test: 50 ml (recommend 100 ml) 

Low Temperature Operability 

Cloud Point 

Test Method: ASTM D2500 Cloud Point of Petroleum Products 

Sample Collection: Obtain samples in accordance with Practices ASTM D4057 or ASTM D4177 

Volume of Fuel Required/Test: 50 ml (recommend 100 ml) 
Laws and Regulations Committee 

L&R-21 

LTFT

ASTM D4539 Filterability of Diesel Fuel by Low-Temperature Flow Test 

Volume of Fuel Required/Test: 200 ml (recommend 500 ml) 

Thermal Stability 

Test Method: Octel F21-61 

Volume of Fuel Required/Test: 50 ml (recommend 100 ml) 

Cetane

Test Method: ASTM D613 Cetane Number of Diesel Fuel Oils 

Volume of Fuel Required/Test: 1000 ml (recommend 2000 ml) 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-1

Report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

Monty H. Hopper, Chairman 

Kern County Weights and Measures 

Kern County, California 

Reference 

Key Number 

300 Introduction 

This is the final report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) for the 85th Annual Meeting of the 

National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The report is based on the 85th Interim Report offered in 

NCWM Publication 16, “Committee Reports,” the Addendum Sheets issued at the Annual Meeting, and actions taken by 

the membership at the Voting Session of the Annual Meeting. 

Table A identifies the agenda items in the report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The item 

numbers are those assigned in the Interim Meeting Agenda. Voting items are indicated with a “V,” or if the item was part 

of the consent calendar by the suffix “VC” after the item number. Items marked with an “I” after the reference key 

number are information items. Items marked with a “D” after the key number are developing issues. The developing 

designation indicates an item has merit; however, the item is returned to the submitter to develop further before any action 

is taken at the national level. The Committee withdrew items marked with a “W.” Items marked with a “W” generally 

will be referred to the regional weights and measures associations because they either need additional development, 

analysis, and input, or did not have sufficient Committee support to bring them before the NCWM. Table B lists the 

Appendices to the report, and Table C provides a summary of the results of the voting on the Committee's items and the 

report in entirety. 

The attached report contains many recommendations to revise or amend National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) Handbook 44, 2000 Edition, “Specifications, Tolerances, and other Technical Requirements for Weighing and 

Measuring Devices.” Proposed revisions to the handbook are shown in bold face print by crossing out text to be deleted, 

and underlining information to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed in italics. 

Entirely new paragraphs or sections proposed for addition to the handbook are designated as such and shown in bold face 

print.

Note: The policy of the National Institute of Standards and Technology is to use metric units of measurement in all of its 

publications; however, recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been printed in this 

publication as they were submitted and may, therefore, contain references to inch-pound units. 

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items 

Reference 

Key No. Title of Item Page 

310 General Code .....................................................................................................................................4

310-1 I G-S.1. Identification and Appendix D, Definitions for Manufactured and 

 Remanufactured Devices.....................................................................................................................4

310-2 VC G-S.1. Identification; Model Number ................................................................................................5

310-3 I G-S.1. Identification; Certificate of Conformance Number ...............................................................7

310-4 W G-S.5.2.3. Size and Character ............................................................................................................9

310-5 W G-S.5.6.2. Multiple Recorded Representation.....................................................................................10

320 Scales Code ........................................................................................................................................11

320-1 V S.1.4.3.(a) Width; Scale Indicators......................................................................................................11

320-2 I Table S.6.3.a. Marking Requirements .................................................................................................13
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-2

Reference 

Key No. Title of Item Page

320 Scales Code (Continued) 

320-3 I N.1.3.4.(a) Vehicle Scales, Axle-Load Scales, and Livestock Scales With More Than Two 

Sections; Prescribed Test Pattern ........................................................................................................16

320-4 VC N.1.3.4. Vehicle Scales, Axle-Load Scales, and Livestock Scales With More Than Two 

Sections; Shift Test..............................................................................................................................18

320-5 V UR.3.9. Use of Manual Gross Weight Entries; Vehicle Scales ..........................................................19

320-6 I Appendix D; Definition of Substitution Test and Test Load...............................................................20

321 Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems ...........................................................................................................22

321-1 VC N.3.2. Material Tests and N.3.2.1. Accuracy of Material....................................................................22

321-2 VC UR.2.2. Conveyor Installation and UR.2.2.1. For Scales not Installed 

by the Manufacturer ............................................................................................................................24

321-3 I UR.2.2.1.(h) For Scales not Installed by the Manufacturer; Belt Composition and 

Maintenance ........................................................................................................................................26

321-4 VC UR.3.2. (b) Maintenance .....................................................................................................................27

321-5 VC UR.3.2. (c) Maintenance; Scale Alignment.........................................................................................28

330 Liquid-Measuring Devices................................................................................................................29

330-1 V S.1.5.3.(a) Width; Indicator Index.......................................................................................................29

330-2 I Appendix D, Definition for Retail Device and Tolerances, Table T.X. Accuracy Classes for Liquid 

 Measuring Devices..............................................................................................................................31

331 Vehicle-Tank Meters.........................................................................................................................33

331-1 I Recognition of Temperature Compensation........................................................................................33

334 Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices .............................................................................................36

334-1 I Recognition of Liquefied Natural Gas Application.............................................................................36

354 Taximeters Code................................................................................................................................39

354-1 VC S.1.10. Non-Fare Information ............................................................................................................39

354-2 VC S.5. Provisions for Security.................................................................................................................40

354-3 VC S.6. (b) Power Interruption, Electronic Taximeters.............................................................................42

357 Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers – Tentative Code .........................................................................43 

357-1 I Near-Infrared Grain Analyzer; Indication of Additional Constituent Values......................................43 

360 Other Items ........................................................................................................................................47

360-1 I Revise NIST Handbook 44..................................................................................................................47

360–2 I International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Report .........................................................48 

360-3 D Developing Issues ...............................................................................................................................48

Table B 

Appendices

Appendix Title of Item Reference Key Number Page

A Developing Issues- Scales 360-3 .........................................................................49

B Developing Issues-Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems 360-3..........................................................................50

C Developing Issues-Taximeters 360-3..........................................................................55

D Developing Issues-Grain Moisture Meters 360-3..........................................................................56
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-3

Table C 

Voting Results

House of State 

Representatives 

Reference Key Number House of Delegates 

Yes No Yes No 

Results

300 (Consent Calendar) Passed

320-1 36 5 62 2 Passed 

320-5 37 5 41 19 Passed 

330-1 37 1 60 0 Passed 

300 (Report in its Entirety) 

Voice Vote 

All Ayes No Nays All Ayes No Nays Passed 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-4

Details of all Items Follow in Numerical Order 

310 General Code 

310-1 I G-S.1. Identification and Appendix D, Definitions for Manufactured and

 Remanufactured Devices 

Source: Carryover Item 310-1 (This item originated from the Central Weights and Measures Association and first 

appeared on the Committee’s 1997 agenda.) 

Discussion: In December 1999, Remanufactured Device Task Force Chairman James Truex (Ohio) provided the 

Committee with a draft report of the Task Force’s work to date. The Task Force met twice during the January 2000 

NCWM Interim Meeting. During the Committee’s agenda review session, Mr. Truex provided updates on the Task 

Force’s work and responded to questions. 

Mr. Truex acknowledged the Task Force’s mission involves work on the regulatory and NTEP issues relating to 

remanufactured devices. Many of these issues surfaced during the Committee’s earlier discussions; however, unlike the 

Committee, the Task Force has only remanufactured devices as its focus. Mr. Truex indicated the Task Force plans to 

address the Committee and the Board of Directors with its findings. The Committee asked that the Task Force’s final 

report provide more detail in the areas of (1) defining what constitutes a metrological change to a device, (2) the longevity 

of remanufacturing businesses, and (3) which participants in the device distribution cycle must comply with the marking 

requirements. 

The Central, Northeastern, Southern, and Western Weights and Measures Associations recommended this issue remain 

informational until the Task Force completes its work. The WWMA also encouraged its association members to forward 

their comments to the WWMA representative on the Task Force, Gary West (New Mexico). 

During the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, Task Force Chairman Jim Truex (OH) indicated that work will be completed 

by August 2000. The Committee supported the Task Force in completing its work by the August 2000 target date. The 

Task Force plans to have alternate new definitions for the terms “remanufactured device,” “remanufactured element,” 

“repaired device,” “repaired element,” as well as a replacement definition for the current Handbook 44 definition for 

“manufactured device,” and a proposal for marking requirements. These proposals will be ready for review at the 2000 

Fall regional associations meetings and at the 2001 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

Background: Since 1997, the Committee considered several proposals to modify G-S.1. to require remanufacturers to 

label remanufactured devices. At the 1999 Interim Meeting, the S&T Committee reviewed the associate industry’s latest 

proposal to require remanufacturers to label devices and to define “remanufacturer,” “remanufactured devices,” and 

“repaired devices.” The Committee expressed appreciation for the associate industry’s work over the past 3 years to 

develop definitive language, which all parties accept. 

The Committee agreed with industry that the proposed language was the first small step, but it believed this approach did 

not provide adequate criteria to enable uniform enforcement by weights and measures officials. For the second time, the 

Committee considered withdrawing Item 310-1 because it was not fully developed and lacked the most critical criteria for 

implementation. The Committee acknowledged that determining responsibility for a device is essential to ensuring 

proper installation, maintenance, and operation of equipment. After lengthy deliberations, division on several votes, and 

hearing comments to pursue this issue, the Committee gave the proposal informational status. The Committee made this 

decision with the understanding that the Board of Directors would convene a Task Force to resolve the unanswered issues 

regarding the enforcement of this proposal. 

The Committee recommended the Task Force be of suitable size and represent all parties affected by the proposed 

requirements. The Committee struggled at length with the issue of determining who is responsible for a device and 

cautioned the Task Force to take adequate time to objectively analyze and address a list of pressing issues. The 

Committee listed concerns about (1) the justification of new criteria; (2) who decides at what point in a device’s life cycle 

the proposal can be enforced; (3) how to uniformly establish policies which do not restrict trade; and (4) the impact of the 

proposal on NTEP. The Committee encouraged the Task Force to consult with the NCWM’s or other available legal 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-5

counsel to ensure that the guidelines jurisdictions use to enforce remanufacturer requirements are uniform, fair, and 

follow due process. 

The NCWM Board of Directors agreed to the Committee’s recommendation and appointed a Task Force to examine the 

issues about how to enforce the proposal and clarify the impact on the NTEP Program. The Task Force held it first 

meeting on July 29, 1999 at the NCWM Annual Meeting in Burlington, Vermont. After discussions with Task Force 

Chairman Jim Truex, NCWM Chairman Diggs agreed on a target date of August 2000 for the Task Force to prepare its 

findings for dissemination at the 2001 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

For additional background information on this item, refer to the 1997, 1998, and 1999 final reports of the S&T 

Committee. 

310-2 VC G-S.1. Identification; Model Number 

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) 

Source: Carryover Item 310-2B. (This item originated from the Specifications and Tolerances Committee and first 

appeared on the Committee’s agenda in 1999.) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph G-S.1. Identification as follows: 

G-S.1. 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: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor; 

(b) a model designation that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device; 

(c) the model designation shall be prefaced by the term “Model,” “Type,” or “Pattern.” 

These terms may be followed by the term “Number” or an abbreviation of that word. 

The abbreviation for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” 

(e.g., No or No.)

 [Nonretroactive January 1, 2003]

[Note: Prefix lettering may be initial capitals, all capitals or all lower case.] 

(d) except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts, a nonrepetitive 

 serial number; 

 [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968] 

(d e) the serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly 

 identifies the number as the required serial number; and 

 [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986] 

(e f) the serial number shall be prefaced by the words “Serial Number” or an abbreviation of 

that term. Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, begin with the 

letter “S,” and abbreviations for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with 

 the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser. No, and S No.). 

 [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001] 

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity 

of the disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device. 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-6

Modify Table S.6.3.a. and Table S.6.3.b. Note 1 of the Scales code as follows: 

Table S.6.3.a.

Marking Requirements 

Weighing 

Equipment

To Be 

Marked With 

Weighing,

loadreceiving,

and

indicating

element in 

same

housing

Indicating

element not 

permanently

attached to 

weighing and 

loadreceiving

element

Weighing and 

loadreceiving

element not 

permanently 

attached to 

indicating

element

Load cell 

with CC 

(11)

Other

equipment or 

device

(10)

Manufacturer's ID (1) x x x x x 

Model designation and prefix

(1) 

x x x x x 

.

.

.

 . 

.

.

Section Capacity (14) (20) x x 

For applicable notes, see Table S.6.3.b. 

Table S.6.3.b. 

1. Manufacturer’s identification and model designation and model designation prefix.* 

*[Nonretroactive as of January 1 2003.] (See G-S.1) Prefix lettering may be initial capitals, all 

capitals, or all lower case. 

Discussion: During discussions at the 1999 Interim Meeting about agenda item 310-2A, G-S.1. Identification; Serial 

Number, the Committee recognized that clearly identifying the model number was a separate but equally important issue. 

The Committee heard comments about the confusion over information listed on the device identification plate or tag. 

Field officials find identification plates marked with multiple numbers or a generic name and insufficient information to 

discern the manufacturer’s name and the serial and model numbers. The Committee agreed that it is appropriate to 

modify paragraph G-S.1. to address the identification of model numbers. 

Based on industry comments at the 1999 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee recognized that other appropriate terms 

are used internationally to denote “model,” such as “type,” “pattern,” or “style.” These alternate terms are also used in 

conjunction with the term “number.” The Committee recognized the difficulty weights and measures field officials and 

NTEP laboratories encounter when searching for a uniform means to determine which numbers or terms correspond to a 

specific device design. These numbers must also agree with information listed on the Certificate of Conformance. The 

Committee felt that NTETC Sectors and NTEP Participating Laboratories require additional time to review the various 

proposed terms and, therefore, made the item informational. 

During the July 1999 open hearing, the Committee heard industry opposition to the proposal because of the difficulty and 

cost to change castings and corporate model standards. The Scale Manufacturers Association noted that many 

manufacturers use the term “type.” 

The Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) recommended modifying paragraph G-S.1.(b) to include the 

terms “pattern,” “model,” “type,” “design,” or “style” to identify the device pattern or design. The WWMA agreed that 

the number of identifying terms must be kept to a manageable level, otherwise it becomes unclear which set of numbers 

or characters represent the model. The WWMA acknowledges that using an alternate proposal to require marking the 

NTEP Certificate of Conformance Number on a device may be a second option that would allow field officials to cross 

reference a device type and confirm that it is an approved design. One WWMA member noted that the term “class” is not 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-7

an acceptable term because devices are already marked with an “Accuracy Class.” The WWMA agreed that the proposal 

should be a nonretroactive requirement; however, an enforcement date of January 1, 2003, would ensure sufficient time 

for manufacturers to comply. 

The Measuring Sector noted that it considers the terms “pattern” or “model” appropriate as a nonretroactive marking 

requirement. A Sector member noted that the term “series” is inappropriate because it can represent a multitude of 

generations and versions of devices manufactured by a company. 

The Central, Northeastern, and Southern Weights and Measures Associations supported the WWMA’s proposal to modify 

paragraph G-S.1.(b). 

The Committee considered all the proposals and agreed to support the WWMA’s alternate proposal and recommendation 

for a nonretroactive January 1, 2003 enforcement date as shown above. The Committee recognized that a January 1, 2003 

enforcement date was needed to allow manufacturers time to their modify equipment. Several industry members noted 

that the word “number” should be permitted as an optional term to identify the model designation. While the Committee 

recognizes that the model designation may not always be a number, many manufacturers use the term “number” to 

preface a model designation. Therefore, the Committee agreed the term “number” is acceptable and modified the 

proposal to provide uniform guidelines about how the term shall be abbreviated. The Committee was reminded that the 

focus of this issue was to provide the field official with easy access to device information. A multitude of terms makes 

enforcement more difficult; therefore, the Committee agreed to only three terms. 

The Scale Manufacturers Association and Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association supported the proposed 

recommendation above. 

During the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee noted that the terms are not case sensitive. Therefore, the 

Committee added a note to G-S.1. and text to Table S.6.3.b. to indicate which letter case is acceptable for the prefix. The 

Committee also decided that changes were needed to Table S.6.3.a. and Tables S.6.3.b. Note 1 to include a requirement 

for a prefix that identifies the model number. 

310-3 I G-S.1. Identification; Certificate of Conformance Number 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph G-S.1. Identification as follows:

G-S.1. 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: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor; 

(b) a model designation that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device;

(c) except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts, a nonrepetitive 

serial number; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968] 

(d) the serial number shall be prefaced by words , an abbreviation , or a symbol, that clearly 

identifies the number as the required serial number; and

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986] 

(e) the serial number shall be prefaced by the words “Serial Number” or an abbreviation of 

that term. Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, begin with the 

letter “S,” and abbreviations for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with 

the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser. No, and S No.). ; and

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001] 

(f) For devices that have an NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number or a 

corresponding CC addendum number, the NTEP Certificate of Conformance Number, 

prefaced by the terms “NTEP CC,” “CC,” or “Approval.” These terms may be 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-8

followed by the term Number” or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for 

the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.)

 [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003]

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity 

of the disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device. 

Discussion: The SWMA noted that this proposal appeared on an earlier NCWM agenda. Since that time, several 

significant changes and problems occurred: (1) confusion has arisen about similar devices used in legal and not legal for 

trade applications; (2) hard copies of Certificates of Conformance (CC) are no longer published in NCWM Publication 5 

and the NISTIR 6304 lists only indices of NTEP device evaluations; and (3) problems sometimes occur when accessing 

Certificates of Conformance on the Internet. Initially, problems with Internet access developed because of sitewide 

malfunctions with the server; however, that was corrected. SWMA also noted that other countries require a pattern 

approval mark, and Handbook 44 shows a precedence which requires mass flow meters to be marked with the pattern 

approval number. 

One SWMA weights and measures official noted that an alternate proposal (Item 310-2) on the agenda requires 

terminology to positively identify the model number. Identification of the model number will provide information that 

makes it easier to trace a device design to NTEP. 

The Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) heard the SWMA’s justification for including the CC number 

as a marking requirement. The WWMA agreed the proposed marking information may be in a separate location from 

current G-S.1. information on the device as long as it is clear and visible. The WWMA acknowledged that there may be 

some uncertainty about marking remanufactured devices with CC information because of questions about what CC 

information should stay with the device. The WWMA noted the proposal will align the U.S. with OIML and Canada and 

is consistent with the Mass Flow Meter Code. Therefore, WWMA recommends this item move forward for a vote. 

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) recommended withdrawing this item if Item 310-2 

requiring a prefix identifying the model number is adopted. NEWMA agreed that field officials would have sufficient 

information from a clearly identifiable model number and is not in favor of burdening manufacturers with the added costs 

of labeling equipment with redundant information. 

The Committee noted the importance of carefully reviewing a device’s CC to determine what specific parameters the 

Certificate covers. Field officials, device operators, and servicepersons should not rely on the CC marking as the sole 

indication that a particular device design is approved. Any jurisdiction can request Certificates of Conformance from 

NTEP. 

The Committee agreed that the proposal should include the term “Approval” because similar wording is used in the Mass 

Flow Meters Code and in Canadian requirements. Several industry members noted it should be optional to use the term 

“number” in conjunction with the terms “NTEP CC,” “CC,” or “Approval” to identify the CC number. The Committee 

noted that this proposal and Agenda Item 310-2 meet the spirit of providing the field inspector with necessary information 

about the device. The Committee agreed that 2003 is an appropriate enforcement date that allows manufacturers time to 

comply, and the proposed effective date coincides with the proposed enforcement date for identifying the device’s model 

number. For CCs with addendum(s) the device may be marked with either the base CC number or the addendum number 

that covers the particular device for example, “CC Number 03-123” or “CC Number 03-123A1.” 

Several manufacturers opposed additional marking requirements. One manufacturer recommended editing Certificates so 

that the text clearly list identification information for tracing equipment to a particular CC. One manufacturer expressed 

concern about which industry representative is permitted to place a CC Number on a device and what occurs when a CC 

Number becomes inactive. 

During the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard numerous comments that the proposal should be aligned 

with OIML marking requirements. The Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) indicated that the current proposal 

wording creates additional labeling requirements and is not in harmony with OIML “pattern approval mark” 

requirements. SMA noted the term “approval” is often associated with the official having statutory authority. SMA 

agreed to develop alternate language which is consistent with OIML requirements by the 2001 NCWM Interim Meeting if 

the Committee would make this item an informational item. The Committee intends to maintain a nonretroactive 

enforcement date of January 1, 2003, when it revisits this issue. The Committee agreed to make this an informational 

item to allow additional time for study and development of the issue. 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-9

310-4 W G-S.5.2.3. Size and Character 

(This item was changed from an information item to a withdrawn item at the Annual Meeting) 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Weighing Sector 

Discussion: The Committee considered a proposal to add the following new paragraphs G-S.5.2.3.(b) and (c) Size and 

Character to Handbook 44: 

G-S.5.2.3. Size and Character 

(a) In any series of graduations, indications, or recorded representations, corresponding 

graduations and units shall be uniform in size and character. Graduations, 

indications, or recorded representations that are subordinate to or of a lesser value 

than others with which they are associated shall be appropriately portrayed or 

designated. [Made retroactive as of January 1, 1975.] 

(b) Except for electronic cash registers (ECRs) on direct sale digital devices that display

primary indications, the numerical figures of the primary indications on the customer

side must be at least 9.5mm in height.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X.] 

(c) For electronic cash registers (ECRs) the display of the measurement units must be at

least 9.5mm in height.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X.]

The Maryland NTEP Participating Laboratory evaluated a software based Electronic Cash Register (ECR) system which 

was designed to display the indications on a cathode ray tube (CRT) screen. The display area was 12 mm high and 

located in one corner of the screen; however, the weight indications were only 4 mm high. The lab was concerned that 

the height of the characters displayed on the screen was insufficient for adequate visibility. Publication 14, NTEP 

Checklist for ECRs, has no specific character size criteria for indications. During the 1999 NTEP Laboratory Meeting, 

lab representatives recognized the need for uniform guidelines and agreed to prepare a proposal for a minimum character 

height requirement of 10 mm r 0.5 mm for, the Weighing Sector’s review, similar to corresponding requirements in other 

code sections. 

During the Sector’s review of the proposal, several members stated that a minimum height requirement should apply only 

to devices used in direct sales and only to indications on the customer’s side. Others indicated any proposal should be 

compatible with OIML requirements. The group generally agreed that, except for the measurement units, all ECR 

indications should be exempt from size requirements. The Sector agreed that the exemption was acceptable because, 

unlike other weighing systems, the customer receives a receipt from weighing systems interfaced with ECRs. The Sector 

also agreed that a General Code requirement would be more appropriate than the laboratory’s proposal to modify a 

specific code requirement. The Sector developed the above proposal to forward to the NCWM S&T Committee to add 

new requirements to Handbook 44, General Code, Paragraph G-S.5.2.3, to address the size of ECR indications. 

The Committee held a lengthy discussion at the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting about the clarity of and necessity for the 

proposal. One Committee member questioned the need for size requirements in particular applications such as jewelry 

scales since there are no corresponding size requirements in all Handbook 44 code sections to address specific device 

types. 

The Committee was advised that a requirement of 9.5 mm would agree with pending OIML R 76 requirements. The 

Committee recognized that exceptions to the requirement are given to electronic cash registers (ECR) because the 

customer receives a receipt in these applications. 

Scale manufacturers noted that the operator may elect to supply the weighing system with a CRT having scalable 

characters that do not comply with the proposed size requirements. Therefore, a corresponding user requirement may be 

necessary in addition to the proposed specification requirement to ensure that scale operators do not make incorrect 

modifications to weighing systems or use non-compliant equipment. 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-10

The Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association strongly opposed the proposal because its members currently have 

equipment with quantity displays 4 mm in height. 

The proposal places specific requirements on indications located on the customer side of the display. However, one 

NTEP laboratory representative noted that during type evaluation it is not always possible to determine which side of the 

device will be used as the customer display. One manufacturer noted that the proposal also needs to address width 

requirements for the transaction information. Several participants indicated that the proposal is unclear about the size 

requirements for the quantity of measurement units and should not address an isolated problem. 

The Committee recognized that without uniform guidelines, the NTEP Laboratories and field officials would have 

difficulty consistently determining the suitability of indications. Therefore, the Committee agreed that the proposal had 

merit. The Committee considered the comments about clarifying the text and agreed that the proposal needs work to 

clarify which characters and devices must comply with the size requirements. During the Interim Meeting, the 

Committee gave the item information status to allow the Weighing Sector time to revise the text so that it clearly 

addresses the specific problem encountered by the laboratories. 

During the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard numerous comments about the ambiguity of the wording 

and conflict with the size of existing retail motor-fuel dispenser display information. The Weighing Sector Technical 

Advisor indicated a specification requirement might be a possible alternate proposal. Industry members agreed that one 

size requirement may not be appropriate for all indicators because the customer position varies and depends on the 

application. For example, viewing taximeter indications usually occurs from the rear seat of a taxi. One laboratory noted 

that the size requirements in the Grain Moisture Meters and Taximeters Codes were developed because of the importance 

of indication visibility from the customer’s position. Consequently, the Committee is withdrawing the proposal because 

of opposition and asks the Weighing Sector to conduct additional work to clarify the intent of the requirement and ensure 

it applies to the appropriate applications. 

310-5 W G-S.5.6.2. Multiple Recorded Representation 

(This item was changed from an information item to a withdrawn item at the Annual Meeting) 

Source: Carryover Item 310-3. (This item originated from the Specifications and Tolerances Committee and first 

appeared on the Committee’s agenda in 1999.) 

Discussion: During the 2000 Interim Meeting, the Committee modified its original 1999 proposal to read as follows: 

G-S.5.6.2. Duplicate Receipts. – If an electronic recording element has the capability to reproduce 

a receipt, then the information printed must be identical to the original with the possible exception 

of time and date. Except for devices printing labels, the duplicate receipt must include the words 

“duplicate” or “copy.”

 [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X.]

During the July 1999 review of Item 354-3, S.1.9.X. Multiple Recorded Representations for taximeters, the Committee 

agreed that many devices are equipped with recording elements that are capable of printing duplicate receipts and tickets. 

To ensure that using duplicate receipts does not facilitate fraud, the Committee believed that a printed receipt should 

indicate when the receipt is a “duplicate.” Members of the weights and measures community also cited examples of 

fraudulent use of duplicate receipts. These include issuing receipts with the largest delivered amount or weighment to 

multiple customers or using receipts to falsify reimbursement claims. The Committee therefore developed a proposal to 

add a paragraph to the General Code to address all applications where devices can print duplicate receipts. 

Since General Code requirements affect all commercial devices equipped with a recording element, the Committee 

wanted to ensure that ample time was provided for study and comment. Consequently, the Committee made the proposal 

a developmental item. The Committee encouraged the regional weights and measures associations to study the proposal 

and provide input about problems that officials encounter when systems have the capability to issue duplicate receipts. 

During the Committee’s July 1999 discussions, one retail motor-fuel dispenser manufacturer noted that Publication 14 

addresses the issue of duplicate receipts. Moreover, if fraudulent use of duplicate receipts causes concern in the taximeter 

industry, then the Committee should address only the Taximeter Code Section of Handbook 44. In response to this 

comment, the Committee considered removing the proposal from the General Code and addressing the issue in specific 

code sections. The Committee discussed whether or not the existing paragraph G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud supports the 

current Publication 14 criteria for duplicate receipts. While the Committee agreed that G-S.2. does support the 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-11

interpretation in Publication 14, the Committee felt that adding specific language to Handbook 44 would strengthen 

support for the Committee’s latest interpretation of identifying duplicate receipts. 

The Committee was concerned about duplicate receipts generated by liquid-measuring device receipt printers such as 

those used in the latest vehicle tank metering system technology. Because recorded representations from electronically 

printed receipts give the appearance of being authentic or the only transaction receipt, the Committee felt that duplicate 

receipts printed by these devices should be identified as such. The capability of mechanical and nonintelligent printers to 

provide duplicate receipt information also raises questions about how prevalent is the practice of issuing duplicate 

receipts and the capability of those systems to comply with the proposal. 

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) voiced concern that the requirement proposed in Item 

354-3 was intended only for the taximeter code. NEWMA is not aware of consumer complaints about this feature in 

other technology areas. Therefore, NEWMA opposes a General Code requirement, believing that it would add 

unnecessary costs for equipment manufacturers. 

At the September 1999 Measuring Sector Meeting, members examined several types of transactions where there is a need 

for a duplicate receipt, but opposed adding a new paragraph to the General Code. Sector members commented that the 

proposed requirement would be of particular benefit for transactions in which the buyer is not present (such as during 

weighmaster operations or vehicle-tank meter home deliveries). Sector members also noted that in theory, electronic 

devices identify each transaction record with a permanent nonrepetitive reference number. Members also questioned 

whether retail motor-fuel dispensers equipped with island/dispenser and console printers are capable of communicating 

that receipts printed at both locations are duplicates. After lengthy discussion, the Sector agreed the proposal should be a 

code specific requirement. 

The WWMA agreed with the Measuring Sector and Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association (GPMA) that the proposal 

should be code specific. The WWMA recommended initially modifying the Vehicle-Tank Meter and Liquefied 

Petroleum Gas Code Sections to address duplicate receipt requirements before considering a General Code requirement. 

During the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee acknowledged the prevalence of technology that is capable of 

producing multiple receipts representing transactions made through multiple types of weighing and measuring devices. 

The Committee agreed that it is appropriate to require systems capable of providing duplicate receipts to identify the 

information by the words “duplicate” or “copy” to prevent unintentional errors or fraudulent use of the transaction 

information. The Committee recognized that exceptions to paragraph G-S.5.6.2. are necessary, such as when labeling 

standard packages. Therefore, the Committee modified its original proposal reflecting that position. Because of many 

comments and questions remaining on this issue, the Committee kept this item informational and asked industry and 

weights and measures officials for input on the modified proposal. 

During the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard an overwhelming number of comments that this proposal 

was intended to prevent fraudulent use of duplicate taximeter receipts and should not become a General Code requirement 

unless other jurisdictions encounter problems with other device types. Consequently, the Committee withdrew this item 

from the agenda. The Committee noted that it may revisit this issue because of comments that indicate that the 

requirement may be appropriate for the Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Vehicle Tank Meters Codes and NTEP already 

applies similar criteria to prevent fraudulent use of transaction information. The Committee also noted that currently 

duplicate receipt marking requirements are enforced based on Handbook 44 paragraph G-S.2 and the Committee supports 

this interpretation. 

320 Scales Code 

320-1 V S.1.4.3.(a) Width; Scale Indicators 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Carryover Item 320-2. (This item originated from the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Weighing Sector and first appeared on the Committee’s agenda in 1999.) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.1.4.3.(a) to read: 

S.1.4.3. Width. - The width of the index of an indicator in relation to the series of 

graduations with which it is used shall be not greater than: 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-12

(a) the width of the widest narrowest graduation*, 

(b) the width of the clear space between weight graduations, and 

(c) three-fourths of the width of the clear space between money value graduations. 

*[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2002.] 

When the index of an indicator extends along the entire length of a graduation, that portion 

of the index of the indicator that may be brought into coincidence with the graduation shall 

be of the same width throughout the length of the index that coincides with the graduation. 

Discussion: NIST Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph S.1.4.3. (a) requires that the indicator index width be no greater 

than the width of the widest graduation. A similar Measurement Canada requirement requires that the index width be no 

greater than the width of the narrowest graduation. In discussing this difference at its 1999 Meeting, the Weighing Sector 

agreed that the Measurement Canada requirement is more appropriate because it prohibits an indicator index that obscures 

any scale graduation. Consequently, the Sector proposed that paragraph S.1.4.3. be modified to correct the discrepancy. 

The Scale Manufacturers Association supported the proposal. 

During the 1999 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard no opposition to the proposal and, therefore, made it a 

voting item on the NCWM S&T Agenda. 

At the 1999 Annual Meeting, the Committee considered comments that the current paragraph S.1.4.3. is more appropriate 

because a wider index design facilitates reading of the graduation. In contrast, when the index design is narrower than the 

narrowest graduation, users need to read the indication to the nearest graduation. The Committee heard comments about 

how the proposed change would affect large numbers of analog indicators still in use; however, the proposal is 

nonretroactive and would apply only to new devices. Measurement Canada restated its belief that the proposal is a more 

appropriate design requirement for indicator indices than the one currently in Handbook 44. The Committee 

acknowledged that there is some validity to the existing Handbook 44 requirement and decided to make the item 

informational to allow additional time for study of the issue. The Committee believed that the proposed change is more 

appropriate and unless it receives more data supporting the existing Handbook 44 language, the Committee planned to 

return the proposal to voting status at the 2000 Interim Meeting. 

The Western Weights and Measures Association recommended adopting the proposed changes at the 2000 NCWM 

Annual Meeting unless data is provided to support current Handbook 44 language. 

The Measuring Sector noted that the proposal creates no barriers to Canadian requirements. Manufacturers recognize 

they must design devices to meet the Canadian requirements when seeking both U.S. and Canadian approval. The Sector 

recommended hearing all arguments on this issue before the Committee recommends the item for a vote. 

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) recommended that this item move forward for a vote at 

the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting if no argument convinces the Committee otherwise. NEWMA believed that the 

proposal facilitates mutual recognition of devices by the U.S. and Canada. 

The Southern Weight and Measures Association (SWMA) agreed that the current Handbook 44 requirement applies 

during NTEP Mutual Recognition type evaluation and does not conflict with the Canadian requirement. Consequently, 

SWMA opposed the proposal and recommended withdrawing it from the Committee’s agenda. 

During the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee again heard opposition to the proposal from one NCWM 

member who indicated that the current Handbook requirement is correct because the differing graduation sizes facilitate 

reading the indication and clearly illustrate which are the subordinate graduations. That member also noted that wider 

indications eliminate any question about the indication starting at zero and lessens the parallax effect because the index 

coincides with the entire graduation rather than coinciding with only a part of a graduation, thus requiring an interpolation 

of the indicated value. That member also pointed out that over the past 40 years, there were no problems reading fan and 

dial scales. The Committee was again cautioned that, if the proposal were added to Handbook 44, some devices with 

analog indications still in production might not meet the proposed requirements. 

The Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) noted that when the indicator index extends along the entire 

length of a graduation, the portion of the index that is brought into coincidence with the graduation shall be of the same 

width throughout the length of the index. The proposal for an indicator index that is not wider than the narrowest 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-13

graduation conflicts with the CWMA position. Therefore, CWMA recommended the proposal be returned to 

informational status. 

The Committee acknowledged that the proposal was originally developed in an attempt to align U.S. and Canadian 

requirements. However, the Committee agreed that when reading subordinate indications, it is important that these 

indications not be obscured by the indicator index. At first, the Committee believed that a limited number of 

manufacturers might be affected by the proposal; however, this group had not commented. The Committee Technical 

Advisor did contact two manufacturers of mechanical dials who indicated that the proposal did not create any design 

problems for their production lines. One manufacturer indicated that its graduations are all the same width, and the other 

bends the tip of the indicator to make the index narrower than the graduation. 

The Committee appreciated the input and deliberated at length on this issue at the 2000 Annual Meeting, but it did not 

receive sufficient specific technical arguments to warrant maintaining the current Handbook 44 requirement. 

Furthermore, the proposed change is nonretroactive, which should allow those companies that are affected adequate time 

to comply. Consequently, the Committee recommended modifying paragraph S.1.4.3.(a) as shown in the 

recommendation above. 

The Committee would like to see all devices comply immediately; however, it realizes that this is not practical. The 

Committee notes that the current language applies until January 1, 2002. Therefore, devices manufactured before 2002, 

or that are either new or used and placed into commercial service before 2002, comply if their indicator index is not wider 

than the widest graduation. The Committee does not plan to retain the old Handbook 44 language addressing indices not 

wider than the widest graduation. The Committee notes that if devices in service prior to 2002 comply with the latest 

requirement by having an indicator index that is not wider than the narrowest graduation, they also meet the intent of the 

requirement. 

320-2 I Table S.6.3.a. Marking Requirements 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector

Recommendation: Modify Table S.6.3.a. as follows: 

Table S.6.3.a. 

Marking Requirements 

Weighing 

Equipment

To Be

Marked With

Weighing, 

load-receiving,

and indicating 

element in

covered on the 

same housing

CC

Indicating element 

not permanently 

attached to 

weighing and loadreceiving element

with CC

Weighing and loadreceiving element not 

permanently 

attached to 

indicating element1

with CC

Load 

cell

with 

CC 

(11) 

Other 

equipment 

or device 

(10) 

... 

Section Capacity 

(14)(20) 

 x x 

Add new footnote 1 to Table S.6.3.a. to read as follows: 

1

Weighing/load receiving elements and indicators which are in the same housing or which are 

permanently attached will generally appear on the same CC. Components shall be hard 

wired together or sealed with a physical or an electronic seal.

Discussion: In 1998, the Weighing Sector discussed the need for NTEP Laboratories to have more definitive guidelines 

to determine when devices are “not permanently attached.” The Sector heard concern about unmarked indicators because 

there is no means to determine whether or not the indicator was originally submitted and covered by NTEP as a separate 

component, or within a single housing and intended as part of system. The Sector agreed that classifying devices as “not 

permanently attached” should be based on the technical aspects of how the elements interface. The Sector noted that 

indicators equipped with features that metrologically affect the weighing system must include provisions for sealing those 

features. In 1998 and 1999, the Sector considered several proposals to modify Table S.6.3.a. and then submitted a 

proposal to define “permanently attached” to the S&T Committee’s 2000 Interim Agenda. 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-14

The Committee first considered the Sector’s proposal to include a new footnote stating that “permanently attached” may 

be hardwired or secured together with a physical or electronic seal” for elements not permanently attached in Table 

S.6.3.a. The Committee agreed with one jurisdiction’s concern that the proposed footnote may be misinterpreted to mean 

no markings are required when indicators are physically sealed. 

During the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee also reviewed the following alternate proposal from the Scale 

Manufacturers Association (SMA) to modify Table S.6.3.a. distinguishing the marking requirement for an indicator that 

is “permanently attached” from the markings on an indicator that is “not permanently attached” and to add a new footnote 

to Table S.6.3.b. 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-15

Table S.6.3.a. 

Marking Requirements 

Weighing Equipment 

To Be Marked With 

Weighing, loadreceiving, and 

indicating element 

in covered on the 

same housing CC

Indicating

element not 

permanently 

attached to 

weighing and 

load-receiving

element

with CC

Weighing and loadreceiving element 

not permanently 

attached to 

indicating element1

with CC

Load cell with 

CC (11) 

Other 

equipment or 

device (10) 

oManufacturer’s ID 

(1) x x x xx

oModel Designation 

(1) 

x x x x x 

oSerial Number and 

Prefix (2) x x x x x (1613)

oCertificate of 

Conformance x x x x x

Accuracy Class (17)

x x (8) x (19) x

+Nominal Capacity (3) 

(18 14)

(20 15) xx x

+Value of Scale 

Division, “d” (3) 

x x

 

+Value of “e” (4) 

x x

 

Temperature Limits 

(5) x x x x

+Concentrated Load 

Capacity CLC (12 9)

(20 15) x x (9 6)

Special Application (13

10)

x x x

Maximum Number of 

Scale Load Cell

Divisions (nmax) (65)

x (8) x (19) x (17)

Minimum Verification 

Scale Division (emin)

x (19)

“S” or “M” (7) x

+Direction of Loading 

(1512)

 

x

Minimum Dead Load

x

Maximum Capacity

x

Safe Load Limit 

x

Load Cell Verification 

Interval (vmin) (21 16)

 

x

+Section Capacity 

(1411) (20 15) x x

For applicable notes see Table S.6.3.b. 

o On serial plate

+ Placed on device at factory or when placed in service

Information no longer needed in Table because the information is on the Certificate of Conformance (CC)
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-16

Add a new note, after renumbering current notes, to read as follows: 

17. If other than on the Certificate of Conformance. 

(Nonretroactive as of Janaury 1, 200X.)

SMA proposed that an indicating element with a separate Certificate of Conformance (CC) be considered “not 

permanently attached.” An indicating element and a weighing element can each be tested as separate components, or 

tested together as a single weighing system. When the indicating element and weighing element are tested as a single 

weighing system and covered by the same CC, under the SMA proposal the elements would be considered “permanently 

attached.” The original equipment manufacturer must choose the configuration when the device is submitted for type 

evaluation, and NTEP tests the device according to the configuration permitted by Handbook 44 and selected by the 

manufacturer. 

The SMA proposal eliminated several marking requirements for devices because the information appears on the CC. The 

SMA proposal also identified specific information which must appear on the identification plate. Currently, Handbook 44 

does not require marking information to appear on a single plate or badge. 

The Committee agreed that the SMA proposal shown above had merit over the Sector’s proposal; however, it modified 

the CC information for elements in a single housing to clarify that the elements are covered on the same CC. Based on 

comments and the user-friendly format of the SMA proposal, the Committee recommended the modified SMA proposal 

be given informational status while industry and weights and measures officials reviewed it.

During its 2000 Spring Meeting, the SMA revised its proposal, modifying only Table S.6.3.a. column headings. SMA 

reiterated an earlier position that indicators not permanently attached posses their own CC. 

The Committee agreed that the latest SMA proposal, as shown in the recommendation above, addresses the Sector’s 

original concern and is a more appropriate modification to Table S.6.3.a. to provide guidelines about permanently 

attached and not permanently attached devices. The Committee also added a new alternate footnote to further clarify the 

interface between system components as shown in the recommendation above. The Committee believes that the 

Weighing Sector which developed the original proposal should review the latest wording for clarity and technical merit. 

Therefore, the Committee made this issue an information item. 

320-3 I N.1.3.4.(a)Vehicle Scales, Axle-Load Scales, and Livestock Scales With 

 More Than Two Sections; Prescribed Test Pattern 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA)

Recommendation: Modify paragraph N.1.3.4.(a) as follows:

(a) Prescribed Test Pattern. The normal prescribed test pattern shall be an area of 1.2 m (4 

ft) in length and as wide as the scale platform 3.0 m (10 ft) in width or the width of the scale 

platform, whichever is less. Multiple test patterns may be utilized when loaded in accordance 

with Paragraph (b). 

Discussion: Fairbanks Scale noted that there are 14-foot wide agricultural scales; however, tests patterns used on 14-foot 

wide scales extend the entire width of the scale and may not represent the actual load concentration on the weighing 

element. Fairbanks recommended that the test pattern in paragraph N.1.3.4.(a) be modified so that it is consistent with the 

maximum axle load concentration pattern described in the definition of concentrated load capacity (CLC). Fairbanks 

expressed concern about advertisements misrepresenting a scale’s CLC when that value is based on weights loaded in test 

pattern other than prescribed in Handbook 44. 

The Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) agreed that the proposed wording aligns paragraph N.1.3.4. 

with the definition of CLC. The SWMA believed the proposal addresses the growing concern about misrepresenting 

CLCs on scales wider than 12 feet. The SWMA recommended this item for national review; however, it believes the item 

should be made informational until the NTEP Participating Laboratories provide input about how the proposal effects 

existing test equipment. 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-17

The Committee considered the following proposal to modify paragraph N.1.3.4.(a): 

N.1.3.4. 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.1.3.8.) 

(Amended 1991) 

(a) Prescribed Test Pattern. The normal prescribed test pattern shall be an area of 1.2 m (4 ft) in 

length and as wide as the scale platform 2.4 m (8 ft) in width. Multiple test patterns may be 

utilized when loaded in accordance with Paragraph (b). 

 (Part (a) Amended 1997) 

Several Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) members questioned the need for the proposal because the 

current Handbook 44 definition of CLC states that CLC is a rating for a group of two axles with a centerline spaced 4 feet 

apart and an axle width of 8 feet. The WWMA believes that the existing CLC definition adequately describes the test 

pattern for test and use and does not require a corresponding description in the test notes. 

The WWMA believes that an educated scale customer can detect when CLCs are misrepresented, thus deterring improper 

use of wider scale configurations. The WWMA noted that the proposal would restrict jurisdictions from testing scales 

when test carts exceed 8 feet. One weights and measures official expressed concern that side-by-side scales create greater 

possibilities for inaccuracies during weighments because there are variations in the actual tire patterns. The WWMA 

asked for input from the NTEP Laboratories that perform tests on side-by-side scales with various types of deck designs. 

The WWMA is interested in determining whether any current test procedures are in conflict with the proposal. The 

WWMA is also interested in test procedures other countries use to perform on side by side scales and other wide scale 

configurations. One WWMA member asked if paragraph N.1.3.4.(d) Other Designs may already address the shift test for 

side-by-side scale installations. 

The WWMA supported the principles of the proposal shown above; however, the WWMA asked for feedback from other 

regional associations, NTEP Participating Laboratories, and the Weighing Sector on the effects of this proposal on testing 

equipment before taking a position on the proposal. 

During the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard a suggestion to address test patterns for scales which are 

10 feet wide or less separately from those that exceed 10 feet in width. The Committee still had concerns that the 

proposal may impose restrictions on weights and measures field test equipment. Safety issues may occur when large 

amounts of test weights are stacked within the 4-foot by 8-foot test pattern. The Committee agreed that the proposal had 

merit because scale accuracy tests “as used” are necessary and are the best indicator of device performance. Based on the 

concerns about safety and test equipment, the Committee gave this item informational status and requested further input 

from all affected parties. 

One jurisdiction noted that the concept of CLC was permitted with the understanding that it was not intended to be 

restrictive (i.e., officials using weight carts during testing). They also questioned whether or not the proposal might be 

primarily intended to address marking issues. 

The Central and Northeastern Weights and Measures Associations and Scale Manufacturers Association recognize the 

restrictions created by an 8-foot test pattern limit and supported changing the width of the test pattern to 10 feet. 

The jurisdictions and NTEP laboratories still had safety and equipment concerns about stacking weights and weight carts 

in a 8-foot wide test pattern. One solution to those concerns was to allow a test pattern of 10 feet or the scale width, 

whichever is less. The alternate test pattern width might resolve all issues with the original proposal, as well as the 

problem with wider scale configurations. 

The Committee understands the Metrology Subcommittee is interested in gathering data on weight cart dimensions to 

avoid similar conflicts between any new weight cart standards and existing or proposed Handbook 44 requirements. At 

the 2000 Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed it was appropriate to modify the test pattern width to 10 feet rather than 

8 feet. The Committee further modified the proposal to include text to clarify the maximum allowable width of the test 

pattern as shown in the recommendation above. The Committee asked for input on the latest recommendation.
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-18

320-4 VC N.1.3.4. Vehicle Scales, Axle-Load Scales, and Livestock Scales With More 

 Than Two Sections; Shift Test 

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA)

Recommendation: Modify paragraph N.1.3.4. as follows: 

N.1.3.4. Vehicle Scales, Axle-Load Scales, and Livestock Scales With More Than Two 

Sections. – A At least one shift test shall be conducted with at least two different test loads a 

minimum test load of 12.5% of scale capacity and may be performed anywhere on the loadreceiving element using the prescribed test patterns and maximum test loads specified below. 

(Two-section livestock scales shall be tested consistent with N.1.3.8.) 

Discussion: The Committee considered the following CWMA proposal to reduce the number of test loads for a shift test 

from two to one. 

N.1.3.4. 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 a test load of at least 12.5% of 

scale capacity 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.1.3.8.) 

The CWMA based their proposal on its findings after reviewing data from the State of Kansas listed in the following 

table: 

Number of Scales 

Vehicle Scale 

Section Test Data Kansas 

(April 1, 1998-June 

1, 1999 

California 

Total Number of Scales Tested 144 121 

Scales in Tolerance at 13 000-lb and 25 000-lb Test Loads 85 94 

Scales In Tolerance at 13 000-lb, but Out of Tolerance at 

25 000-lb 

28 6 

Scales Out of Tolerance at 13 000-lb, but In Tolerance at 

25 000-lb 

0 4 

Scales Out of Tolerance at 13 000-lb and 25 000-lb 30 17 

Scales Out of Tolerance at 13 000-lb and 25 000-lb, where errors 

occurred in different areas of the platform 

1

CWMA agreed that the data supports conducting one shift test at maximum test load and provides sufficient data to reveal 

any problems with the scale sections. Additionally, CWMA agreed that an increasing load test is also sufficient to reveal 

linearity problems. CWMA found that time spent testing the scale is reduced without omitting any essential elements of 

the test. Jurisdictions that use trucks to conduct the shift tests would not need to run the truck across the scale fully 

loaded and empty to comply with the proposed requirement. The proposal does not prohibit a jurisdiction from 

conducting more shift tests. 

During the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, Montana and New York reported they had scale test data that would support 

accepting shift tests performed with one test load. California completed their survey and provided data to the Committee 

(see table above). California indicated they conducted shift tests with test loads of approximately 20 000 pounds and 

41 000 pounds. The Kansas and California data appears to demonstrate that performing shift tests with 20 000-pound test 

loads detected scales out of tolerance which were found to comply at lesser test loads. In many instances, a 20 000-pound 

test load represents a break point in scale tolerances. 

The Committee considered a proposal to modify paragraph N.1.3.4.(a) by removing the requirement for shift tests at two 

different test loads. After discussing the Kansas data and Montana’s reporting, the Committee agreed that, if it is done 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-19

properly, a shift test conducted with only one test load would be acceptable as a minimum test requirement. The Scale 

Manufacturers Association noted the importance of performing midspan tests. One manufacturer cautioned that running a 

vehicle across the scale is not a sufficient shift test; and suggested a test using a vehicle’s hydraulics to tilt the vehicle and

shift the weights to concentrate the weight load on one axle to simulate actual vehicle loads. Handbook 44 does not 

address either procedure. 

The Committee later agreed with an alternate proposal from New York that requires a minimum test load of 12.5 percent 

of scale capacity if shift tests are conducted with only one test load. New York indicated the 12.5 percent test load was 

acceptable based on their experience with jurisdictions that must move weights by hand. The Committee discussed 

whether or not the proposed language varies from Table 4. In Table 4, the test load is in terms of 25 percent of the device 

capacity for scales rated at 40 001 pounds or more, whereas the proposal specifies a 12.5 percent test load for the 

minimum shift test load which may include a combination of field standard test weights and any other applied load. The 

Committee intended the proposal to be different than Table 4 and agreed with the rationale used to establish a minimum 

test load; it therefore recommended the modified proposal for a vote.

During the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee reiterated that the proposal was not intended to conflict with 

other tests performed using the test weight and test load guidelines addressed in Table 4. Minimum Test Weights and Test 

Loads. The Committee agreed to include additional language in the proposal to clarify at least one test load must be used 

and the minimum amount of weight for the test load as shown in the recommendation above. 

320-5 V UR.3.9. Use of Manual Gross Weight Entries; Vehicle Scales

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector

Recommendation: Modify paragraph UR.3.9. Use of Manual Gross Weight Entries to address the use of manual gross 

weight entries for vehicle scale applications as follows: 

UR.3.9. Use of Manual Gross Weight Entries. – 

Manual gross weight entries are permitted for use in the following applications only: (1) in 

point-of sale systems interfaced with scales when credit is being given for a weighed item on 

point-of sale systems interfaced with scales; (2) when a device or system is generatinges

labels for standard weight packages; (3) when postal scales or weight classifiers are

generatinge manifests for packages to be picked up at a later time; and or (4) on when 

livestock and vehicle scale systems that generate weight tickets to correct erroneous tickets. 

(Added 1992) 

Discussion: During the 1999 Weighing Sector Meeting, weights and measures officials reported finding vehicle scale 

installations issuing manual gross weight entry tickets. Handbook 44 lists four applications where it is permissible to 

issue manual gross weight entries; however, vehicle weighing operations are not part of that list. The Sector 

acknowledged that there are questions about the original intent of paragraph UR.3.9. because indicators which have 

Certificates of Conformance list “manual gross weight entries” as an optional feature are being used in vehicle weighing 

applications. The use of manual gross weight entries was created to assist weighing operations when communications 

break down. The S&T Committee believes that paragraph UR.3.9. was not intended to permit manual gross weight 

entries in vehicle weighing operations. 

Sector members listed numerous instances where scale operators in a variety of vehicle scale applications might issue 

manual gross weight entry weight tickets. Examples cited involve installations where visual confirmation of the vehicle 

being weighed is not possible and/or where the weighing operation occurs at a rapid pace. These conditions lead to a 

mismatch of vehicles and their respective tare weights. One jurisdiction noted that it permits manual gross weight entries 

for erroneous weighmaster tickets (transfer of transaction information to other tickets); however, the ticket must be 

numbered and the correction noted. 

The Sector agreed to work on a proposal to include the manual gross weight entry feature in the Publication 14 list of 

sealable features. The Sector developed two options for modifying paragraph UR.3.9. to allow manual gross weight 

entries in vehicle scale operations. The Sector’s first option allowed manual gross weight entries to correct erroneous 

tickets on any weighing system whereas the second option limited manual gross weight entries on larger capacity scales 

to livestock and vehicle scales generating erroneous tickets. 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-20

The Committee heard that several jurisdictions already permit correcting erroneous tickets in vehicle scale applications; 

but do not allow changes to the weight entry. However, these jurisdictions also have policies which address issues such 

as tracking and identifying entries, documenting tickets, and reweighing loads if the weight is erroneous to deter 

fraudulent use of this feature. The Committee believes that the frequent number of weighments and layout of vehicle 

weighing operations interfere with observing each weighment leading to issuing erroneous tickets. 

The Committee cautioned that vehicle scale installations must adhere to the conditions in paragraph S.1.12. Manual Gross 

Weight Entries when using manual gross weight entries. Paragraph S.1.12. requires that devices accept a manual entry of 

weight only when the scale is at zero in the gross weight display mode and the recorded manual weight entry is identified 

by required terms or symbols. 

Based on discussions about errors that occur during vehicle weighing operations, the Committee agreed that the Sector’s 

second option to modify paragraph UR.3.9. to include an exemption for vehicle scale systems is appropriate. The 

Committee recommended that proposal, with some editorial modifications for a vote. 

320-6 I Appendix D; Definition of Substitution Test and Test Load 

(This item was changed from a voting item to an information item at the Annual Meeting) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Add the following definitions for substitution test and test load to Handbook 44: 

substitution test. The test of a scale in which material, product, or other objects are 

substituted in amounts equal to the known test weights on the load-receiving element of the 

scale for known test weights, and then the known test weights are placed on the loadreceiving element again. This process shall not be repeated more than three times. It permits 

the scale to be tested to a load greater than the amount of known test weights available. The 

tolerances for the substitution test are the tolerances for the entire test load developed using 

the substitution test procedure.

test load. The sum of the combination of field test standard test weights and any other 

applied load used in the conduct of a test using substitution test methods.

Discussion: The WWMA believes that there is a need to define substitution test. The WWMA reviewed three proposed 

definitions of the term “substitution test.” There was concern that the proposed definition appearing on its agenda was 

too similar to the definition of a strain load test. Two alternate definitions clarified that the amount of substituted material

must be close to the amount of known test weight; however, they required editorial changes for clarity. The WWMA 

agreed that there is greater confidence in the test when the amount of substituted weight is brought or adjusted to the exact 

amount of error as the known weight. The final format of the proposed definition is similar to the current definition of 

“strain load”; however, the WWMA clarified the process, test material, and tolerances to apply. The WWMA combined 

text from all three proposals to arrive at the recommendation shown above. The WWMA recognized that the term “test 

load,” refers to substitution test in Footnote 1 Table 4 Minimum Test Weights and Test Loads; however, the term is not 

listed in Handbook 44 definitions. Therefore, the WWMA proposed that a definition for test load be taken from the text 

in Footnote 1. 

The WWMA asked that a Metrology Subcommittee representative review the proposal to determine any unreasonable 

uncertainties which might result from the process described in the proposed substitution test definition. The WWMA

recommended the proposed definitions for a vote. 

The Metrology Subcommittee reviewed the concept of substitution testing and agreed that the uncertainties associated 

with the test procedure can be estimated. The Subcommittee believes that this is possible given the level of accuracy that 

is possible in a field environment when trying to verify the weight of materials and product for use as a field standard by 

comparing that material with known standards. The Subcommittee is concerned with the additive uncertainties in the test 

process and their effect on the Fundamental Consideration requirement for standard errors. The Fundamental 

Consideration states that the error in a standard used by a weights and measures official should be known and corrected 

for when the standard is used; or if the standard is to be used without correction, its error should be not greater than onethird of the smallest tolerance to be applied when the standard is used. Also, whenever it can readily be done, it will be 

desirable to reduce the error on a standard below the one-third point previously mentioned. 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-21

The Subcommittee provided the following example of a substitution test to demonstrate its concern about the additive 

effect of uncertainties in the process. 

Given a 50 000-pound capacity scale with 20-pound scale divisions and 10 000 pounds of known test weights: 

Corresponding Table 6 

Applicable Maintenance Tolerances 

Test Load 

(lb)

Corresponding Scale 

Divisions for Test 

Load 

Tolerance in Scale 

Divisions

Tolerance 

(lb)

0-10 000 0-500 1 d 20 

10 020-20 000 501-1000 2 d 40 

20 020-30 000 1001-1500 3 d 60 

30 020-40 000 1501-2000 4 d 80 

40 020-50 000 2001-2500 5 d 100 

The uncertainty of the standard and materials has a cumulative affect on the uncertainty of the test procedure as the 

process is repeated; therefore, the procedure is limited to three substitutions. During the field substitution test process, the

conditions are not ideal because of environmental conditions beyond the control of the weights and measures official. The 

amount of materials should be exactly that of the known standard; therefore, lessening the uncertainty in the process 

because the official is unable to factor in the instability of the substituted materials. The procedure does not fully account

for allowable error of the test standard. The official is not in a laboratory environment making comparisons with a single 

standard. 

The tolerance on the 10 000-pound known weights is 1 pound based on NIST Handbook 105-1, Specifications and 

Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights and Measures, allowable tolerance. The Fundamental 

Consideration allows the error of the standard that is not greater than one-third of the smallest tolerance allowed when the 

standard is use or not greater than one third of the smallest tolerance applied to the standard. Therefore, an allowable 

testing uncertainty must be less than one-third of the tolerance, or less than 0.33 pound. Thus, the test procedure starts 

with a 0.33-pound uncertainty of the Standard. 

It may be possible to conduct the test procedure and determine the accuracy of the known standard weights to within 1⁄2 d 

or 10 pounds; however, that assumption can only be validated with actual scale data. Similar guidelines apply to the first 

substituted material for determining the uncertainties of the test process. A comparison of the first load of substituted 

material would have a minimum uncertainty of 10.33 pounds if the uncertainties are added together. 

If following accepted uncertainty guidelines where k=2 and 95 percent with root sum square methods, the uncertainty 

would be slightly over 20 pounds for each substitution. This also assumes that the determination of each substitution is 

unrelated or established separately. The uncertainty is valid assuming (1) the scale has good repeatability; (2) the 

standard deviation for the measurement process is zero; (3) an accurate procedure is followed while weighing the material 

or product; and (4) no other errors are introduced into the procedure. 

The uncertainty that result from repeating the substitution process are as follows: 

Uncertainty of the Substituted Material for Sample 1 is 10.33 pounds 

Uncertainty of the Substituted Material for Sample 2 is 10.33 pounds 

Uncertainty of the Substituted Material for Sample 3 is 10.33 pounds 

Uncertainty of the Substituted Material for Sample 4 is 10.33 pounds 

The total cumulative uncertainty at a 50 000-pound test load (10 000 pounds known standards plus 40 000 pounds 

substituted material) is 41.65 pounds. The device tolerance at 50 000 pounds is 100 pounds and one-third of 100 pounds 

is 33.33 pounds; however, this example uses the entire amount of allowable error which represents an unreasonable 

uncertainty. 

In 1991, Ross Andersen (NY) documented Substitution and Strain Load Test Procedures in the S&T Final Report. That 

information is found in NIST Special Publication 816, S&T Item 320-21, Appendix A, Testing Large Capacity Platform 

Scales Reflecting 1989 and 1990 Changes to NIST Handbook 44. 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-22

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) questioned the text in the definition for substitution test 

proposed by the WWMA which states, "in amounts equal to the known test weight." NEWMA believed that the 

substitution method of testing was developed to allow use of materials other than known weights. The amount of 

substituted material may be up to the amount of certified test weight applied to the load receiving element. NEWMA 

noted difficulty in attaining the exact amount of weight using warehouse-loaded pallets, ingots, etc., in actual testing 

applications. NEWMA believed the proposed substitution definition is too restrictive. NEWMA agrees in principle with 

WWMA’s comment that, "There is greater confidence in the test when the amount of substituted weight is brought to the 

exact amount as the known test weight"; however, NEWMA also recognized the difficulty and time required for field 

inspectors to obtain an exact amount of weight and the added burden created for the user. NEWMA believed that in 

many instances officials must take an inordinate amount of time to locate substitution weights that are equivalent to the 

exact amount of the certified test weight load. NEWMA also noted that Handbook 44, 2.22 Automatic Bulk Weighing 

Systems, does not place limitations on the number of substitution tests. 

At the 2000 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard discussions that limiting the number of substitutions during the test to 

three was established because, with more substitutions, uncertainties (in the process, standards, etc.) exceed the allowable 

tolerances recommended in the fundamental considerations for reference standards. The Committee agreed with the need 

to define “substitution test” and “test load” in Handbook 44 to ensure that the terms are uniformly interpreted. The 

Committee agreed the proposal addresses the tolerances to apply, acceptable types of test loads, and the process used to 

conduct a substitution test. 

The Committee recognizes the confusion about the subtle differences in procedures and tolerances that apply to the scale 

verification processes known as “substitution,” “strain,” and “build-up” tests. The Technical Advisor to the National 

Type Evaluation Technical Committee Weighing Sector advised the Committee that six States have volunteered to 

provide data on test procedures should the S&T Committee decide further study is needed. 

The Committee considered several alternate proposed definitions for substitution test which used various wording to 

clarify the concept. The Committee believes that the detailed steps involved in the procedure are better addressed in an 

examination procedure. 

During the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, several jurisdictions recommended multiple alternate definitions for 

substitution test. The definitions were developed (1) to include current Handbook 44 terminology, (2) to further clarify 

the procedure, (3) to remove the limitation on three tests and requirement for substituting the exact amount of material, or 

(4) to provide a definition that includes less procedural information. The Committee believes that the detailed steps 

involved in the procedure are better addressed in an examination procedure, and separate test notes that address the 

procedures that should be followed to test various scale types such as axle load scales, vehicle scales, and hopper scales 

may be appropriate. Consequently, the Committee changed the status of this issue from a voting item to an information 

item. The Committee acknowledges the Metrology Subcommittee for its input on this proposal and thanks them. 

321 Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems 

321-1 VC N.3.2. Material Tests and N.3.2.1. Accuracy of Material 

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) 

Source: Carryover Item 321-1. (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association and first 

appeared on the Committee’s 1998 Agenda Item 321-1.) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraphs N.3.2.1. Accuracy of Material and N.3.2. Material Tests as follows:

N.3.2. Material Tests. – Use bulk material, preferably that material for which the device is 

normally used. Either pass a quantity of pre-weighed material over the belt-conveyor scale in a 

manner as similar as feasible to actual loading conditions, or weigh all material that has passed 

over the belt-conveyor scale. Means for weighing the material test load will depend on the 

capacity of the belt-conveyor scale and availability of a suitable scale for the test. To assure that 

the test load is accurately weighed and determined, the following precautions shall be observed: 

(d) When a railway track scale is used to weigh the test load, not more than 48 hours should 

elapse between Where practicable, a reference scale should be tested within 24 hours before the 

determination of the weight of the test load used for a on the belt-conveyor scale and the
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-23

determination of the weight of the material test load. When other scales are used, the elapsed 

time should be not more than 8 hours.

A reference scale which is not “as found” within maintenance tolerance should have its accuracy 

re-verified after the belt-conveyor test with a suitable known weight load if the “as found” error 

of the belt-conveyor scale material test exceeds maintenance tolerance values. 

(e) If any suitable known weight load other than a certified test weight load is used for reverification of the reference scale accuracy, its weight shall be determined on the reference scale 

after the reference scale certification and before commencing the belt scale material test.

(ef) The test shall not be conducted if the weight of the test load has been affected by 

environmental conditions. 

Note: Even if the reference scale is within maintenance tolerance it may require adjusting to be 

able to meet paragraph N.3.2.1.

N.3.2.1. Accuracy of Material. – The quantity of material comprising used to conduct the a 

material test shall be weighed statically or on an uncoupled-in-motion railway track scale a 

reference scale to an accuracy of at least within 0.1 percent. The scale used to weigh material 

shall be tested immediately prior to running the material test; where practicable, the substitution 

method of weighing should be used. Scales typically used for this purpose include Class II, III, 

and III L scales or a scale without a class designation with the tolerance as described in Table 

T.1.1. of Handbook 44 Section 2.20. 

(Added 1989)(Amended 1991, 1993, and 1998) 

Discussion: During the 1999 Annual Meeting, the Committee reviewed the Belt Conveyor Scale Sector Subcommittee’s 

latest proposal addressing the necessary conditions to conduct a material test. The Committee encouraged the 

Subcommittee to reach a proposal that is agreeable to all parties by the October 1999 Sector Meeting; however, that 

meeting was cancelled. The Committee believed that the Subcommittee was close to resolving the concerns heard during 

the 1999 Annual Meeting about the restrictive nature of the proposed “24 hour period” for the accuracy test of both the 

materials and reference scale. The Committee was interested in input from the entire Belt Conveyor Scale Sector. 

In 1999, the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) supported the language developed by the Belt 

Conveyor Scale Sector Subcommittee. The WWMA recognized that the Belt Conveyor Scale Sector would not meet in 

1999 and amendments to Handbook 44 are not normally within the Sector’s purview. Nevertheless, the Committee 

encouraged the Sector to comment on all carryover and new proposals relative to the Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems Code. 

During the WWMA open session, a scale testing firm representative noted the importance of clarifying the conditions 

necessary for an official test and the accuracy of the reference scale based on known weight. One manufacturer 

commented the use of the term “where practicable” in paragraph N.3.2.(d) is vague. One weights and measures official 

agreed with the latest Subcommittee proposal and noted that flexibility is necessary in scheduling the reference scale test. 

The official also noted that four mines in his jurisdiction also agreed with the latest proposal. 

During the Central Weights and Weights Association (CWMA) meeting, comments were heard about the difficulties of 

testing a reference scale immediately after the material test. However, some participants commented about the 

importance of retesting a reference scale to ensure the validity and accuracy of the material test of the belt-conveyor scale. 

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association supported the language developed by the Belt Conveyor Scale 

Sector Subcommittee. 

The Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) recommended that this item maintain informational status 

until the Belt Conveyor Scale Sector develops a proposal with which all Sector members agree. SWMA recommended 

that the NCWM Chairman designate funding for the Sector to review Handbook 44 proposals because the Sector’s 

expertise in belt-conveyor scale system technology is essential when addressing proposals to modify Handbook 44. 

During the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, one belt-conveyor scale system manufacturer noted that there is no legal 

strength in a procedure required to be enforced “where practicable.” One member of the Belt Conveyor Scale 

Subcommittee noted that testing the reference scale “where practicable” within 24 hours of the material test was a 

compromise because “real-world” belt-conveyor scale installations often do not have a dedicated reference scale or easy 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-24

access to a reference scale. The Committee agreed that data or arguments supporting more stringent requirements were 

not made available. One Committee member noted installations where the accuracy of reference scales are in question 

may contractually have some recourse to ensure verification of the system’s accuracy. 

During the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments that the text does not explain that a reference 

scale found out of maintenance tolerance requires additional testing and adjustment to determine its capability of attaining 

an accuracy of 0.1 percent. The Committee editorially added a note to paragraph N.3.2. to clarify that although the 

reference scale is within maintenance tolerance the scale may need adjusting to meet paragraph N.3.2.1. The Committee 

also heard comments about difficulty understanding the rationale requiring a scale being used as a reference scale to 

perform to a tighter tolerance than Handbook 44 requires for a commercial scale. The 0.1 percent accuracy was based on 

the “Fundamental Consideration Tolerance for Standards” which recommends that the standard error should not be 

greater than one-third of the tolerance applied to the device. According to paragraph T.1. Tolerance Values, the error 

applied to the belt-conveyor scale is 0.25 percent. One–third of that value is 0.08 percent, which is 0.1 percent when 

rounded to the nearest one-tenth percent. 

One Committee member questioned whether testing procedures for reference scales in all applications (e.g., mass flow 

meter field standard tests) should be reviewed for consistency. The Committee agreed that the proposal focuses on 

reference scale accuracy rather than the type of reference scale. It allows scale operators and weight and measures 

officials flexibility in the type of reference scale, yet addresses the concerns about reference scale accuracy heard in 1998. 

The Committee acknowledges the Metrology Subcommittees concerns about the repeatability and accuracy of a reference 

scale, accounting for the instability of the materials, following accuracy guidelines for standards in the Fundamental 

Consideration, and other uncertainties that can have a cumulative affect on the error in the measurement process. The 

Committee examined real-world accuracy issues and believes that the proposal provides an acceptable set of conditions 

for performing material tests and recommended this item for a vote. 

For additional information on this item, refer to the NCWM 1998 and 1999 S&T Final Report. 

321-2 VC UR. 2.2. Conveyor Installation and UR.2.2.1. For Scales not Installed by 

 the Manufacturer 

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) 

Source: Carryover Item 321-2. (This item originated from the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Belt 

Conveyor Scale Sector and first appeared on the Committee’s 1999 Agenda Item 321-2.) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph UR. 2.2. Conveyor Installation as follows: 

UR.2.2. Conveyor Installation. - The design and installation of the conveyor leading to and 

from the belt- conveyor scale is critical with respect to scale performance. The conveyor may 

be horizontal or inclined, but, if inclined, the angle shall be such that slippage of material 

along the belt does not occur. Installation shall be in accordance with the scale 

manufacturer's instructions and the following: 

(a) Installation–General. - A belt-conveyor scale shall be so installed that neither its 

performance nor operation will be adversely affected by any characteristic of the 

foundation, supports, or any other equipment; 

(b) Live Portions of Scale. - All live portions of the scale shall be protected by 

appropriate guard devices to prevent accidental interference with the weighing 

operation; 

(c) Storage of Simulated Load Equipment. - Suitable protection shall be provided for 

 storage of any simulated load equipment. 

UR.2.2.1. For Scales not Installed by the Manufacturer. - Unless the scale is installed in a 

conveyor designed and furnished by the scale manufacturer or built to the scale 

manufacturer's specifications, the conveyor shall comply with the following minimum 

requirements:

(Amended 1998)
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-25

(ad) Take-up Device. - If the belt length is such that a take-up device is required, this 

device shall be of the counter-weighted type for either vertical or horizontal travel. 

(be) Scale Location and Training Idlers. - The scale shall be so installed that the first 

weigh idler of the scale is at least 6 m (20 ft) or 5 idler spaces, whichever is greater, 

from loading point, skirting, head or tail pulley, or convex curve in the conveyor. 

Any training idler shall be located at least 18 m (60 ft) from the center line of the 

weigh span of the scale. Training idlers shall not be restrained at any time in order 

to force belt alignment. 

(Amended 1998) 

(cf) Concave Curve. - If there is a concave curve in the conveyor, before or after the 

scale, the scale shall be installed so that the belt is in contact with all the idler rollers 

at all times for at least 6 m (20 ft) or 5 idler spaces, whichever is greater, before and 

after the scale2

. A concave curve shall start no closer than 12 m (40 ft) from the scale 

to the tangent point of the concave curve. 

(Amended 1998) 

(dg) Tripper and Movable Pulleys. - There shall be no tripper or movable head pulleys in 

the conveyor. 

(eh) Conveyor Length. - The conveyor shall be no longer than 300 m (1000 ft) nor shorter 

than 12 m (40 ft) from head to tail pulley. 

 [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986.] 

(fi) Conveyor Stringers. - Conveyor stringers at the scale and for not less than 6 m (20 ft) 

before and beyond the scale shall be continuous or securely joined and of sufficient 

size and so supported as to eliminate relative deflection between the scale and 

adjacent idlers when under load. The conveyor stringers should be so designed that 

the deflection between any two adjacent idlers within the weigh area does not exceed 

0.6 mm (0.025 in) under load. 

(gj) Identification of Scale Area. - The scale area and 5 idlers on both ends of the scale 

shall be of a contrasting color, or other suitable means shall be used to distinguish 

the scale from the remainder of the conveyor installation, and the scale shall be 

readily accessible. 

 (Amended 1998) 

(hk) Belt Composition and Maintenance. - Conveyor belting shall be no heavier than is 

required for normal use. In a loaded or unloaded condition, the belt shall make full 

contact with the carry roll (center or horizontal portion) of the idlers. Splices shall 

not cause any undue disturbance in scale operation (see N.3.). 

 (Amended 1998) 

(il) Uniformity of Belt Loading and Flow. - The conveyor loading mechanism shall be 

designed to provide uniform belt loading. The distance from the loading point to the 

scale shall allow for adequate settling time of the material on the belt before it is 

weighed. Feeding mechanisms shall have a positive closing or stopping action so that 

material leakage does not occur. Feeders shall provide an even flow over the scale 

through the full range of scale operation. Sufficient impact idlers shall be provided 

in the conveyor under each loading point to prevent deflection of the belt during the 

time material is being loaded. 

(jm) Belt Alignment. - The belt shall not extend beyond the edge of the idler roller in any 

area of the conveyor. 

 (Amended 1998) 

Discussion: In 1999, the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee, Belt Conveyor Scale Sector discussed the 

differences in requirements “for scales not installed by the manufacturer.” Sector members noted that the existing belt-
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-26

conveyor scale systems code no longer reflects today’s electronic devices and marketplace applications. Initially, it was 

thought that the phrase “for scales not installed by the manufacturer” was added to provide some control over installations 

that included weigh feeders. The requirements associated with this language now appear to be enforced for belt-conveyor 

scales systems where the system installer is other than the original equipment manufacturer. It was suggested that the 

code might need to be revisited to determine if existing requirements are appropriate to apply to particular applications, 

such as the food industry, and possibly to define terms such as “weigh feeders.” The Sector agreed that the requirements 

in paragraph UR.2.2.1. are appropriate for all belt-conveyor scales systems, including those installed by the original 

equipment manufacturer. Therefore, the Sector recommended that the text in the preamble of UR.2.2.1. be removed and 

the subsections renumbered to become part of paragraph UR.2.2. 

In 1999, the Committee had several concerns with UR.2.2.1.: (1) the perception that manufacturers and installers are held 

to different requirements; (2) the wording restricts new technology and does not address applications, such as “weigh 

feeders”; and (3) the requirements focus more on the device’s design rather than on performance. The Committee heard 

one manufacturer’s comments that the proposal may make some scales less than 40 feet long noncompliant with 

Handbook 44. The Committee changed the item’s status to informational allowing time for addressing these objections. 

The Committee strongly encouraged the Sector and other interested parties to address these issues to align the beltconveyor scale requirements with others requirements in Handbook 44, thus making no distinction based on the 

equipment installer. 

In 1999, the WWMA also heard one manufacturer comment that the proposal would restrict systems less than 40 feet 

long. The manufacturer felt that the minimum number of idler requirement in paragraphs UR.2.2.1.(b) Scale Location 

and Training Idlers and (g) Identification of Scale Area may prohibit short conveyor installations. The WWMA strongly 

encouraged the Sector to address these issues and work to align the belt-conveyor scale requirements with others in 

Handbook 44. The WWMA heard no further objection to the proposal. The WWMA believed that the short conveyor 

issues should be handled through a separate proposal. The WWMA encouraged alignment of the belt-conveyor scale 

requirements with others in Handbook 44, making no distinction about who must comply with design requirements, and 

therefore supported the proposal as written.

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association supported the latest language developed by the Belt Conveyor Scale 

Sector.

The Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) recommended that this item maintain informational status 

until the Belt Conveyor Scale Sector develops a proposal to which all Sector members agree. The SWMA also 

recommends that the NCWM Chairman designate funding for the Sector meeting to review Handbook 44 proposals in 

addition to NTEP issues because the Sector’s expertise in belt-conveyor scale system technology is essential when 

addressing proposals to modify Handbook 44. 

During the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments from one railroad representatives that design 

requirements have no place in Handbook 44. In contrast, one scale operator noted that scale owners need guidelines to 

ensure accuracy and performance of final installation. The Committee agreed that guidelines are appropriate, and that the 

proposal should move forward for a vote as written. 

For additional background information, refer to the 1999 S&T Final Report. 

321-3 I UR.2.2.1.(h) For Scales not Installed by the Manufacturer; Belt 

 Composition and Maintenance 

Source: Carryover Item 321-3. (This item originated from the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Belt 

Conveyor Scale Sector and first appeared on the Committee’s 1999 Agenda as Item 320-3.) 

Discussion: The Committee considered a proposal from the NTETC Belt Conveyor Scale Sector’s proposal to amend 

paragraph UR.2.2.1. (h) Belt Composition and Maintenance for Scales not Installed by the Manufacturer to read as 

follows: 

UR.2.2.1. For Scales not Installed by the Manufacturer. – Unless the scale is installed in a 

conveyor designed and furnished by the scale manufacturer or built to the scale 

manufacturer’s specifications, the conveyor shall comply with the following minimum 

requirements:

(Amended 1998) 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-27

(h) Belt Composition and Maintenance. - Conveyor belting shall be no heavier than is 

required for normal use. In a loaded or unloaded condition, the belt shall make full

continuous contact with the carry roll (center or horizontal portion) of the idlers. 

Splices shall not cause any undue disturbance in scale operation (see N.3.). 

(Amended 1998 and 200X)

During the WWMA 1999 Technical Conference, one scale testing representative noted that in cold weather the belt in a 

belt-conveyor scale system becomes stiff and makes less contact with the rollers thereby changing scale accuracy. 

Additionally, the WWMA discussed concerns about belt thickness which affects belt contact with the rollers. The 

WWMA believes the belt must contact the carry roll idlers to ensure scale accuracy; however, a field official must 

determine whether or not contact interferes with the proper operation of the scale. The WWMA felt that the proposed 

term “continuous” and “full” do not provide sufficient guidance about proper belt contact. Consequently, the WWMA 

recommended modifying paragraph UR.2.2.1.(h) as follows: 

UR.2.2.1. For Scales not Installed by the Manufacturer. – Unless the scale is installed in a 

conveyor designed and furnished by the scale manufacturer or built to the scale 

manufacturer’s specifications, the conveyor shall comply with the following minimum 

requirements:

(Amended 1998) 

(h) Belt Composition and Maintenance. - Conveyor belting shall be no heavier than is 

required for normal use. In a loaded or unloaded condition, the belt shall make full

contact with the carry roll (center or horizontal portion) of the idlers. Splices shall 

not cause any undue disturbance in scale operation (see N.3.). 

(Amended 1998 and 200X)

During discussions at the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee expressed its concerns that the proposal is 

unclear about how much of the belt must contact the carry roll. The Committee decided to maintain the item as 

informational to enable the Sector to clarify the technical concerns about the proposal. 

During the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments that the proposal as written does not address 

the original problems that can occur because of improper belt thickness. The current proposal might imply that this is a 

belt alignment requirement because of the reference to multiple idlers. The original intent was to ensure that the 

appropriate belt thickness is maintained at a particular installation. The Committee is keeping this issue an information 

item and asks for input from industry and weights and measures officials to ensure that the proposal addresses all of the 

original concerns about proper belt thickness. The Committee encourages the Belt Conveyor Sector to cover this 

proposal at its next meeting. 

For additional background, refer to the 1998 and 1999 S&T Final Reports. 

321-4 VC UR.3.2. (b) Maintenance 

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Modify UR.3.2.(b) Maintenance as follows: 

UR.3.2.(b) Maintenance

(b) Simulated load tests or material tests shall be conducted at periodic intervals between 

official tests, to provide reasonable assurance that the device is performing correctly. 

The action to be taken as a result of simulated load the tests is as follows: 

Discussion: The WWMA considered the following proposal to modify paragraph to N.1.2 recognize material tests as a 

way to monitor scale performance: 

N.1.1. Official Test. – An official test of a belt-conveyor scale system shall be a materials test 

witnessed by the official statutory authority or their designated representative. All other material 

tests between the official test shall not be used for official certification. 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-28

N.1.2. Simulated Test. – Simulated loading conditions or material test as recommended by the 

manufacturer and approved by the official with statutory authority may be used to properly monitor 

the system operational performance between official tests, but shall not be used for official 

certification. 

The WWMA recognized that paragraph N.1.2. was intended to apply to tests conducted at intervals between official tests, 

and was therefore not directed toward weights and measures officials. During the WWMA meeting, one scale customer 

noted that some scales are not equipped to perform simulated tests. One weights and measures official noted that the 

original proposal to modify paragraph N.1.2. adds confusion and unnecessary text to the term “official test.” The 

WWMA also considered a proposal to modify paragraph N.1.1. to require the weights and measures authority to be 

present during the official test. 

The WWMA concluded that it would be more appropriate to address the maintenance testing as a user requirement. User 

requirements are directed to the device owner/operator and would be a more appropriate place to specify procedures for 

monitoring the system’s performance between official inspections. Therefore, the WWMA developed an alternate 

proposal to amend paragraph UR 3.2.(b) as noted in the recommendation above. 

The Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) asked the Belt Conveyor Scale Sector to review all proposals 

which affect belt-conveyor scale systems. The SWMA also recommended that the NCWM Chairman designate funds for 

the Sector to review Handbook 44 proposals because the Sector’s expertise in belt-conveyor scale system technology is 

essential when addressing proposals to modify Handbook 44. 

During the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, a scale operator and railroad representative commented that Handbook 44 

requirements should not include maintenance procedures. The Committee recognized that the belt-conveyor scale 

systems are unique devices; therefore, the Committee felt that it is suitable to list guidelines about appropriate test 

procedures which help to ensure continued compliance and accurate weighments between official tests. The Committee 

believed that either simulated load or material tests are acceptable procedures to use in maintaining the scale. The 

Committee agreed that not only should material tests be recognized as official tests, but it is also appropriate to recognize 

that means of test for monitoring a system’s performance as part of routine maintenance. The Committee recommended 

the proposal to modify paragraph UR.3.2.(b) as written for a vote. 

321-5 VC UR.3.2. (c) Maintenance; Scale Alignment 

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) 

Source: Carryover Item 321-4 (This item originated from the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Belt 

Conveyor Scale Sector and first appeared on the Committee’s 1998 Agenda as Item 321-7.) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph UR.3.2. (c) Maintenance as follows: 

UR.3.2. Maintenance. Belt-conveyor scales and idlers shall be maintained and serviced in accordance 

with manufacturer’s instructions and the following: 

(c) Scale Alignment. - "Wire line" (0.5 mm or 0.02 in diameter piano wire or equivalent 

nylon line) aAlignment checks shall be conducted in accordance with manufacturer’s 

recommendation when conveyor work is performed in the scale area or in accordance 

with manufacturer's recommendation. A material test is required after any realignment. 

Discussion: In 1998, the NTETC Belt Conveyor Scales Sector recognized that optimum belt-conveyor scale system 

performance requires good maintenance practices. Both installation and maintenance should be performed according to 

the manufacturer's instructions. Therefore, these procedures may vary depending on the specific system design, 

operation, and technology. The Sector agreed that there are general and user code sections that adequately address these 

practices and the scale alignment requirements outlined in paragraph UR3.2.(c). Consequently, the Sector recommended 

that UR.3.2.(c) be removed from NIST Handbook 44. 

In 1998, the Committee considered the recommendation to remove paragraph UR.3.2. (c) Maintenance from the BeltConveyor Scale Systems Code. The Committee believed that it is essential to provide scale alignment information to 

scale manufacturers; however, the methods for determining the alignment should not be restricted to one particular 

method or technology. Therefore, the Committee made the item informational to allow the Sector time to clarify alternate 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-29

means to determine scale alignment. The proposal to remove UR.3.2.(c) remained informational on the 1999 NCWM 

S&T Agenda. 

During the work session of the 1999 Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) meeting, one scale 

manufacturer recommended retaining the paragraph but removing the references to wire line and clarifying that alignment 

should be based on an as needed basis when it affects scale performance. The WWMA supported this recommendation 

and modified paragraph UR.3.2.(c) as shown in the proposal below: 

(c) Scale Alignment. - "Wire line" (0.5 mm or 0.02 in diameter piano wire or equivalent nylon 

line) aAlignment checks shall be conducted when conveyor work is performed in the scale area 

or in accordance with manufacturer's recommendation. A material test is required after any 

realignment. (Amended 1986 and 200X)

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) proposed an alternate paragraph which modified the 

WWMA proposal to place emphasis on alignments in accordance with the manufacturers recommendation as shown in 

the recommendation section above. 

The Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) recommended that this item maintain informational status 

until the Belt Conveyor Scale Sector develops a proposal which is agreeable to all Sector members. The SWMA also 

recommended that the NCWM Chairman designate funding for the Sector meeting to review Handbook 44 proposals in 

addition to NTEP issues because the Sector’s expertise in belt-conveyor scale system technology is essential when 

addressing proposals to modify Handbook 44. 

One scale operator indicated that there are safety concerns about eye damage from laser based alignment equipment and 

drawbacks to nylon and piano wire because the wires stretch or sag. The Committee discussed the proposals and the 

importance of not restricting alternate methods of determining proper scale alignment. The Committee agreed with the 

WWMA’s alternate recommendation that alignment checks be performed according to the manufacturer’s instructions 

and be followed by a material test. 

During the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee reconsidered its position on the WWMA proposal. The 

Committee agreed that the NEWMA modifications to the WWMA were more appropriate because they permitted 

alternate methods of performing belt alignment while placing an emphasis on conducting alignment checks according to 

the manufacturer’s instructions. Therefore, the Committee recommended the NEWMA proposal for a vote as shown in 

the recommendation above: 

For additional background information, refer to the 1998 and 1999 S&T Final Reports. 

330 Liquid-Measuring Devices 

330-1 V S.1.5.3.(a) Width; Indicator Index 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Carryover Item 330-1. (This item originated from the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Measuring Sector and first appeared on the Committee’s 1999 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.1.5.3. (a) to read as follows: 

S.1.5.3. Width. 

(a) The index of an indicator shall not be wider than the width of the widest narrowest

graduation*. 

(b) If the index of an indicator extends over the entire length of a graduation, it shall be of 

uniform width throughout the portion that coincides with the graduation. 

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2002.]

Discussion: NIST Handbook 44 Liquid-Measuring Devices Code paragraph S.1.5.3. (a) requires that the indicator index 

width be no greater than the width of the widest graduation. A similar Measurement Canada requirement requires that the 

index width be no greater than the width of the narrowest graduation. The Measuring Sector felt that the Measurement 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-30

Canada requirement may be more appropriate because it prohibits an indicator index that obscures any scale graduation. 

In 1998, the Measuring Sector proposed that paragraph S.1.5.3.(a) be modified to correct the discrepancy. 

The Committee believed that the proposal should be nonretroactive. The Committee received no unfavorable comments 

on this item at the 1999 Interim Meeting; therefore, the Committee recommended that this item be adopted as written. 

The Committee clarified that for arrow-shaped indicators, the narrowest portion at the tip of the arrow could not be wider 

than the narrowest graduation. 

At the 1999 Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments about the large numbers of analog indicators still in use; 

however, the Committee noted that the proposal is nonretroactive and would apply only to new devices. Measurement 

Canada restated its belief that the proposal is a more appropriate design requirement for indicator indices than the one 

currently in Handbook 44. The Committee also considered comments that the current paragraph S.1.5.3.(a) is more 

appropriate because a wider index design facilitates reading of the graduation. In contrast, when the index design is 

narrower than the narrowest graduation, users need to read the indication to the nearest graduation. The Committee 

acknowledged that there is some validity to this position and decided to make the item informational for additional study 

and comment. However, the Committee maintained the position that the proposed change is more appropriate and noted 

that, unless it received more data supporting the existing Handbook 44 language, the Committee would return the 

proposal to voting status at the 2000 Interim Meeting. 

At its Fall 1999 meeting, the Western Weights and Measures Association recommended adopting the proposed changes at 

the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting if no data supports current Handbook 44 language. 

The Measuring Sector noted during its Fall 1999 meeting that the proposal creates no barriers to Canadian requirements. 

Manufacturers recognize that they must design devices to meet the Canadian requirements when seeking both U.S. and 

Canadian approval. The Sector recommended hearing all arguments on this issue before the S&T Committee decided on 

the item’s status. 

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) changed its position on the item from supporting the 

proposal for a vote to recommending that it become an information item. NEWMA took this position while it awaits 

industry’s input about the effects of the proposal on other liquid-measuring devices. The NEWMA noted the proposal 

might be appropriate in the revised Handbook 44 (see Item 360-1) Liquid-Measuring Devices Code. 

The Southern Weight and Measures Association agreed that the current Handbook 44 requirement could be applied 

during NTEP Mutual Recognition type evaluation without conflict with the Canadian requirement. Consequently, it 

opposed the proposal and recommended withdrawing it from the Committee’s agenda. 

During the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee again heard from one NCWM member who stated that the 

current Handbook requirement is correct because the variances in graduation sizes facilitate reading the indications and 

clearly illustrate subordinate graduations. That member also noted that wider indications eliminate any question about the 

indication starting at zero and lessen the parallax effect. That member also pointed out that, over the past 40 years, no 

problems existed for reading fan and dial scales. The Committee was cautioned that if the proposal is added to Handbook 

44, some devices with analog indications still in production may not meet the proposed requirements. 

The Committee acknowledged that the proposal was developed attempting to align U.S. and Canadian requirements. The 

Committee recognized that a limited number of manufacturers might be affected by the proposal; however, this group has 

not commented. The Committee appreciates the input, but it did not receive sufficient specific technical data to warrant 

maintaining the current Handbook 44 requirement. Moreover, the proposed change is nonretroactive which should allow 

companies adequate time to comply. Since the Committee does not believe that the proposal would affect analog retail 

motor-fuel dispensers in production, the Committee recommended this item for a vote. 

At its Spring 2000 Annual Meeting, the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) noted that when the 

indicator index extends along the entire length of a graduation that portion of the index that may be brought into 

coincidence with the graduation shall be of the same width throughout the length of the index. The proposal for an 

indicator index not narrower than the narrowest graduation conflicts with the CWMA position. Therefore, CWMA 

recommended the proposal be returned to informational status. 

The Committee deliberated at length on this issue and believed that it has not heard a technical reason to keep the current 

Handbook 44 requirement. The Committee agreed that when reading subordinate indications, it is important that they not 

be obscured by the indicator index. The Committee acknowledged that the following Liquid-Measuring Devices Codes 

contain similar requirements which might conflict with the proposal if those meters are used in multiple applications: 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-31

 3.31 Vehicle-Tank Meters Code paragraph S.1.3.3.(a) Width 

3.32 Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices Code paragraph S.1.3.3.(a) 

Width 

 3.33 Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor-Measuring Devices Code paragraph S.1.3.3.(a) Width 

 3.34 Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices Code paragraph S.1.3.3.(a) Width 

 3.35 Milk Meters Code paragraph S.1.3.3.(a) Width 

 3.36 Water Meters Code paragraph S.1.3.3.(a) Width 

 3.38 Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices Tentative Code paragraph S.1.3.3.(a) Width 

The Committee plans to revisit each code in this list and make comparisons with corresponding Canadian and OIML 

requirements. The Committee is also interested in the effect of making similar changes to those other liquid-measuring 

device codes. 

The Committee would like to see all devices comply immediately; however, it realizes that this is not practical. The 

Committee notes that the current language applies until January 1, 2002. Therefore, devices manufactured before 2002 or 

that are either new or used and placed into commercial service before 2002 comply if their indicator index is not wider 

than the widest graduation. The Committee does not plan to retain the old Handbook 44 language addressing indices not 

wider than the widest graduation. The Committee notes that devices in service prior to 2002 that comply with the latest 

requirement by having an indicator index that is not wider than the narrowest graduation also meet the intent of the 

requirement. 

330-2 I Appendix D, Definition for Retail Device and Tolerances, Table T.X 

 Accuracy Classes for Liquid Measuring Devices 

Source: Carryover Item 330-5. (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

and first appeared on the Committee’s 1999 agenda.) 

Discussion: Weights and measures officials and the service industry from a WWMA jurisdiction encountered difficulty 

determining which tolerances to apply to aircraft and marina refueling dispensers used for deliveries ranging from 5 

gallons to 300 gallons. The jurisdiction was uncertain whether to categorize these dispensers as retail or wholesale 

devices. 

During the 1999 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee examined a proposal to modify the definition of “retail device.” 

The Committee recognized that modifying the definition of “retail device” or establishing new tolerances may impact 

other device technologies used in similar applications. The Committee also discussed the theory of tolerances and the 

differences in tolerances for retail and wholesale devices. The Committee believed that an alternate approach to 

modifying or eliminating the definition of “retail device” was to establish tolerances that are not based on retail or 

wholesale use. The Committee developed a proposal for a new table of tolerances for meters based on the test draft size. 

At the 1999 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee decided both proposals needed further development and asked for 

more input from the WWMA. 

During the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee reviewed the CWMA’s proposed modified definition of “retail 

device” and the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association’s alternate proposal for a new table of tolerances based 

on meter accuracy classes. 

The Committee considered the following proposal modifying the definition of retail devices: 

retail device. A liquid measuring device primarily used for non-resale use.

single deliveries of less than 378 L (100 gal),

retail deliveries of motor fuels to individual highway vehicles, or 

single deliveries of liquefied petroleum gas for domestic use and liquefied petroleum gas or 

liquefied anhydrous ammonia for nonresale use.

(Amended 1987 and 200X) [3.32] 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-32

The Committee also considered a Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) proposal to add a new 

table of tolerances to the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code. 

The Committee held lengthy discussion concerning the proposal’s intent. One retail motor-fuel dispenser manufacturer 

noted the term “primarily” does not clearly define the amount of use in non-resale applications that qualifies a device as 

“retail.” The manufacturer also questioned whether the purpose of the proposal is to change Handbook 44 definitions or 

tolerances. The manufacturer also objected to tolerances based on prover size. The objection was noted because the same 

device will be subject to different tolerances based on the test draft rather than the flow rate. However, several 

Committee members indicated that existing devices are capable of meeting the proposed new tolerances. 

The Committee recognized that additional work must be completed to determine how the proposal affects the definition 

of “retail” in other code sections and other sections of Section 3.30, such as paragraph S.2.5. which specifies requirements 

for a zero-set-back interlock for retail motor-fuel dispensers. One Committee member noted that the NEWMA table does 

not clarify if meters must be marked or deliver at a rate of 100 LPM to classify as an Accuracy Class 0.3 device. 

The Committee modified the table of meter accuracy class tolerances proposed by NEWMA to clarify the specific 

temperatures for heated products at 50 qC and redefined tolerances for gases based on meter registration as shown below. 

The Committee agreed that the modified table and CWMA’s shortened definition of “retail device” have merit, but they 

warranted further discussion. Therefore, the Committee gave these proposals informational status. 

Table T.X Accuracy Classes for Liquid Measuring Devices

Accuracy 

Class

Application Acceptance 

Tolerance

Maintenance 

Tolerance

Special Test 

Tolerance*

0.3 Petroleum products including large capacity motor 

fuel devices (flow rates over 100 LPM (25 GPM)), 

heated products at or greater than 50 qC asphalt at 

or below temperatures 50 qC, all other liquids not 

shown where the typical delivery is over 200 L (50 

gal)

0.2 % 0.3 % 0.5 %

03A Asphalt at temperatures greater than 50 qC 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.5 %

0.5 Petroleum products delivered from small capacity 

(retail) motor-fuel devices, agri-chemical liquids, and 

all other applications not shown.

0.3 % 0.5 % 0.5%

1.0 Anhydrous ammonia, LP gas (including vehicle tank 

meters)

0.6 % 1.0 % 1.0 %

1.1 Petroleum products and other normal liquids from 

devices with flow rates less than 1 gpm

0.75 % 1.0 % 1.25%

1.5 Water 1.5 % 1.5 % +5.0 % - 1.5 %

2.0 Compressed natural gas as a motor fuel 1.5 % 2.0 % 2.0 %

2.5 Cryogenic products; liquefied compressed gases 

other than LP gas

1.5 % 2.5 % 2.5 %

Overregistration 

1.5 % 1.5 %

3.0 Gases at low pressure 

(LP vapor)

Underregistration

3.0% 3.0%

*where applicable 

The NEWMA recommended that the issue remain an information item, but suggested defining the term “liquidmeasuring.” One jurisdiction indicated suitability of the device for a particular application is a larger issue because 

wholesale devices may be used for deliveries less than one gallon. 

At the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee initially considered splitting this item into two separate issues, (1) a 

definition and (2) a table of tolerances, to facilitate the review process. One jurisdiction recommended that the 

Committee work to establish a minimum delivery amount rather than revise the definitions of retail and wholesale. The 

Committee understands that questions remain about the ability of high volume retail meters to meet the proposed tighter 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-33

tolerances. The Committee plans to contact the regional and several industry associations about collecting data to 

demonstrate the performance of the meters in question at tolerances more stringent than those currently specified in 

Handbook 44. 

For more background information, refer to the 1999 S&T Final Report. 

331 Vehicle-Tank Meters 

331-1 I Recognition of Temperature Compensation 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Discussion: During the 2000 Interim Meeting, the Committee discussed a WWMA proposal to modify the Vehicle-Tank 

Meters Code to recognize Automatic Temperature Compensation (ATC). The Committee noted that the proposal does 

not address new technology which is capable of indicating in both the net and gross mode. Therefore, the Committee 

developed new paragraph S.2.4.2.X. Gross and Net Indications and added it to the WWMA proposal. The Committee 

agreed that paragraph UR.2.5.1.2. Invoices was established for wholesale meter application. Consequently, the 

Committee also removed paragraphs UR.2.5.1.2.(b) Invoices and UR.2.5.2. Nonautomatic from the proposal. The 

modified proposal reads as follows: 

S.2.4. Automatic Temperature Compensation. 

S.2.4.1. Automatic Temperature Compensation. - A device may be equipped with an 

automatic means for adjusting the indication and registration of the measured volume of 

product to the volume at 15 qC (60 qF).

S.2.4.2. Provision for Deactivating. - On a device equipped with an automatic temperaturecompensating mechanism that will indicate or record only in terms of liters (gallons) 

compensated to 15 qC (60 qF), provision shall be made for deactivating the automatic 

temperature-compensating mechanism so that the meter can indicate, and record if it is 

equipped to record, in terms of the uncompensated volume.

S.2.4.2.X. Gross and Net Indications – A device equipped with automatic temperature 

compensation shall indicate and record, if equipped to record, both the gross 

(uncompensated) and net (compensated) volume for testing purposes. If both values cannot 

be displayed or recorded for the same test draft, means shall be provided to select either the 

gross or net indication for each test draft.

S.2.4.3. Provision for Sealing Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems. - Provision 

shall be made for applying security seals in such a manner that an automatic temperaturecompensating system cannot be disconnected and that no adjustment may be made to the 

system without breaking the seal.

S.2.4.4. Temperature Determination with Automatic Temperature Compensation. - For Test 

purposes, means shall be provided (e.g., thermometer well) to determine the temperature of 

the liquid either:

(a) in the liquid chamber of the meter, or

(b) immediately adjacent to the meter in the meter inlet or discharge line.

S.5.6. Temperature Compensation. - If a device is equipped with an automatic temperature 

compensator, the primary indicating elements, recording elements, and recording 

representation shall be clearly and conspicuously marked to show that the volume delivered 

has been adjusted to the volume at 15 qC (60 qF).

N.4.1.2. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems. - On devices equipped with 

automatic temperature compensating systems, normal tests shall be conducted;

(a) by comparing the compensated volume indicated or recorded to the actual delivered
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-34

 volume corrected to 15 qC (60 qF); and

(b) with the temperature compensating system deactivated, comparing the 

uncompensated volume indicated or recorded to the actual delivered volume.

The first test shall be performed with the automatic temperature-compensating system 

operating in the "as found" condition. On devices that indicate or record both the 

compensated and uncompensated volume for each delivery, the tests in (a) and (b) may be 

performed as a single test.

N.5. Temperature Correction. - Corrections shall be made for any changes in volume 

resulting from the differences in liquid temperatures between the time of passage through the 

meter and time of volumetric determination in the prover. When adjustments are necessary, 

appropriate petroleum measurement tables should be used.

T.2.1. Automatic Temperature Compensating Systems. - The difference between the meter 

error (expressed as a percentage) for results determined with and without the automatic 

temperature compensating system activated shall not exceed:

(a) 0.2 percent for mechanical automatic temperature compensating systems; and

(b) 0.1 percent for electronic automatic temperature compensating systems.

The delivered quantities for each test shall be approximately the same size. The results of 

each test shall be within the applicable acceptance or maintenance tolerance.

UR.2.5. Temperature Compensation.

UR.2.5.1. Automatic.

UR.2.5.1.1. When to be Used. - If a device is equipped with an automatic temperature 

compensator, it shall be connected, operable, and in use at all times. An electronic or 

mechanical automatic temperature compensating system may not be removed, nor may a 

compensated device be replaced with an uncompensated device, without the written approval 

of the responsible weights and measures jurisdiction.

[Note: This requirement does not specify the method of sale for product measured through a 

meter.]

UR.2.5.1.2. Invoices.

(a) An written invoice based on a reading of a device that is equipped with an automatic 

temperature compensator shall show that the volume delivered has been adjusted to the 

volume at 15 qC (60 qF).

(b) The invoice issued from an electronic device equipped with an automatic temperature 

compensating system shall also indicate: (1) the API gravity, specific gravity, or coefficient of 

expansion for the product; (2) product temperature; and (3) gross reading.

UR.2.5.2. Nonautomatic.

UR.2.5.2.1. Temperature Determination. - If the volume of the product delivered is adjusted 

to the volume at 15 qC (60 qF), the product temperature shall be taken during the delivery in:

(a) the liquid chamber of the meter, or

(b) the meter inlet or discharge line adjacent to the meter, or

(c) the compartment of the receiving receptacle (e.g., storage tank) at the time it is loaded.
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-35

UR.2.5.2.2. Invoices. - The accompanying invoice shall indicate that the volume of the 

product has been adjusted for temperature variations to a volume at 15 qC (60 qF) and shall 

also state the product temperature used in making the adjustment.

Weights and measures officials expressed confusion about the specific meter applications covered on Certificates of 

Conformance which list the temperature compensation feature option. The WWMA acknowledged that some 

jurisdictions permit temperature compensated deliveries in meter applications for which ATC is not addressed in NIST 

Handbook 44. These jurisdictions may be applying paragraph G-A.3. Special and Unclassified Equipment to these 

devices and applying specifications and tolerances from other codes based on the equipment’s design, intended purpose, 

and conditions of use. Jurisdictions that do allow ATC do not allow the selective use of the temperature compensation 

feature and require that the feature be operable at all points in the distribution cycle. 

The WWMA agreed that the proposed requirements should immediately apply to existing devices equipped with ATC. 

The WWMA modified the text in paragraph UR.2.5.1.2. to reflect their position that handwritten receipts are permitted. 

The WWMA believes that initially it is appropriate to add the proposed ATC requirements to the Vehicle-Tank Meter 

Code Section because it is the most equitable means of delivery for temperature compensated vehicle tank metering 

systems already operating in the marketplace. 

WWMA noted the importance of requiring that the temperature compensation feature be activated year-round. Although 

the proposal addressed device requirements, WWMA recommends that to fully address the temperature compensation 

issue, it is necessary to consider other related laws and regulations such as the method of sale. The WWMA supported 

moving this item forward for a vote. 

The Measuring Sector plans to observe the development of this issue. The Sector is interested in Canada’s voluntary 

temperature compensation program. Canada’s program has operated for almost 20 years, yet there is not 100 percent 

industry participation. The Sector was concerned about the proper use of correction tables when calculating deliveries. 

The Sector also believed that it is necessary to educate consumers about the temperature compensated method of sale. 

The Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) noted that some jurisdictions may have statutes that would be 

affected by the adoption of the proposal. CWMA would also like to hear more details about the operation of Canada’s 

voluntary temperature compensation program to assist in its review of this issue. 

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) agreed that advancing technology has made the 

implementation of temperature compensation features much more cost effective. NEWMA proposes that automatic 

temperature compensation (ATC) also be recognized for retail devices in the Liquid-Measuring Device Code Section of 

Handbook 44. 

NEWMA also noted that if the U.S. allows automatic temperature compensation then NIST Handbook 130, Method of 

Sale should address it as a requirement for year-round deliveries. NEWMA forwarded a proposal to the Laws and 

Regulations Committee recommending temperature compensation for petroleum products sales (Agenda Item 232-5). 

Many NEWMA participants were concerned that companies would use the ATC units to their advantage in the colder 

months of the year and use equipment or delivery trucks with no ATC during the warmer months. Consequently, 

NEWMA recommended that a user requirement be included in Handbook 44 to require a company to activate the ATC 

feature or equip all vehicles in the company’s fleet with ATC, and that the feature be activated year-round. NEWMA 

supported this issue as an informational item because it has merit; however, the proposal needs a thorough review to 

ensure that essential related requirements are not overlooked. 

NEWMA recommended that Section S.2.4.2. Provision for Deactivating be rewritten to address technology in today’s 

marketplace. NEWMA noted that today’s technology can be equipped to indicate and record in gross and net volume 

sales. The current wording of the title could be changed to "Gross and Net Volume Indications" reflecting available 

technology and eliminating the ability to deactivate the system. Temperature compensated requirements were written 

when mechanical ATC units predominated technology in the marketplace. Current codes in Handbook 44; 3.30 LiquidMeasuring Devices, paragraph S.2.7.2; 3.32 LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices paragraph S.2.6.1. 

also contain ATC requirements that should be modified to address the latest technology. NEWMA questioned the need to 

educate consumers to make value comparisons and to fully understand that deliveries are compensated to 60 qF. 

NEWMA is not certain it is necessary for consumers to understand terms such as "API Gravity," "Specific Gravity," and 

"Coefficient of Expansion” and how they affect product delivery. 

At the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee discussed issues that might affect enforcement and the applications 

covered by the proposal. Several Committee members noted the jurisdictions ultimately decide whether to address 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-36

special issues by promulgating state or local requirements in conjunction with Handbook 44 requirements or to enforce 

only requirements that are listed in Handbook 44. There are also jurisdictions where other laws/regulations specifically 

defining the value of a gallon may conflict with the proposal. These jurisdictional policy differences affect the uniform 

enforcement of the proposed requirement. 

The Committee acknowledged that there is a corresponding proposal on the Laws and Regulations (L&R) Committee 

Agenda (Item 232-5); however, no specific language was forwarded to the L&R Committee. The Handbook 130 proposal 

only addresses petroleum product applications when product is metered through vehicle-tank meters and other liquidmeasuring devices. 

During the 2000 NCWM open session, one retail motor-fuel dispenser manufacturer asked for a review of Canadian 

procedures before creating new U.S. policies and procedures related to temperature compensation. One meter 

manufacturer noted that while temperature compensation technology is less expensive than 15 years ago, any 

requirements which would impose a significant change or create a substantial burden should be carefully considered. 

The Committee agreed that because of the temperature effects, temperature-compensated metering is more equitable 

when deliveries are from above ground storage tanks. The Committee acknowledged that a decade ago technology to 

provide temperature compensated deliveries was available; however, compensation at all distribution levels is the most 

equitable use of the technology. The Committee believes that the latest version of the proposal should receive a thorough 

review to ensure that all applications are addressed. The Committee has heard comments that the proposal should be a 

retroactive requirement, therefore it encourages industry and weights and measures officials input on the proposal. 

Because the proposal has a far-reaching effect on industry and enforcement procedures, the Committee made this item 

informational while it waits for feedback and studies Canada’s ATC program. 

The Committee recognized that work must first be completed in both NIST Handbook 130 and Handbook 44 to properly 

address the method of sale and device requirements for temperature compensated deliveries. Although the Committee is 

addressing the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code, other device areas of Handbook 44 will require work to address temperature 

compensated deliveries. 

The Committee recognized that there is growing interest in this issue because of recent inquiries received by the NIST 

Office of Weights and Measures from Australia and Puerto Rico asking about the issue of temperature compensation in 

the United States. Additionally, during the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting the Metrology Subcommittee’s indicated that 

there is greater technical accuracy in the measurement of petroleum products using temperature compensation. The 

Subcommittee also cited the beneficial affects on environmental concerns about tracking product leakage and better 

accounting of tax revenues when there are improvements in the measurement process. However, the Subcommittee is 

uncertain if there is a viable means to implement temperature compensation. 

The Petroleum Marketers Association of America (PMAA) opposes temperature compensation for vehicle-tank meters 

because it believes that (1) compensation results in only a slight increase in measurement accuracy, (2) the plus and minus 

delivery errors negate each other, (3) compensation raises the capital cost for businesses, (4) less home heating fuel is 

delivered, and (5) complaints will increase because indicated delivery will be greater than the volume marked on 

containers such as fuel storage tanks. 

The Committee reiterates its concerns about (1) educating the public, (2) the economic effects to fully implementing this 

practice, and (3) the importance of equity at all levels in the marketplace. Questions remain about whether or not the 

proposal is intended to address all products or only petroleum products. Comments to the Committee indicate that the 

increased use of electronic devices which are equipped with features such as ATC may drive this proposal. The 

Committee recognizes that all industry sectors and the weights and measures community must make a concentrated effort 

to start the groundwork on this issue. The Committee is keeping this item informational while it contacts the L&R 

Committee about how to proceed and reworks several requirements that may not adequately address vehicle tank meter 

applications. The Committee also asked that NIST Office of Weights and Measures, industry, weights and measures 

jurisdictions, and other interested parties to consider undertaking a technical review and/or study of automatic 

temperature compensation in the marketplace. 

334 Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices 

334-1 I Recognition of Liquefied Natural Gas Application 

Source: Carryover Item 334-1. (This item originated from the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

and first appeared on the Committee’s 1999 agenda.) 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-37

Discussion: The Committee reviewed the following proposal changing the Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices Code 

to recognize Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) applications. 

Amend paragraphs A.2. (c) and (d) as follows: 

A.2. - This code does not apply to the following:

(a) Devices used for dispensing liquefied petroleum gases (for which see Sec. 3.32; Code 

for Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices).

(b) Devices used solely for dispensing a product in connection with operations in which 

the amount dispensed does not affect customer charges.

(c) Devices used solely for dispensing liquefied natural gas.

(dc) mass flow meters (see Sec. 3.37. Code for Mass Flow Meters)

S.2.5. 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 no adjustment or interchange may be made of: 

 (a) any measurement element; 

(b) any adjustable element for controlling delivery rate when such rate tends to

 affect the accuracy of deliveries; and or

(c) any automatic temperature or density compensating system the zero

adjustment mechanism.

Any When applicable, the adjusting mechanism shall be readily accessible for purposes of 

affixing a security seal. 

Audit trails shall use the format set forth in Table S.2.5.

Add the following paragraphs to correspond to the Mass Flow Meters Code: 

S.2.4. Provisions for Power Loss.

S.2.4.1. Transaction Information. - In the event of a power loss, the information needed to 

complete any transaction in progress at the time of the power loss (such as the quantity and 

unit price, or sales price) shall be determinable for at least 15 minutes at the dispenser or at 

the console if the console is accessible to the customer.

S.2.4.2. User Information. - The device memory shall retain information on the quantity of 

fuel dispensed and the sales price totals during power loss.

S.2.6.2. Display of Quantity and Total Price. - When a delivery is completed, the total price 

and quantity for that transaction shall be displayed on the face of the dispenser for at least 5 

minutes or until the next transaction is initiated by using controls on the device or other useractivated controls.

S.2.7. Recorded Representations, Point of Sale Systems. - The sales information recorded by 

cash registers when interfaced with a retail motor-fuel dispenser shall contain the following 

information for products delivered by the dispenser:

 (a) the total volume of the delivery,

 (b) the unit price,
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-38

 (c) the total computed price, and

 (d) the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code number.

 [Nonretroactive as of January 1, XXXX.]

S.2.8. Indication of Delivery. - The device shall automatically show on its face the initial zero 

condition and the quantity delivered (up to the nominal capacity). 

However, the first 0.03 L (0.009 gal) of a delivery and its associated total sales price need not be 

indicated.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, XXXX.]

Add new paragraphs S.1.1.2..X and S.1.X. and Table T.1. as follows: 

S.1.1.2.X. Liquefied Natural Gas Used as an Engine Fuel - When liquefied natural gas is 

dispensed as an engine fuel, the delivered quantity shall be indicated and recorded, if the 

device is equipped to record, in liters or gallons and decimal subdivisions or fractional 

equivalents thereof. 

S.1.X. Liquefied Natural Gas Dispensers. - Except for fleet sales and other price contract 

sales, a liquefied natural gas dispenser used to refuel vehicles shall be of the computing type 

and shall indicate the quantity, the unit price, and the total price of each delivery. The 

dispenser shall display the volume measured for each transaction either continuously on an 

external or internal display accessible during the inspection and test of the dispenser, or 

display the quantity in volume units by using controls on the device.

Table T.1. Accuracy Classes for Cryogenic Meter Applications

Accuracy Class Application Acceptance Tolerance Maintenance Tolerance

2.0 Liquefied natural gas as a 

motor fuel

1.5% 2.0%

2.5 Bulk delivery of cryogenic 

liquids

1.5% 2.5%

Discussion: In 1998, the SWMA reviewed a proposal to include liquefied natural gas (LNG) applications in the 

Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices Code. The SWMA believed the proposal had merit but warranted further 

development. SWMA heard comments from Hoffer Flow Controls, Inc., which believed that LNG may have been 

excluded from the Cryogenic Code because of questions regarding LNG’s composition. Hoffer noted that liquid densities 

have far less variation than gas densities even when methane content differs. Hoffer also believed the measuring device 

codes are nonuniform and stated that cryogenic meters are held to more stringent standards. Hoffer noted that no current 

retail dispensers are capable of determining a product’s composition. 

The Meter Manufacturers Association believes that LNG is a cryogenic fluid based on Handbook 44 and 130 definitions, 

and there are no technical reasons to exclude LNG from the code. 

One NTEP laboratory indicated concern that paragraph S.2.4. Automatic Temperature or Density Composition may not 

include all of the parameters for which compensation must be made when metering an impure product such as LNG. The 

mass units were removed from the Cryogenic Code after the NCWM adopted the Mass Flow Meter Code. Consequently, 

the Committee questioned a Hoffer Flow Controls representative about the appropriate unit of measurement since the 

code has no mass units and industry has no plans to ask for a volume conversion unit such as the gasoline gallon 

equivalent. 

NIST OWM noted that earlier studies conducted by NIST’s Boulder facility demonstrated inaccuracies in turbine meter 

registration that seem to be a result of internal components freezing up. OWM also questioned whether or not proposed 

paragraph S.1.X. intends for indications to be part of an external or internal display since the official does not need to 

determine if the dispenser is programmed with the correct mass to volume conversion factor. 

In 1999, the NCWM S&T Committee considered comments and concluded that there was insufficient data to demonstrate 

that all types of meters currently used to measure cryogenics can accurately measure LNG. The Committee also wanted 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-39

to ensure that the codes are kept uniform and that recognizing LNG metering in Handbook 44 is not restricted to a single 

technology. The Committee gave this item developing status to allow more time to study these issues. 

During the 1999 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee noted that it was waiting for data from the California NTEP 

Participating Laboratory, which will provide information about product conversion tables. Hoffer Flow Controls, Inc., 

noted that the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) is gathering data about metering products of various composition. 

During the 1999 Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) Technical Conference, no comments were 

received on this issue. WWMA recommended that this item remain informational until additional data is available 

supporting recognition of liquefied natural gas applications in the Cryogenics Code. 

The SWMA recommended this item be withdrawn from the S&T Agenda if no data is received at the 2000 NCWM 

Interim Meeting. 

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association recommended that this issue remain as an informational item until 

current data from California NTEP Participating Laboratory is received and reviewed. 

During the 2000 Interim Meeting, the Committee again reviewed the proposal.. The Committee had not received any data 

on the performance of meters when used to deliver LNG. Jeff Kelly (Hoffer Flow Controls, Inc.) updated the Committee 

on the SAE Committee’s Liquefied Natural Gas Vehicular Metering and Measuring Task Force formed to review LNG 

composition, metering, connections, and planning to begin testing in 2000 at locations in Colorado, California, and Idaho. 

SAE plans controlled test to examine measurement accuracy of several meter types delivering three LNG samples with 

various methane content. Mr. Kelly agreed to provide the Committee with a synopsis of the SAE LNG Vehicular 

Metering and Measuring Task Force Meeting held August 26, 1999. The Committee recommended that this item remain 

informational pending the results of the ongoing SAE study on LNG applications. 

The Committee encourages feedback on all work that demonstrates the performance of meter technology, which complies 

with NIST Handbook 44 Cryogenics Liquid-Measuring Devices Code requirements, in the accurate measurement of LNG 

products. Hoffer Flow Controls indicated they will provide the Committee with a report on the SAE study in October 

2000. Consequently, the Committee agreed the item remain an information item. 

354 Taximeters Code 

354-1 VC S.1.10. Non-Fare Information 

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) 

Source: Carryover Item 354-2. (This item originated from the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association 

(NEWMA) and first appeared on the Committee’s 1999 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Add the following new paragraph S.1.10. Non-fare Information to the Taximeter Code: 

S.1.10. Non-fare Information. - The fare and extras displays may be used to display auxiliary 

information provided the meter is in the vacant condition and such information is only displayed 

for ten seconds, or less. If the information consists of a list of information, the list may be 

displayed one item after another, provided that each item is displayed for ten seconds, or less.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2002.]

Discussion: In 1998, NTEP Participating Laboratories received requests to evaluate taximeters that are equipped with 

indicators which are capable of using the fare and extra displays to indicate other non-fare information. Numerous special 

and optional features, such as a clock or recall of vehicle/transaction statistical information (stats), are incorporated into 

the design of newer electronic taximeters. There is concern that customers may be confused about which values represent 

the fares and extras. To avoid confusion about the displayed values, NEWMA proposed a new paragraph S.1.10. which 

would limit the display of special feature information to: (1) 5 seconds or less, and (2) only when the taximeter is cleared 

(not registering or vacant). For taximeters which are capable of displaying vehicle or transaction stats, the instrument 

would be permitted to scroll through the statistics; however, the display of each stat would be limited to 5 seconds. 

The Southern Weights and Measures Association believed that this proposal had merit; however, the proposed changes to 

the Taximeter Code need to be reviewed for clarity by the taximeter manufacturers and Participating NTEP Laboratories. 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-40

During the 1999 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard questions about whether or not it is necessary for the meter to be 

in the vacant mode when displaying non-fare information. NEWMA representatives indicated concern that the next 

customer who enters the vehicle may assume that the non-fare information represents some part of his or her transaction. 

Industry representatives indicated that the originally proposed 5-second length of time is too short to record or tabulate 

displayed information. Consequently, the Committee made this an informational item to allow additional study on what 

constituted a reasonable time limit. 

During the 1999 Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed that when a taximeter is not in use, auxiliary information may be 

displayed. The Committee heard comments that the originally proposed 5-second time limit is not sufficient to view 

information. The Committee asked that interested parties and members of the taxi industry provide input on alternative 

time limits. 

During the 1999 Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) Technical Conference, no comments were 

received on this issue. The WWMA recommended that this item remain informational until weights and measures 

jurisdictions and industry representatives provide additional data about the effects of the proposal.

In 1999, NEWMA recommended an alternate proposal for a new paragraph S.1.10 which would allow a taximeter a time 

period of 10 seconds to display auxiliary information for a vote at the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

During the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee took the position that the average consumer is unfamiliar with 

the complexities of taximeters indications and limits are needed on the length of time nonfare information is displayed. 

The Committee agreed with NEWMA’s recommendation for a maximum of 10-second display time for non-fare 

information and believes that this is a reasonable alternative to the original proposal of a 5-second time limit and 

industry’s recommendation of 15 seconds. Therefore, the Committee recommended the proposal for a vote. 

354-2 VC S.5. Provisions for Security 

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) 

Source: Carryover Item 354-4. (This item originated from the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association 

(NEWMA) and first appeared on the Committee’s 1999 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.5. Provisions for Security Seals as follows: 

S.5. Provision for Security Seals. - Adequate provision shall be made for affixing to provide

security seals to for a taximeter. Security may be provided either by:

(a) Affixing security seals to the taximeter and to all other parts components required for 

service operation of a complete installation on a vehicle, so that no adjustments, alterations, 

or replacements affecting accuracy or indications of the device or the assembly can be made 

without mutilating the seal or seals; or

(b) Using a combination of security seals described in paragraph (a), and, in the case of a 

component that may be removed from a vehicle (e.g., slide mounting the taximeter), 

providing a physical or electronic link between components affecting accuracy or indications 

of the device to ensure that its performance is not affected and operation is only permitted 

with those components having the same unique properties. 

The sealing means shall be such that it is not necessary to disassemble or remove any part of 

the device or of the vehicle to apply or inspect the seals. 

(Amended 1988 and 200X)

Discussion: In 1998, the Committee discussed a NEWMA proposal to modify paragraph S.5. Provision for Security 

Seals to address security for measuring elements that are removable from the vehicle. 

NEWMA noted that many taximeters are mounted on a slide bracket that permits easy removal of the meter for safe 

overnight storage. This type of mount conflicts with the requirements in paragraph S.5. Provisions for Security Seals. 

The “slide-mount” installation also allows taximeters to be installed in vehicles other than the vehicle where it was 

calibrated. The desire to provide taximeters with anti-theft features is understandable; however, such a feature should not 

affect the integrity of the measurement process. Therefore, it was recommended that S.5. be modified to recognize that 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-41

either: (1) a taximeter be permanently attached to a vehicle using a physical security seal; or (2) the taximeter component 

may be removable, but an electronic seal be provided that permits operation with only one specific vehicle or bracket. 

NEWMA recommended that this proposal be a retroactive requirement applying to all taximeters and, if there are no 

unfavorable comments, that it become a voting item at the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

The International Taxicab and Livery Association (ITLA) opposed the proposal because it believed that interchanging 

taximeters as the chosen method to perpetuate fraud is unlikely. ITLA reported that two manufacturers believe that 

complying with the proposal will require costly technical support. Based on these comments and allowing for additional 

input on these issues, the Committee made this an informational item on its 1998 agenda. 

During the 2000 Interim Meeting, the Committee noted that current Handbook 44 language requires removable taximeters 

to be sealed. The NEWMA proposal clarifies acceptable means for securing those devices. 

The Committee discussed the NEWMA proposal to modify paragraph S.5. Provision for Security Seals to address 

security for measuring elements that are removable from the vehicle. The Committee recognized that NEWMA’s 

proposal requires an electronic security link for removable taximeters. This ensures that these devices are reinstalled to 

NIST Handbook 44 requirements. The Committee believed that technology is available to create electronic links between 

device components. There are also concerns about how the electronic link is programmed and if the next generation of 

taximeters will be capable of other electronic functions, such as remote communication of sealable parameters. 

Additionally, there was concern about what constitutes, or how to define, an “electronic link.” 

After the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee reviewed paragraph Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable 

Components in Handbook 44, which addresses security for electronic components. The Committee agreed that there are 

no specific audit trail requirements in the Taximeter Code, although Handbook 44 recognizes audit trails in G-S.8. and in 

other code sections, such as the Scales and Liquid Measuring Devices Code. 

Programmable devices that recognize specific codes and interface only with select components have the capability of 

communicating remotely; they represent an additional form of security that prevents the use of meters when not calibrated 

to a vehicle. The Committee was uncertain exactly how these features function in taximeters; however, the Committee 

believed it was important to appropriately address new technology and forms of device security. 

The Committee initially agreed that the NEWMA proposal should be modified to become effective January 1, 2002 and 

to recognize electronic means of security such as audit trails. Consequently, the Committee recommended the following 

modified proposal for a vote in its 2000 Interim S&T Committee Report (Publication 16). 

S.5. Provision for Security Seals. - Adequate provision shall be made for affixing to provide

security seals to for a taximeter. Security may be provided either by:

(a) Affixing security seals or other approved means of security (e.g., audit trails) to the taximeter

and to all other parts components required for service operation of a complete installation on a 

vehicle, so that no adjustments, alterations, or replacements affecting accuracy or indications of the 

device or the assembly can be made without mutilating the seal or seals; or

(b) Using a combination of security seals described in paragraph (a), and, in the case of a 

component that may be removed from a vehicle (e.g., slide mounting the taximeter), providing a 

physical or electronic link between components affecting accuracy or indications of the device to 

ensure that its performance is not affected and operation is only permitted with those components 

having the same unique properties. 

The sealing means shall be such that it is not necessary to disassemble or remove any part of the 

device or of the vehicle to apply or inspect the seals. 

(Amended 1988 and 200X)

During a June 2000 meeting sponsored by the New York Taxi and Limousine Commission, representatives from industry 

and government discussed possible sources for electronic security links. 

During the NCWM 2000 Annual Meeting, the Committee received comments from the weights and measures jurisdiction 

which developed the original proposal that it opposed addressing audit trail requirements in the proposal. The jurisdiction 

indicated that it holds taxi owners responsible when a security seal is broken. The jurisdiction noted that taxis are leased 

and out of the owner’s control for extended periods of time. A heavy duty physical security seal used as a deterrent in 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-42

that jurisdiction works to deter fraudulent use of the meter; however, no additional security guidelines are available to 

determine who initiated fraudulent activity when evidence of fraudulent activity is electronically detected. 

NEWMA representatives recommended that because of the complexities of taximeter features and rate structures, any 

language to address audit trails in the Taximeter Code should be thoroughly discussed and developed before amending 

Handbook 44. The Committee agreed with the NEWMA recommendation to fully develop criteria for taximeter audit 

trail criteria. 

For additional background on this item, refer to the NCWM 1999 S&T Final Report. 

354-3 VC S.6. (b) Power Interruption, Electronic Taximeters 

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) 

Source: Carryover Item 354-5. (This item originated from the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association and first 

appeared on the Committee’s 1999 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.6. (b) Power Interruption, Electronic Taximeters as follows: 

S.6. Power Interruption, Electronic Taximeters. 

(a) After a power interruption of 3 seconds or less, the fare and extras indications 

shall return to the previously displayed indications and may be susceptible to advancement 

without the taximeter being cleared. 

(b) After a power interruption exceeding 3 seconds, the fare and extras indications shall return 

to the previously displayed indications and shall not be susceptible to advancement until the 

taximeter is cleared. 

After restoration of power following an interruption exceeding 3 seconds, the previously 

displayed fare shall be displayed for a maximum of 1 minutes, at which time the fare shall 

automatically clear and the taximeter return to the vacant condition.*

*[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2002.]

[Effective and nonretroactive as of January 1, 1994. Retroactive after January 1, 1999.]

(Added 1988)(Amended 1989 and 1990, and 200X)

Discussion: The requirement for long-term power interruption in paragraph S.6.(b) has no limits on how long the 

indications must be displayed after a power loss. There is concern that the next customer entering the vehicle may 

assume that the previous transaction information returning to the display screen after a power loss represents some part of 

his or her transaction. NEWMA recommends limiting the time a previous fare is displayed when power returns. 

During the 1999 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments that, unlike many other weighing and measuring 

devices which rely on the local utility for uninterrupted operation, taximeters depend on the vehicle battery for a power 

source. Thus, the likelihood of an unintentional power interruption is far less for taximeters than for other device types. 

The International Taxicab and Livery Association (ITLA) opposed the proposal because it is unaware of any consumer 

complaints about the issue. One taximeter manufacturer notified ITLA that the proposed requirement would necessitate a 

firmware change. Based on these comments, the Committee gave this item informational status on its 1999 agenda to 

allow additional time for weights and measures officials and the taximeter industry to give input. 

During its 1999 Technical Meeting, the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) recommended this item to 

remain informational until weights and measures jurisdictions and industry representatives provide additional data about 

the effects of the proposal. Although the 3-second time interval for the duration of a power interruption criteria has 

existed since 1990, the WWMA asked if industry has any concerns about the interval. In 1990, the NCWM shortened the 

time interval from 10 seconds to 3 seconds to discourage disconnecting slide-mounted taximeters at the termination of 

one fare and reconnecting them at the initiation of the next fare. 

In 1999, the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) supported this item as written and 

recommended that the item become a voting item for July 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting. 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-43

Based on comments received from industry and regional associations, the Committee recommended the proposed changes 

to paragraph S.6. as outlined in the recommendation above for a vote. The Committee believes that the proposed 

enforcement date of January 1, 2002, provides sufficient time for the taxi industry to comply with the new requirement. 

During the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard a brief report on taximeter issues covered during the June 

2000 New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission meeting between industry, weights and measures, and government 

officials. Taximeter manufacturers acknowledged that many taximeter designs meet the proposed requirement limiting 

the display of transaction information to a maximum of 3 minutes when power is restored after a power interruption. The 

manufacturers agreed that 3 minutes is too long a period because the turnover rate for new fares is approximately 1 

minute. After 1 minute, the indications should return to “vacant” or “for hire.” The Committee agreed that a 1-minute 

time limit allows the driver to complete the transaction and lessens the opportunity for fraudulently charging the next fare 

for previous trip charges. Consequently, the Committee modified the proposal to allow a maximum of 1 minute to 

display previous fare information after restoration of power following a power interruption that exceed 3 seconds. 

357 Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers – Tentative Code 

357-1 I Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers, Indication of Additional Constituent 

 Values 

Source: Carryover Item 357-2. (This item originated from the Near-Infrared (NIR) Grain Analyzer Sector 

and first appeared on the Committee’s 1999 agenda.) 

Discussion: The Committee reviewed the following proposal to modify the Near-Infrared Grain Analyzer (NIR) Code to 

include requirements for corn protein, oil, and starch, barley protein, and soybeans protein, and oil. 

S.1. Design of Indicating, Recording, and Measuring Elements. 

S.1.1. Digital Indications and Recording Elements. 

(a) Analyzers shall be equipped with a digital indicating element. 

(b) The minimum height for the digits used to display constituent values shall be 10 mm. 

(c) Analyzers shall be equipped with a communication interface that permits interfacing

 with a recording element and transmitting the date, grain type or class, constituent

 values, and calibration version identification. 

(d) A digital indicating element shall not display, and a recording element shall not record,

 any constituent value before the end of the measurement cycle. 

(e) Wheat protein content shall be recorded and displayed as percent protein reported on a

 constant moisture basis of 12 percent wet basis. Constituent content shall be recorded

 and displayed as percent of total mass using the moisture basis specified in Table

 S.1.1.(e).

(f) An analyzer shall not display or record any constituent value that is beyond the

 operating range of the device unless the constituent value representation includes a

 clear error indication (and recorded error message with the recorded representation). 

[Nonretroactive and effective as of January 1, 2002.] 

S.1.2. Selecting Grain Class and Constituent. - Provision shall be made for selecting, and 

recording the type or class of grain and the constituent(s) to be measured. The means to select 

the grain type or class and constituent(s) shall be readily visible and the type or class of grain 

and constituent(s) selected shall be clearly and definitely identified in letters (such as HRWW, 

HRSW, or PROT). A symbol to identify the display of the type or class of grain and 

constituent(s) selected is permitted provided that it is clearly defined adjacent to the display. 

Minimum acceptable abbreviations are listed in Table S.1.2. Meters shall have the capability 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-44

(i.e., display capacity) of indicating the grain type using a minimum of four characters in order 

to accommodate the abbreviations listed in Table S.1.2. 

[Nonretroactive and effective as of January 1, 2002.] 

Add a new Table S.1.1.(e) Constant Moisture Basis for Constituent Display and Recording to NIR Code to read as 

follows: 

Table S.1.1.(e) Constant Moisture Basis for Constituent Display and Recording 

Grain Type or Class Constituent(s) Moisture Basis

Durum Wheat, Hard Red Spring 

Wheat, Hard Red Winter Wheat, 

Hard White Wheat, Soft Red 

Winter Wheat, Soft White Wheat

Protein 12 percent

Soybeans Protein

Oil

13 percent

Two-rowed Barley

Six-rowed Barley

Protein 0 percent (dry basis)

Corn Protein

Oil

Starch

0 percent (dry basis)

Modify Table S.1.2. Grain Types Considered for Type Evaluation and Calibration and Minimum Acceptable 

Abbreviations to read as follows: 

Table S.1.2. Grain Types Considered for Type Evaluation 

 and Calibration 

and Minimum Acceptable Abbreviations 

Grain Type Minimum Acceptable Abbreviation 

Durum Wheat 

Hard Red Spring Wheat 

Hard Red Winter Wheat 

Hard White Wheat 

Soft Red Winter Wheat 

Soft White Wheat 

Soybeans

Two-rowed Barley

Six-rowed Barley

Corn

DURW 

HRSW 

HRWW 

HDWW 

SRWW 

SWW

SOYB

TRB

SRB

CORN

Modify paragraphs N.1.1. Field Inspection and N.1.2. Standard Reference Samples, Wheat to read as follows: 

N.1. Testing Procedures. 

N.1.1. Field Inspection. - Whole grain samples shall be used as the official field inspection 

standards. Five samples per grain type or class shall be used to check instrument 

performance. Each sample will be analyzed once. One of the samples will be analyzed an 

additional four times to test instrument repeatability. For ground grain instruments, the 

ground sample will be repacked four times. A new grind is not required. 

Wheat protein Constituent values shall be assigned to test samples by the Grain Inspection, 

Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA). Tolerances shall be applied to individual 

sample measurements, the average of individual measurements on each of the five test 

samples, and the maximum difference (range) in results for five analyses on one of the test 

samples.

N.1.2. Standard Reference Samples, Wheat. - Reference samples used for field inspection 

purposes shall be clean and selected to reasonably represent the constituent range. These 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-45

samples shall be selected such that the difference between wheat protein constituent values 

obtained using the GIPSA standard reference method and an official GIPSA NIR wheat 

protein grain analyzer does not exceed 0.3 one-half of the acceptance tolerance shown in 

Table T.2. for individual test samples or 0.15 0.375 times the acceptance tolerance shown for 

the average of five samples. 

Modify Table T.2. to read as follows: 

Table T.2. Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerances for NIR Wheat

Protein Grain Analyzers 

Type of Grain Constituent Individual 

Samples

(percent)

Average for 

Five

Samples

(percent)

Range for Five 

Retests 

(percent)

Durum Wheat, Hard Red 

Spring Wheat, Hard Red 

Winter Wheat, Hard 

White Wheat, Soft Red 

Winter Wheat, Soft 

White Wheat 

protein 0.60 0.40 0.40 

Soybeans protein 0.80 0.60 0.60

 oil 0.70 0.50 0.50

Two-rowed Barley

Six-rowed Barley

protein 0.70 0.50 0.50

Corn protein 0.80 0.60 0.60

 oil 0.70 0.50 0.50

 starch 1.00 0.80 0.80

Discussion: During the NIR Grain Analyzer Sector’s March 1998 meeting, weights and measures representatives 

reported seeing an increasing number of NIR Analyzers in their jurisdictions. These representatives also reported that 

much of the commercial usage of NIR devices was for corn and soybeans. Grain industry representatives reported that 

the industry increasingly contracts directly with the producer to obtain “enhanced value” grains. There is a growing 

demand for measurement of protein and oil for an increasing number of grain types. In response to these observations, 

the Sector proposed modifying the Handbook 44 NIR Grain Analyzer Tentative Code to include requirements for corn 

protein, oil, and starch; barley protein; and soybean protein and oil. 

During the 1999 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee gave this item informational status because industry 

commented that the requirements may be premature. 

The following discussion is excerpted from the September 1999 Sector Summary. The NIR Sector is in the process of 

finalizing a study of the proposal’s new constituents values. In 1999, eight States participated in the study. Maryland and 

Georgia collected samples; Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, and North Carolina collected samples and tested 

NIR devices. 

During the September 1999 Sector meeting, Diane Lee (Office of Weights and Measures, NIST) reported the results of a 

study based on available State data. During the study, NIR devices were tested using soft red winter wheat (protein), 

soybeans (protein and oil) and corn (oil). Soybean samples used in the study were from Georgia, Missouri, and 

Maryland; soft red winter wheat samples were from North Carolina; and corn samples were from Illinois. Reference 

constituent values were determined by USDA-GIPSA. The study samples met the requirements of the tentative code. 

Tests for corn protein and starch were initially part of the study, but these samples did not meet the proposed tolerances 

shown above in paragraph N.1.2. Standard Reference Sample. The report includes results of a July 1996 Nebraska survey 

of 29 devices three of the recommended five hard red winter wheat samples. The following table shows the preliminary 

study results: 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-46

Preliminary Results of the September 1999 Study on NIST Handbook 44 

 Near-Infrared Grain Analyzer Tentative Code 

Proposed Indications of Additional Constituent Values 

Corn Soybeans Wheat 

Oil at 0% Moisture Oil at 13% Moisture Protein at 13 % 

Moisture 

Protein at 12% 

Moisture 

Number of devices tested 57 31 32 48 

Number of devices failing 

one or more tests 

27 3 6 21 

Device Rejection Rate 47.4 % 9.7 % 18.8 % 43.8 % 

% Failing Test Criteria 1 21.1 % 9.7% 18.8 % 18.8 % 

% Failing Test Criteria 2 8.8 % 0.0 % 12.5 % 35.4 % 

% Failing Test Criteria 3 19.3 % 0.0% 6.3 % 22.9 % 

Criteria 1: Individual Sample Test; Criteria 2: Average of 5 Samples; and Criteria 3: Range for 5 Retests 

Moisture (Wet Basis) 

The final NIR study report will be completed and distributed when the remaining study participants provide additional 

information. 

Grain industry comments about the Sector’s proposal to add corn, soybeans, and barley to the NIR Tentative Code 

highlighted the prematurity of establishing a specific moisture basis for products other than the 12% basis for wheat. 

Industry believed that the marketplace is currently undecided on an appropriate moisture basis for many proposed 

commodities such as high oil corn. Industry agreed that establishing specific moisture bases for these products could 

create confusion and potential market disruption if the proposed Handbook 44 moisture bases for corn and soybeans differ 

from bases in commercial contracts. The grain industry prefers flexibility to set moisture basis for specific products 

because of the wide variance in moisture bases used when buying or selling grains with unique characteristics. 

After reviewing the field survey data, the Sector noted that a significant number of rejected devices may be rejected as a 

result of the device operators’ misunderstanding about the moisture basis to which the device is calibrated or confusion 

about how to handle the conversion between the device’s reading and different moisture basis. 

One Sector member questioned if the tolerance that is applied to the range of five retests for oil in corn was too stringent. 

Another member indicated the instruments exhibiting excessive range might be related to sample feeding problems. 

In the ensuing discussion, it became apparent that the practical problems associated with maintaining uniform inspections 

between devices in the field requires inspections, tolerances, and regulatory samples based on specific fixed moisture 

bases. On the other hand, the Sector recognized that the grain industry requires the flexibility to use different moisture 

bases. The Federal System addresses this problem by reporting constituent concentration at both a “standard” moisture 

and at the moisture basis requested by the customer if other than standard. An example of the Federal System report for 

dry basis protein requests for wheat, which has a “standard” moisture basis of 12% is: 14% protein at 12 % moisture; at 

0% moisture the protein is 15.9%. 

Current commercial devices convert to different moisture basis in a variety of ways. Some of the devices that officials 

encountered on the study were calibrated to read direct at dry basis. Conversions to other moisture bases were 

accomplished by manually multiplying the device’s dry basis reading by 100, then subtracting the new basis, and dividing 

the results by 100. Some devices measured on an “as is” moisture basis then converted to any moisture basis keyed in by 

the operator; however, those devices also required calibration to measure the moisture of the sample. Other devices were 

calibrated to read direct at a fixed non-zero moisture basis. The Sector recognized the following problems while 

assessing the suitability of many NIR devices for operating in a regulatory application. 

x Constituents results were frequently displayed/recorded with no clear indication of moisture basis. 

x Field inspectors had no way to determine the moisture basis from which calibration was derived. 

The issue of special calibrations was raised for genetically modified organisms (GMO) such as herbicide-resistant 

soybeans and high oil corn. A case was cited where a company’s contracts stipulated that product acceptability was based 

on tailoring device calibrations to the company’s product. A measurement system closely tied to one product bars other 

products from entering the marketplace. Equally competitive products are less likely to pass because they do not “fit” the 

special calibration. It was suggested that NIST-OWM should hold an informational meeting where representatives from 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-47

the special genetics sector of the grain processing and grain trade industry and producer organizations could be made 

aware of national uniformity and how equity in the marketplace affects NIR devices in a regulated environment. 

Mr. David Funk (GIPSA) noted that GIPSA is not required to provide inspection for non-grade determining factors. He 

also reported that GIPSA is interested in measuring value added commodities, especially those that might lead to 

expanding U.S. grain markets. Funk also reported that GIPSA will meet with individual biotechnology companies that 

have developed GMOs to discuss how they might work together. 

Several Sector members believed that establishing a nationally recognized reference laboratory is essential to an effective 

enforcement program. Sector members noted the importance of establishing a lead laboratory that is empowered to 

mediate or resolve disputes for multiple laboratories operating in the program. 

The Sector agreed that until the issues revealed in the NIR study can be resolved, the current Handbook 44 NIR Code 

should remain tentative. The Sector Technical Advisor and NTEP Laboratory representatives were asked to develop a 

proposal that addresses the moisture basis issue for consideration by the Sector by August 2000. The Sector plans to 

forward a recommendation to the NCWM for consideration by the 2001 Annual Meeting. 

During the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) S&T Committee work session, one NIR Sector 

member commented that the Sector plans to significantly modify this proposal; therefore, the WWMA recommended that 

this item remain informational pending proposed modifications by the Sector. 

The Central Weights and Measures Associations noted that adding constituents to the NIR Code may delay moving the 

code from tentative to permanent status. 

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association recommended this item to remain informational until the NIR 

Sector proposes any modifications.

The S&T Committee considered the Sector’s proposal to modify the Near-Infrared Grain Analyzer Code to recognize 

moisture basis for corn protein, oil, and starch, barley protein, and soybean protein, and oil. The Sector provided grain 

industry comments to the Committee indicating that the current market is undecided on the appropriate moisture basis for 

wheat and other constituents. Therefore, the Committee recommended that the proposal be given informational status to 

allow the Sector time to develop appropriate language that addresses moisture basis for new constituents. 

360 Other Items 

360-1 I Revise NIST Handbook 44 

A Work Group was appointed in 1999 by then NCWM Chairman Wes Diggs to review and revise NIST Handbook 44 to 

simplify its language and format. This item is included in the S&T Committee Agenda to provide interested parties with 

information on work affecting Handbook 44. The Handbook 44 Working Group held its first meeting in Olympia, 

Washington, in September 25, 1999, when it developed a tentative work plan. 

The Western, Central, and Southern Weights and Measures Associations support the Working Group’s efforts and 

encourage completion of their work. 

The Northeastern Weights and Measures (NEWMA) strongly supported NCWM Chairman Diggs’ efforts in forming a 

Work Group to review and re-format Handbook 44. There was unanimous agreement that the content of Handbook 44 

has become very difficult for the average field inspector to interpret because of the technical language. Since the advent 

of NTEP, technically related items come before the NCWM S&T Committee that relate more to implementing NTEP 

policies than addressing the needs of weights and measures officials. NEWMA recognized the need to address issues in 

Publication 14, but Handbook 44 needs to be revised, reformatted, and simplified to address the needs of the field 

officials. The NEWMA encouraged the Working Group to develop a product that returns to the original intent of 

Handbook 44 and retains the concept of "basic understanding." 

During the 2000 Annual Meeting, Work Group Chairman Ron Murdock (NC) reported that work is in progress by two 

Work Group Subcommittees to reformat specific code areas; however, no changes are planned to the text. Chairman 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-48

Murdock indicated plans to update the Board of Directors on the group’s work at the 2001 NCWM Interim Meeting. The 

Work Group will ask for approval for work completed and the direction on the next phase of revising NIST Handbook 44. 

For additional details on the Working Group, refer to Board of Director’s Agenda Item 101-16. 

360–2 I International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Report

The Committee received an updated OIML Activities report from Ken Butcher and Wayne Stiefel, in the NIST Technical 

Standards Activities Program and a report on program changes from Dr. Charles Ehrlich, the new Program Chief. This 

report is included as part of the NCWM OIML Board of Director’s Final Report Item 101-10 Program, International 

Organization of Legal Metrology, Appendix B. 

The Committee on the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML), the Asian-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum 

(APLMF), and other international activities are generally within the purview of the S&T Committee. Additional 

information on OIML activities is available on the OIML web site at http://www.oiml.org/. 

For more information on weighing devices and taximeters, contact Ken Butcher by telephone at 301-975-4859 or by email at kenneth.butcher@nist.gov. For more information on measuring devices contact Wayne Stiefel by telephone at 

301-975-4011, or by e-mail at s.stiefel@nist.gov. Mr. Butcher and Mr. Stiefel can also be reached at NIST, 100 Bureau 

Drive STOP 2150, Gaithersburg, MD 20899 or by fax at 301-926-1559. 

360–3 D Developing Issues 

The NCWM established a process to disseminate information about emerging issues which have merit and are of national 

interest. Developing issues have not received sufficient review by all parties affected by the proposals or may be 

insufficiently developed, to warrant review by the NCWM S&T Committee. The developing issues listed were reviewed 

by at least one regional association or technical committee. The S&T Committee encourages interested parties to 

examine the proposals and send their comments to the contact listed in each item. 

The developing issues are listed in the following appendices: Appendix A-Scales, Appendix B-Belt-Conveyor Scale 

Systems, Appendix C-Taximeters, and Appendix D-Grain Moisture Meters. Each appendix contains all developing items 

related to a specific Handbook 44 Code Section. 

During the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee did not take comments on developing issues. The Committee 

did not receive notice from interested parties planning to address any developing issues at the open hearing session. 

The Committee asked that the regional weights and measures associations, and Sectors continue their work to fully 

develop each proposal. Should an association or Sector decide to discontinue work on a developmental item, the 

Committee asks that it be notified as soon as possible. 

At the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee asked that submitters of developing items present updates on these 

issues for the 2001Agenda. Submitters are encouraged to provide regular updates on work that has been done to prepare 

these issues for S&T Committee action. 

Monty H. Hopper, Kern County, California, Chairman 

Constantine V. Cotsoradis, Kansas 

Mark Coyne, City of Brockton, Massachusetts 

George S. Shefcheck, Oregon 

Richard W. Wotthlie, Maryland 

Ted Kingsbury, Canada, Technical Advisor 

Juana Williams, NIST, Technical Advisor 

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-49

Appendix A (Item 360-3) 

Developing Issues – Scales 

Item 1 D Livestock Scales, Concentrated Load Capacity (CLC) Requirements 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector

Recommendation: Modify Handbook 44 to address CLC requirements for livestock scales. 

Discussion: NIST Handbook 44 requires marking of scales with the CLC; however, there are no specific guidelines to 

determine performance of a livestock scale based on CLC. 

The Handbook 44 definition for CLC addresses vehicle scales and describes the vehicle footprint where the load may be 

concentrated during scale use and test. Specifically, the Handbook 44 CLC vehicle scale formula is derived from the 

Federal Highway Bridge Formula and represents the maximum load concentration for a group of two or more axles with a 

centerline spaced 4 feet apart for an axle width of 8 feet. The CLC maximum load test pattern that applies to vehicle 

scales does not represent the typical loading pattern of a livestock scale platform. The weight load of live animals may be 

distributed randomly or animals may group together in one corner of the platform. The USDA Grain Inspection Packers 

and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) recommends a maximum load of 110 pounds per square foot for livestock scales. 

The Sector’s Technical Advisor plans to work with GIPSA to develop a proposal for livestock scale loading. For input on 

this item, contact Weighing Sector Chairman Nigel Mills (Hobart Corporation) by telephone at 937-332-3205 or 

Technical Advisor Richard Suiter (NIST) by telephone at 301-975-4406. 

Item 2 D Items by Count; Indications and Recorded Representations 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector

Recommendation: Modify Handbook 44 to prohibit items by count in decimal indications or recorded representations. 

Discussion: The Weighing Sector examined a proposal to develop language in Handbook 44 to prohibit expressing items 

by count as decimal values; however, no specific language was forwarded to the NCWM S&T Committee. The 

Publication 14 checklist for Electronic Cash Registers (ECRs) Interfaced with Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers (paragraph 

3.7 page 9-11) states that decimal expressions of items by count are acceptable; however, the ECR Scales checklist has no 

corresponding criteria. 

Manufacturers recommend that the Sector notify all parties who might be affected by proposed changes to Handbook 44 

and Publication 14 to correct the decimal indication of items by count. Contact Weighing Sector Chairman Nigel Mills 

(Hobart Corporation) by telephone at 937-332-3205 or Technical Advisor Richard Suiter (NIST) by telephone at 301-

975-4406 to provide input on this issue. 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-50

Appendix B (Item 360-3) 

Developing Issues – Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems 

Item 1 D S.1.4. Recording Elements and Recorded Representations 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.1.4. Recording Elements and Recorded Representations as follows: 

S.1.4. Recording Elements and Recorded Representations. - The value of the scale division of 

the recording element shall be the same as that of the indicating element. The belt-conveyor 

scale system shall record the initial indication and the final indication of the master weight 

totalizer*, the quantity delivered*, the unit of measurement (e.g., kilograms, tonnes, pounds, 

tons, etc.), the date, and time. A zero reference number shall be recorded before and after any 

initial or final unit of weighment**. This information shall be recorded for each delivery*. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986.] 

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1994.] 

[**Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2002.] 

(Amended 1993) 

Discussion: The proposal is intended to inform the buyer and seller that a zero condition is established at both the start 

and end of each transaction. Contact the WWMA S&T Committee, Belt Conveyor Scale Sector Chairman Paul Chase 

(Chase Technology) by telephone at 612-427-2356 or Technical Advisor Richard Suiter (NIST) by telephone at 301-975-

4406 to provide input on this issue. 

Item 2 D S.3.1. Design of Zero-Setting Mechanism 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.3.1. Design of Zero-Setting Mechanism as follows: 

S.3.1. Design of Zero-Setting Mechanism. - The range of the zero-setting mechanism shall 

not be greater than  2 percent (4 percent zero range**) of the rated capacity of the scale 

without breaking the security means. Automatic and semi-automatic zero-setting 

mechanisms shall be so constructed that the resetting operation is carried out only after a 

whole number of belt revolutions and the completion of the setting or the whole operation is 

indicated. An audio or visual signal shall be given when the automatic and semiautomatic zerosetting mechanisms reach the limit of adjustment of the zero-setting mechanism.* 

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1990.] 

[**Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2002.] 

(Amended 1989) 

Discussion: The proposal restricts the system’s zero-setting mechanism to only automatic means. There are concerns 

about conflicts with OIML requirements which permit a semiautomatic zero-setting mechanism. Some devices in the 

marketplace are equipped with only a semiautomatic zero-setting mechanism for adjusting zero. The proposed range as 

written is not intended as a twofold increase in the permissible zero-setting mechanism range. 

To provide input on this proposal, contact the WWMA S&T Committee, Belt Conveyor Scale Sector Chairman Paul 

Chase (Chase Technology) by telephone at 612-427-2356 or Technical Advisor Richard Suiter (NIST) by telephone at 

301-975-4406. 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-51

Item 3 D S.3.2. - Sensitivity at Zero Load (For Type Evaluation) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.3.2. - Sensitivity at Zero Load (For Type Evaluation) as follows:

Sensitivity at Zero Load (For Type Evaluation). - When a system is operated for a time period 

equal to the time required to deliver the minimum test load and with a test load calculated to 

indicate two scale divisions 0.12 percent applied directly to the weighing element, the totalizer 

shall advance not less than one 0.06 percent or more than three scale divisions 0.18 percent of its 

rated capacity. An alternative test of equivalent sensitivity, as specified by the manufacturer, 

shall also be acceptable. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986.] 

Discussion: The proposal is intended to declare tolerances as percentage values, rather than scale division values. The 

WWMA asked industry for comments about the proposed tolerances. To provide input, contact the WWMA S&T 

Committee, Belt Conveyor Scale Sector Chairman Paul Chase (Chase Technology) by telephone at 612-427-2356 or 

Technical Advisor Richard Suiter (NIST) by telephone at 301-975-4406. 

Item 4 D N.3.1. Zero Load Tests 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph N.3.1. Zero Load Tests as follows:

N.3.1. Zero Load Tests. – If a belt-conveyor scale system has been idle for a period of two 

hours or more, the system shall be run for not less than 30 minutes when the temperature is 

above 5 qC (41 qF). When the temperature is below 5 qC (41 qF), additional warm-up time, 

depending upon conditions, is required before beginning the zero-load tests. The variation 

between the beginning and ending indication of the master weight totalizer shall not exceed

be one than B1 scale division B0.06 percent of the rated capacity when the instrument 

automatic zero-setting mechanism is operated at no load for a period of time equivalent to 

that required to deliver the minimum totalized load of 1000 scale divisions. 

The zero-load test shall be conducted over a whole number of belt revolutions, but not less 

than three revolutions or 10 minutes operation, whichever is greater. 

During any portion of the zero-load test, the totalizer shall not change more than three scale 

divisions exceed a range of 0.18 percent of its rated capacity from its initial indication 

(Amended 1989) 

Discussion: The proposal is intended to provide a better statistical method of determining the system’s sensitivity 

because it is expressed as a percent of the rated capacity. The zero is established based on the automatic zero-setting 

mechanism, and that zero is adequately monitored. 

The WWMA recommends that this item be given informational status and asks for input from industry representatives. 

Forward comments on this issue to WWMA S&T Committee, Belt Conveyor Scale Sector Chairman Paul Chase (Chase 

Technology) by telephone at 612-427-2356 or Technical Advisor Richard Suiter (NIST) by telephone at 301-975-4406. 

Item 5 D N.3.2. Material Tests 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph N.3.2. Material Tests as follows:

N.3.2. Material Tests.

 (f) On initial verification, at least three individual materials tests shall be conducted.

 On subsequent verifications, at least two individual materials tests shall be 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-52

conducted. [The performance of the equipment is not to be determined by averaging 

the results of the individual tests when more than one source of material or top-size is 

used in the weighing process. The results of all these materials tests shall be within 

the tolerance limits. 

(Amended 1986 and 1989) 

Discussion: The proposal is intended to require test of the conveyor as used when there is more than one source or size 

of material for the material test. The proposal clarifies that the material test results must not be averaged when there are 

multiple sources and sizes of material. The WWMA believes that the repeated use of the term “material test” is 

unnecessary and that the term “top size” is confusing and requires defining. The WWMA believes that the proposal has 

merit; however, the item remains developmental until these concerns are addressed. 

Contact the WWMA S&T Committee, Belt Conveyor Scale Sector Chairman Paul Chase (Chase Technology) by 

telephone at 612-427-2356 or Technical Advisor Richard Suiter (NIST) by telephone at 301-975-4406 with any 

comments. 

Item 6 D T.1.2. Variation in Zero Reference Values 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Add new paragraph T.1.2. Variation in Zero Reference Values to the Belt-Conveyor Scale Systems 

Code as follows: 

T.1.2. Variation in Zero Reference Values. - Variation in a zero reference number on a no-load 

conveyor system shall not be greater than r0.25 percent of the rated capacity of the scale when 

randomly monitored 95 out of 100 zero measurements in a natural environment. Ambient 

temperature shall be in a range not greater than 20 qC (36 qF) in a 24-hour period.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2002.]

Discussion: Environmental factors such as wind, moisture, dust, and temperature, affect a belt-conveyor scale system’s 

zero under no-load condition. The proposal is intended to establish acceptable variations in the zero value over specific 

temperature intervals. 

The WWMA noted that the proposed range does not cover all environmental temperature conditions. The WWMA 

recommended modifying the proposal to express a relationship between tolerances and temperature ranges; it made this 

item developmental to allow additional time for input on this modification. To provide input, contact the WWMA S&T 

Committee, Belt Conveyor Scale Sector Chairman Paul Chase (Chase Technology) by telephone at 612-427-2356 or 

Technical Advisor Richard Suiter (NIST) by telephone at 301-975-4406. 

Item 7 D UR.2.2. Conveyor Installation 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraphs UR.2.2.(a) and (b) Conveyor Installation as follows: 

UR.2.2. Conveyor Installation. - The design and installation of the conveyor leading to and 

from the belt-conveyor scale is critical with respect to scale performance. The conveyor may 

be horizontal or inclined but, if inclined, the angle shall be such that slippage of material 

along the belt does not occur. The belt-conveyor shall be protected from any precipitation.

Installation shall be in accordance with the scale manufacturer’s instructions and the 

following: 

(a) a belt-conveyor scale structure shall be so installed that neither its performance nor 

operation will be adversely affected by any characteristic of the weighed material,

foundation, supports, covers (when present), or any other equipment;

(b) all live portions of the conveyor scale structure shall be protected by appropriate guard 

devices. On incline belt-conveyors, scale structure and surrounding supports shall have a 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-53

minimum clearance of 10 percent above the top-size of the material (but not to exceed 3 

inches) to prevent accidental interference with the weighing operation; 

The proposal is intended to prevent belt-conveyor scales in a no load condition from indicating an incorrect zero when 

environmental or physical factors that adversely affect the system are undetected. 

The WWMA recognized that pending NCWM action on 2000 Agenda Item 321-2 UR.2.2. Conveyor Installation and 

UR.2.2.1 For Scales not Installed by the Manufacturer (1999 Carryover Item 321-2) may affect this proposal. Therefore, 

the WWMA recommended this proposal be given developmental status. Contact the WWMA S&T Committee, Belt 

Conveyor Scale Sector Chairman Paul Chase (Chase Technology) by telephone at 612-427-2356 or Technical Advisor 

Richard Suiter (NIST) by telephone at 301-975-4406 with comments. 

Item 8 D UR.3.2. (b) Maintenance 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph to paragraph UR.3.2. Maintenance and modify paragraph UR.3.2. as follows: 

UR.3.2. Maintenance 

(b) Simulated load tests or materials tests shall be conducted at periodic intervals between 

official tests, certification, when the scale system runs under a no-load condition to 

provide reasonable assurance that the device is performing correctly. The action to be 

taken as a result of simulated load test is as follows: 

A materials test shall be performed under any environmental conditions and in any ambient 

temperature range. The action to be taken as a result of materials test error is as follows:

Discussion: The proposal is intended to prevent any party from benefiting from the zero bias of a belt-conveyor scale 

system. 

The WWMA finds some merit in this new proposal, but it recommends the proposal be given developmental status.

Contact the WWMA S&T Committee, Belt Conveyor Scale Sector Chairman Paul Chase (Chase Technology) by 

telephone at 612-427-2356 or Technical Advisor Richard Suiter (NIST) by telephone at 301-975-4406 with comments. 

Item 9 D UR.3.2. (e) Maintenance 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph UR.3.2. Maintenance (e) as follows: 

UR.3.2. Maintenance 

(d) Records of calibration and maintenance, including conveyor alignment, chart recorder, 

auto-zero tracking and materials test data shall be maintained on site for at least three

seven current years to develop a history of scale performance. Copies of any report as a 

result of a test or repair shall be mailed to the official with statutory authority as 

required. The current date and correction factor(s) for simulated load equipment shall 

be recorded and maintained in the scale cabinet. 

(Amended 1991) 

Discussion: The WWMA recognized that the chart recorder provides information about the feed rates and performs a 

separate function from other items already listed UR.3.2. (e). The WWMA asked for input from operators/customers to 

determine the necessity of maintaining data for 7 years. 

The WWMA recognizes pending NCWM action on 2000 Agenda Item 321-5 UR.3.2.(c) Maintenance; Scale Alignment 

(1998 Carryover Item 321-4) may affect this proposal. The WWMA recommended that this proposal be given 

developmental status. Contact the WWMA S&T Committee, Belt Conveyor Scale Sector Chairman Paul Chase (Chase 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-54

Technology) by telephone at 612-427-2356 or Technical Advisor Richard Suiter (NIST) by telephone at 301-975-4406 to 

provide input. 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-55

Appendix C (Item 360-3) 

Developing Issues – Taximeters 

Item 1 D S.1.2. Advancement of Indicating Elements 

Source: Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph S.1.2. Advancement of Indicating Elements as follows: 

S.1.2. Advancement of Indicating Elements. - Except when a taximeter is being cleared, the 

primary indicating and recording elements shall be susceptible of advancement only by the 

movement of the vehicle or by the time mechanism. The meter shall only recognize distance 

input from the designated distance-measuring element and shall be capable of operation 

within the prescribed tolerances when subjected to electromagnetic disturbances.

(Amended 1988) 

Discussion: Taximeters are capable of defrauding customers through the use of external oscillator circuits that add 

distance pulses to the distance input line of the meter. These easily designed circuits can be built with parts available at 

any electronics supply store. This proposal was developed to establish a standard requiring taximeters to detect and 

ignore fraudulent signals. 

After the 2000 Interim Meeting, the Committee received written comment on paragraph S.1.2. Advancement of Indicating 

Elements (Agenda Item 360-3 Developing Issues, Appendix C-Taximeters) from the New York City Taxi and Limousine 

Commission. The Commission supported action to adopt requirements for equipping taximeters with an “anti-zapper” 

feature. 

Contact NEWMA representative Ross Andersen (New York) by telephone at 518-457-3146 to comment on this proposal. 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-56

Appendix D (Item 360-3) 

Developing Issues – Grain Moisture Meters 

Item 1 D Modify the Grain Moisture Meters Code to Recognize Indications and 

 Recorded Representations in Weight per Bushel 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) Sector 

Recommendation: Modify 5.56(a) Grain Moisture Meter Code Section in Handbook 44 to recognize indications and 

recorded representation in weight per bushel as follows: 

Amend the following paragraphs: 

A.1. – This code applies to grain moisture meters; that is, devices used to indicate directly the 

moisture content of cereal grain and oil seeds. The code consists of general requirements 

applicable to all moisture meters and specific requirements applicable only to certain types of 

moisture meters. Requirements cited for “test weight per bushel” indications or recorded 

representations are applicable to devices incorporating an automatic test weight per bushel 

measuring feature. 

S.1.1. Digital Indications and Recording Elements. 

(c) Meters shall be equipped with a communication interface that permits interfacing

 with a recording element and transmitting the date, grain type, grain moisture

 results, or test weight per bushel values and calibration version identification. 

(d) A digital indicating element shall not display and a recording element shall not

 record any moisture content values or test weight per bushel values before the end of

 the measurement cycle. 

(e) Moisture content results shall be displayed and recorded as percent moisture 

content, wet basis. Test weight per bushel results shall be displayed and recorded as 

pounds per bushel. Subdivisions of this these units shall be in terms of decimal 

subdivisions (not fractions). 

(g) A meter shall not display or record any moisture content or test weight per bushel

values when the moisture content or test weight per bushel of the grain sample is 

beyond the operating range of the device, unless the moisture and test weight

representation includes a clear error indication (and recorded error message with 

the recorded representation). 

(g) On multi-constituent meters (e.g., meters which also measure grain protein), 

provision shall be made for displaying and recording the constituent label (such as 

moisture, protein, etc.) to make it clear which constituent is associated with each of 

the displayed and recorded values. (Added 1995) (Added 1993) (Amended 1994 and 

1995) 

S1.4. Value of Smallest Unit. – The display shall permit constituent moisture value 

determination to both 0.01 percent and 0.1 percent solution. The 0.1 percent resolution is for 

commercial transactions; the 0.01 percent resolution is for type evaluation and calibration 

purposes only, not for commercial purposes. Test weight per bushel values shall be 

determined to the nearest 0.1 pound per bushel.

S.2.4.1. Calibration Version. – A meter must be capable of displaying either calibration 

constants, a unique calibration name, or a unique calibration version number for use in 

verifying that the latest version of the calibration is being used to make moisture content and

test weight per bushel determinations. 

(Added 1993)(Amended 1995) 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-57

S.2.6. Determination of Quantity and Temperature. – The moisture meter system shall not 

require the operator to judge the precise volume or weight and temperature needed to make 

an accurate moisture determination. External grinding, weighing, and temperature 

measurement operations are not permitted. In addition, if the meter is capable of measuring 

test weight per bushel, determination of sample volume and weight for this measurement 

shall be fully automatic.

(Added 1994)(Amended 1995) 

S.4. Operating Instructions and Use Limitations. – The manufacturer shall furnish operating 

instructions for the device and accessories that include complete information concerning the 

accuracy, sensitivity, and use of accessory equipment necessary in obtaining a moisture 

content. Operating instructions shall include the following information: 

(d) the kind or classes of grain or seed for which the device is designed to measure moisture 

content and test weight per bushel;

(e) the limitations of use, including but not confined to the moisture measurement range, test 

weight per bushel range, grain or seed temperature, maximum allowable temperature 

difference between grain sample and meter, kind or class of grain or seed, moisture 

meter temperature, voltage and frequency ranges, electromagnetic interferences, and 

necessary accessory equipment. 

(Added 1984) 

N.1.1. Transfer Standards.1

 - Official grain samples shall be used as the official transfer 

standards with moisture content values assigned by the reference methods. The reference 

methods shall be the oven drying methods as specified by the USDA GIPSA. The test weight 

per bushel value assigned to a test weight transfer standard shall be the average of 10 test 

weight per bushel determinations using the quart kettle test weight per bushel apparatus as 

specified by the USDA GIPSA. Tolerances shall be applied to the average of at least three 

measurements on each official grain sample. Official grain samples shall be clean and 

naturally moist, but not tempered (i.e., water not added). 

(Amended 1992) 

N.1.2. Minimum Test.1

 - A minimum test of a grain moisture meter shall consist of tests:

(a)with samples (need not exceed three) of each grain or seed type (need not exceed three) for 

which the device is used, and for each grain or seed type shall include the following:

(a) tests of moisture indications, with samples having at least two different moisture

 content values within the operating range of the device. , and if applicable, 

(b) tests of test weight indications, with at least the lowest moisture samples used in 

above.

(Amended 1986 and 1989) 

1

 The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards 

Administration (GIPSA) uses a single brand and model of moisture meter for official 

inspection of moisture content in grains and other commodities. The moisture calibrations 

for the model are based on the official air-oven method and are developed and monitored on 

an established schedule using a broad range (with respect to geographical source, kind, class, 

moisture content, maturity, etc.) of grain samples at its central laboratory. GIPSA uses a 

hierarchical series of meter-to-meter intercomparisons to determine whether its field meters 

are operating within acceptable tolerances ( 0.2% with respect to standard meters). It has 

been shown that field meters checked by GIPSA procedures perform within H-44 

maintenance tolerances (T.2.) when tested (N.1.) using official grain samples. Agencies 

lacking a sample capability representing the entire nation and traceable to the official 

laboratory reference method shall not use meter-to-meter field testing. 

T.2. Tolerance Value. – Maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall be as shown in Table 

T.2. Tolerances for moisture measurements are expressed as a fraction of the percent 

moisture content of the official grain sample, together with a minimum tolerance. Tolerances 
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-58

for test weight per bushel are (+) positive or (-) negative with respect to the value assigned to 

the official grain sample.

UR.1.1. Value of the Smallest Unit on Primary Indicating and Recording Elements. – The 

resolution of the moisture meter display shall be 0.1 percent moisture and 0.1 pounds per 

bushel test weight during commercial use. 

UR.3.4. Printed Tickets 

(b) The customer shall be given a printed ticket showing the date, grain type, grain

 moisture results, test weight per bushel and calibration version identification. The

 ticket shall be generated by the grain moisture meter system. 

(Amended 1993 and 1995) 

UR.3.10 Posting of Meter Operating Range. – The operating range of the grain moisture 

meter shall be clearly and conspicuously posted in the place of business such that the 

information is readily visible from a reasonable customer position. The posted information 

shall include the following: 

(b) The moisture range and test weight per bushel range for each grain or seed for which 

the meter is to be used. 

Modify Table T.2. Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerances for Grain Moisture Meters as follows: 

Table T.2. Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerances for Grain Moisture Meters 

Moisture 

Type of Grain or Seed Acceptance and 

Maintenance Tolerance 

Minimum Tolerance 

Corn, oats, rice, 

sorghum, sunflower 

0.05 of the percent 

moisture content 

0.8 percent in moisture 

content

All other cereal grains 

and oil seeds 

0.04 of the percent 

moisture content 

0.7 percent in moisture 

content

Test Weight per Bushel

Type of Grain or Seed Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerance

Corn, oats 0.8 pounds per bushel

All wheat classes 0.5 pounds per bushel

Soybeans, barley, oats, 

rice, sunflower, 

sorghum

0.7 pounds per bushel

Add the following paragraph: 

S.1.3. Operating Range. – A meter shall automatically and clearly indicate when the 

operating range of the meter has been exceeded. The operating range shall specify the 

following: 

(e) Test Weight per Bushel Range of the Grain or Seed. The test weight per bushel 

range of each grain or seed for which the meter is to be used shall be specified. A test 

weight per bushel value may be displayed when the test weight per bushel range is 

exceeded if accompanied by a clear indication that the test weight per bushel range 

has been exceeded.

Remove the following paragraph: 

T.3. For Test Weight Per Bushel Indications or Recorded Representations. – The 

maintenance and acceptance tolerances on test weight per bushel indications or recorded 

representations shall be 0.193 kg/hL or 0.15 lb/bu. The test methods used shall be those 

specified by the USDA GIPSA.

(Amended 1992)
Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

S&T-59

Discussion: The proposal was developed to provide a broader approach to the tolerance issue and establishes a separate 

standard covering automatic test weight per bushel (TW) devices with tolerances which address the specific application. 

The Sector heard that the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) is close to evaluating a 

prototype automatic TW apparatus which might have more stringent tolerance requirements than moisture meters. The 

Sector also noted that it would be much easier to add requirements to the Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) Code than to 

develop a separate code. If necessary, the Sector may later consider developing a separate code for stand-alone automatic 

TW apparatus. 

To provide manufacturers with a better idea about how the proposed code might apply to type evaluation, a subcommittee 

was formed to draft Publication 14 test procedures and a checklist that address GMMs with test weight per bushel 

capability. The subcommittee was asked to prepare a draft for the Sector to consider at its next meeting. 

Six public Sector members agreed to conduct a field evaluation to further examine the proposed tolerances and test 

methods. Dr. Charles Hurburgh (Iowa State University, Agricultural Extension Service) agreed to draft a test form and 

develop the protocol for the field evaluation. A report of the field test results will be presented at the Sector’s next 

meeting. 

The Sector agreed that it was premature to recommend that the NCWM adopt the proposed changes to the Grain Moisture 

Meter Code until the subcommittee and States complete their work. To provide input on this proposal, contact the Grain 

Moisture Meter Sector Chairman Richard Wotthlie (Maryland) by telephone at 410-841-5790, Technical Advisors John 

Barber (J.B. Associates, representing NIST on contract) by telephone at 217-483-4232, or Diane Lee (NIST) by telephone 

at 301-975-4405. 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P-1

Report of the Committee on 

Administration and Public Affairs

Jerry Flanders, Chairman 

Georgia Department of Agriculture 

Atlanta, Georgia 

Reference 

Key Number 

400 Introduction 

The Committee on Administration and Public Affairs (A&P Committee) submits its Annual Report for the 85th National 

Conference on Weights and Measures. This document consists of the Interim Report presented in NCWM Publication 16 

“Committee Reports,” as amended in the Addendum Sheets issued during the Annual Meeting. The Committee 

considered communications it received prior to and during the Annual Meeting in developing this report. 

Table A identifies all of the items contained in the report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The 

item numbers are those assigned in the Interim Meeting Agenda. Voting items are indicated with a “V” after the item 

number. Items marked with an “I” after the reference key number are informational items. Table B lists the Appendices 

to the report, and Table C provides a summary of the results of the voting on the Committee’s items and the report in its 

entirety.

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items 

Reference 

Key No. Title of Item Page

401 Regional Weights and Measures Association Activities......................................................................................2 

401-1 I Regional Reports..................................................................................................................................2 

402 Program Management...........................................................................................................................................2 

402-1 V Voluntary Program Assessment Working Group ................................................................................2 

402-2 I Safety Information...............................................................................................................................4 

402-3 I NCWM Internet Home Page ...............................................................................................................5 

403 Education.................................................................................................................................................................5 

403-1 I National Training Program..................................................................................................................5 

403-2 I Associate Membership Scholarship Fund............................................................................................7 

403-3 I NCWM Certified Instructors ...............................................................................................................7 

403-4 I Education Sessions – 2000 Conference...............................................................................................8 

403-5 I Service Personnel Training..................................................................................................................8 

404 Public Affairs..........................................................................................................................................................9 

404-1 I Weights and Measures Week 2000......................................................................................................9 

404-2 I National Consumer Protection Week 2000 .........................................................................................9 

404-3 I Promoting Weights and Measures in the United States.......................................................................9 

404-4 I Publicity for the 85th NCWM Annual Meeting....................................................................................9 

404-5 I Participating in the NIST 100th Anniversary Celebration....................................................................9 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P – 2 

Table B 

Appendices 

 Appendix Title Page 

Appendix A Retail Motor Fuel Program Self-Assessment Checklist ....................................................................11 

Appendix B Associate Membership Committee Scholarship Report ....................................................................23 

Appendix C National Training Program Summary................................................................................................24

Table C 

Voting Results 

House of State 

Representatives House of Delegates Reference Key Number 

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays 

Results 

402-1 42 0 65 0 Passed 

400 41 0 64 0 Passed 

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

401 Regional Weights and Measures Association Activities 

401-1 I Regional Reports

The A&P Committee reviewed the reports from the Northeast and Central Regional Associations. We request that each 

Regional Association: 

1. Have the safety liaison (see 403-2) make a safety-related presentation during its annual regional meeting. 

2. Identify training needs of the association, individual jurisdictions, and service personnel. 

3. Promote the NCWM Certified Instructor Program (see 403-3). 

4. Sponsor a Train-the-Trainer Class for its members (see 403-3). 

402 Program Management 

402-1 V Voluntary Program Assessment Working Group 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Board of Directors 

Background: Sid Colbrook of the State of Illinois chaired the Voluntary Program Assessment Working Group (VPAW). 

The group's primary task was to develop a voluntary self-assessment program for weights and measures agencies. The 

original objective of establishing a national database to evaluate the effectiveness of weights and measures programs has 

been expanded to include minimum standards for weights and measures programs, model report forms, and criteria for 

self-assessment. Ross Andersen (NY) formed a Retail Motor Fuel Subgroup including Steve Martin (NY), Mike Sikula 

(NY), Barbara DeSalvo (OH), and Mike Belue (Belue Associates) that developed an evaluation checklist for retail motor-
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P-3

fuel dispensers. The Subgroup also developed a model report form for inspecting and testing retail motor-fuel dispensers 

and minimum standards criteria. 

At the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, the A&P Committee reviewed the third draft of a checklist for assessing a retail 

motor fuel program prepared by the Retail Motor Fuel Subgroup. The Retail Motor-Fuel Program Self-Assessment 

Checklist uses a question and answer format that allows users to perform a comprehensive program review by comparing 

the different program components to the model requirements in the checklist. The checklist contains minimum 

requirements for laws and regulations, test equipment, training, supervision, and enforcement practices. It also includes 

separate checklists for the administrative and inspection functions of a program. The checklist for retail motor-fuel 

devices serves as the model for future checklists for retail computing and vehicle scales, vehicle-tank meters, loading-rack 

meters, and other program functions such as package inspection. 

Prior to the 85th Annual Meeting in July, VPAW met with members of the A&P Committee, Georgia Harris, Technical 

Advisor to the Metrology Subcommittee, and other interested parties. VPAW reported to the A&P Committee the status 

of the working group’s Self-Assessment Checklist for Retail Motor Fuel Inspection Programs and asked the A&P 

Committee for further direction of the working group. Ms. Harris presented to the VPAW a comparison of ISO/IEC 

Guide 17025 and VPAW’s Retail Motor Fuel Inspection Checklist and outlined the criteria for an “ideal self-assessment” 

program—a program based on international standards. While the self-assessment checklist is a first step, a workable 

infrastructure is needed to advance the program to meet international standards. Jack Kane (MT), a member of VPAW, 

also presented a self-assessment checklist that he developed for Vehicle Scales Testing Programs. The goal of VPAW 

and the A&P Committee is to have a checklist for all activities of the weights and measures program. 

The A&P Committee also agreed to establish a peer-review-based recognition program for jurisdictions that successfully 

complete the self-assessment. 

We commend Sid Colbrook and the other members of VPAW, especially Ross Andersen, Steve Martin, and Mike Sikula, 

Barbara DeSalvo, Mike Belue, and Jack Kane for volunteering their time and talents to develop the checklists. 

Volunteers Needed 

The A&P Committee requested volunteers to field test future checklists and assist in finalizing them for possible NCWM 

adoption. Volunteers from both State and local jurisdictions are invited to participate in the field evaluation of the 

checklists to ensure that they meet the diverse needs of the weights and measures community. To volunteer, please 

contact Sid Colbrook by e-mail at scolbrook@agr.state.il.us, by telephone at 217-785-8301 or by fax at 217-524-7801.

Volunteers are also needed to help develop checklists for other weights and measure activities such as retail computing 

scales, vehicle-tank meters, and others using the Retail Motor-Fuel Program Self-Assessment Checklist as a model. The 

checklist will be provided in electronic format and administrative and technical assistance will be available. Contact Sid 

Colbrook to volunteer. 

Presentation at Annual Meeting 

The A&P Committee sponsored a presentation on the Retail Motor-Fuel Program Self-Assessment Checklist at the 85th 

Annual Meeting.

Committee Recommendation: Based on information provided to the Committee and comments from the floor, modify 

the recommendation section of the report to read as follows: 

Adopt the concept of voluntary self-assessment checklists for various areas of weights and 

measures inspection similar to the Retail Motor Fuel Dispenser checklists presented in Appendix 

A. The A&P Committee will establish a peer-review-based recognition program for jurisdictions 

that submit completed self- assessment checklists. The A&P Committee will routinely update and 

improve the checklists to ensure they reflect the needs of weights and measures programs. The 

A&P Committee will work with the Voluntary Program Assessment Work Group and the 

Metrology Subcommittee to make the self-assessment checklists as compatible as possible with 

established quality standards. 

The A&P Committee needs volunteers from the weights and measures community to serve as members of the 

peer-review group to evaluate the checklists and supporting documentation. 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P – 4 

402-2 I Safety Information 

Source: State and Local Jurisdictions Incident/Accident Report Forms 

The A&P Committee has not received any Incident/Accident Reports for the last 2 years. The NCWM Incident/Accident 

Report Form is available on the Internet at http://www.nist.gov/ncwm and on the OWM's Fax on Demand System at 1-

800-925-2453 (request document 301). The Committee is in the process of adding more safety information on the OWM 

Homepage on the Internet. Each regional association has appointed a safety liaison to coordinate safety-related issues 

within each region and to work with the Committee’s Safety Liaison, Charles Gardner. We hope that the regional liaisons 

will improve the distribution of safety information at the grassroots level. The Committee recommends that each regional 

association has its safety liaison make a safety-related presentation during each annual regional meeting. 

The Regional Safety Liaisons are: 

 Western Weights and Measures Association:

Craig Leisy, Supervisor Weights and Measures 

 Seattle Licenses and Consumer Affairs 

 805 South Dearborn Street 

 Seattle, WA 98134 

 Tel: 206-386-1129 Fax: 312-386-1129 E-mail: craig.leisy@ci.seattle.wa.us

Central Weights and Measures Association: 

 Sherry R. Fowlkes, Inspector 

Weights and Measures Department 

1903 St. Mary's Avenue 

Fort Wayne, IN 46808 

Tel: 219-427-1157 Fax: 219-427-5789 E-mail: sherry.fowlkes@ci.ft-wayne.in.us

Northeastern Weights and Measures Association: 

Michael J. Sikula 

 Weights and Measures Specialist 

 New York Bureau of Weights and Measures 

 373 North Road, Brookside Building (HRPC) 

 Poughkeepsie, NY 12601-1197 

 Tel: 914-473-7239 Fax: 914-473-3947 E-mail: weighpou@nysnet.net

Southern Weights and Measures Association: 

 Charles E. (Ed) Coleman 

 Standards Supervisor 

 Tennessee Department of Agriculture 

 Weights and Measures 

 P.O. Box 40627 Melrose Station 

 Nashville, Tennessee 37204 

 Tel: 615-837-5109 Fax: 615-837-5015 

Charles Gardner, Committee Safety Liaison, encourages the regional associations to include safety presentations at their 

meetings. We believe that it is important to make safety information available to all Conference members and interested 

parties. The “Report of the Task Force on Safety” (1991) is on the NCWM home page under the link “Publications and 

Programs.” This report and others are free and can be downloaded in Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). This 

access will make distributing the accident report form throughout the weights and measures community easier. See Item 

402-3 for additional information on the NCWM home page. 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P-5

402-3 I NCWM Internet Home Page 

http://www.nist.gov/ncwm

The NCWM maintains its home page free of charge on the NIST Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) site. The 

Committee is working with OWM to expand the variety, scope, and amount of information available on the home page to 

both publicize the Conference and inform and educate officials, industry, and consumers. For example, OWM has 

placed the “Report of the Task Force on Safety” (1991) and the “Report of the Task Force on Fraud” (1988) on the home 

page under the link “Publications and Programs.” Both reports are available at no charge and can be downloaded in 

Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). 

At the Committee’s request, OWM also placed the list of the National Training Program's "Certified Instructors," the

"NCWM Incident/Accident Report Form," and the "Retail Motor-Fuel Program Self-Assessment Checklist" on the home 

page so that these documents can have the widest possible distribution. The Committee is also investigating adding links 

to noncommercial sites that provide safety information (e.g., material safety data sheets), State and Federal laws and 

regulations, and home pages of State and local weights and measures offices. 

At the 85th Annual Meeting, the NCWM indicated that it will host its own home page in the near future. 

403 Education 

403-1 I National Training Program 

During the 2000 Interim Meeting, the A&P Committee began to implement the Training Delivery Plan adopted by the 

membership at the 84th Annual Meeting. 

The new training plan included procedures as follows: 

x Identify training courses to be offered. 

x Update and maintain training materials. 

x A process to classify trainers as certified or qualified to deliver training. 

x A process for ongoing quality assessment and improvement. 

One of the historic problems for the National Training Program is how to pay for developing and distributing training 

materials and for presenting an ample number of courses to meet the training needs of officials and service industry 

personnel. We believe that obtaining long-term and adequate funding for the National Training Program should be one of 

the Board of Director's highest priorities. We encourage the Board to work closely with the Legislative Liaison 

Committee and NIST to obtain Congressional funds to support this important effort. 

At the 85th Annual Meeting the A&P Committee met with the NCWM Board of Directors. The Board asked the A&P 

Committee to do the following: (1) re-focus its goals; (2) develop minimum criteria needed for an inspector to 

successfully perform specific weights and measures functions; and (3) develop a mechanism for evaluating whether the 

criteria have been met. The Board indicated that it would look to the professionals to develop the training materials. 

The presentation on the progress toward implementing the new National Training Plan that was originally scheduled for 

the Annual Meeting was cancelled due to the new direction given the Committee. 

Following is the National Training Plan as previously developed by the A&P Committee. A summary of the activity of 

the National Training Program can be found in Appendix C of this Report. 

Trainer Subcommittee 

One of the new proposals in the plan involved appointing a permanent Trainer Subcommittee to act as an advisory group 

to address training issues. The Subcommittee would determine training needs, select training courses to be presented, 

update existing training materials, and develop new training materials and courses as needed. The members of the 

Trainer Subcommittee would include representatives from the following groups: one experienced trainer from each 

regional weights and measures association, one industry member from weighing, one from measuring, and one from the 

packaging sector, and a NIST Technical Advisor. The Committee recommends that appointments to the Subcommittee 

be for a period of 5 years. 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P – 6 

The Committee agreed that appointing highly qualified members to the Subcommittee is one of the most important 

components of a viable training program. It also believes that the group must meet regularly (at least 2 weeks a year) to 

fulfill its duties, which include updating existing training materials and creating new courses. The success of the 

Subcommittee depends on available resources. For example, the weights and measures members must have a broad range 

of related experience, be active and competent trainers, and must have their agency's commitment of work time in which 

to perform the duties associated with the appointment. The NCWM must pay for travel, meeting, and administrative 

costs. We have also learned from Associate Membership Committee representatives that some members of the NCWM 

in private industry face limited or diminished resources and support for participating in extra activities (such as the 

Subcommittee). Given these realities, we believe that formally establishing the Subcommittee must wait until long-term 

funding is available to the NCWM to support all participants in this effort. The following budget was requested for the 

Subcommittee to the Board of Directors: 

Training Subcommittee Budget Request to NCWM 

1. Travel, hotel, and meal expenses for seven members of the Subcommittee (one official from each of four 

regional associations and up to three industry representatives). Note: NIST will pay for the technical advisors' 

expenses. We acknowledge that the estimate is high, but the Subcommittee members may also incur additional 

expenses in connection with developing and updating training materials. Their individual agencies or companies 

may not be able to cover these expenses. Subcommittee funds will pay for these expenses. 

 a. Using estimated maximum average cost (up to $1500 per person) x 7 = $10,500 per meeting. 

 b. Two meetings a year = $21,000 

2. Estimated annual cost for administrative support from NCWM Headquarters, expenses for meeting rooms, 

audio-visual equipment, reproduction, shipping, and miscellaneous costs (e.g., providing members with standard 

computer software to facilitate their work.) 

 a. $6,000 

 

 Total Annual Request for Training Subcommittee: $27,000 

Future Training 

The Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) currently has three staff vacancies for positions that support the training 

program. In addition, OWM's entire training staff is either involved in transferring NTEP administration to the NCWM 

or in preparing a new edition of NIST Handbook 133. Everyone on the Committee understands that there is always more 

work to do than time and people to do it. Consequently, the two training classes by OWM, originally scheduled for 2000, 

were cancelled. We believe that the NCWM membership will agree that both projects, NTEP transfer and Handbook 133, 

are high priority issues that, when completed, will benefit everyone. So we intend to work with OWM to support them on 

these projects while encouraging them to continue their training efforts. 

The A&P Committee is soliciting ideas on developing a priority list of training for future Instructor Training Courses. If 

future funding is available, we recommend that NIST present the following schools: 

For 2001, Instructor Training Schools be based on NTP Course 303 “Vehicle-Tank Meters” and Course 

602 “Commodity Regulations.” 

For 2002, Instructor Training Schools be based on NTP Course 203 "Medium Capacity Scales” and 

Course 601 “Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods.” 

We would also like to know how interested the members are in NCWM's developing schools that focus on inspecting and 

testing taximeters, automatic weighing systems, belt-conveyor scales, railroad scales, and timing devices. Please submit 

comments to Lynn Sebring at lynn.sebring@nist.gov, or contact Lynn at 301-975-4006. 

Funding Request 

The A&P Committee asked the Board of Directors to submit a request to NIST asking that OWM receive funds to 

continue to provide at least two Instructor Training Schools annually. 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P-7

OWM Instructor Training School Budget Request 

1. Travel, hotel, and meal expenses for 25 students. 

 a. Using estimated maximum average cost (up to $1500 per person) x 25 = $37,500 per school. 

 b. Two schools a year = $75,000 

2. Estimated annual cost for administrative support, expenses for training rooms, audio-visual equipment, 

reproduction, shipping, special transportation arrangements, and miscellaneous expenses. 

 a. $10,000 

 

 Total Annual Request to NIST Management for OWM Instructor Training Schools: $85,000 

403-2 I Associate Membership Scholarship Fund 

Source: Associate Membership Committee 

At the 84th NCWM, the Associate Membership Committee adopted a resolution to award 50 scholarships each in the 

amount of $500 for a total of $25,000. These scholarships were made available to State and local weights and measures 

jurisdictions to recover costs of inspector training and to regional associations for publishing newsletters. The Associate 

Membership Committee received a total of 73 scholarship applications this year and awarded scholarships to 3 regional 

and 1 State association, and 18 State and local jurisdictions. 

The funds were to be used to support newsletters for several regional associations and provide training in subjects ranging 

from test procedures for LPG-measuring devices to the National Type Evaluation Program. See Appendix B for a 

detailed list of the recipients and the type of training or education that will be provided from these funds. We thank the 

Associate Membership Committee for their generous support of weights and measures training programs and education. 

At the 85th Annual Meeting, the Committee was informed that no funds are available for scholarships for the fiscal year 

2001 (see Item 101-5 in the Board of Directors report for additional information). 

403-3 I NCWM Certified Instructors 

The A&P Committee began implementing (see 404-1) new criteria to certify trainers as part of the Training Delivery Plan 

that was adopted at the 84th NCWM Annual Meeting. As mentioned in 403-1, the revision of NCWM Publication 11, 

“National Training Program,” to incorporate the provisions of the new training plan implementing the new standards will 

not be made until the Committee develops the criteria for training as directed by the Board. 

The training plan adopted in 1999 requires that National Training Plan Certified Instructors meet the following criteria: 

 a. Complete a “Train the Trainer” course or program on adult training delivery of at least 16 hours in 

length approved by the A&P Committee or the Trainer Subcommittee or possess a teaching certificate 

or degree from an accredited educational institution; 

 b. Receive a certificate of completion of an OWM Instructor Training Course in a particular subject area. 

Once a person is a Certified Instructor in any NTP course or subject, certification in additional courses 

requires participation in an OWM Instructor Training Course for those specific subjects with the 

required prerequisites or through documented competency in the specific subject area and approval of 

the A&P Committee. 

 c. Plan and present the subject course in a classroom setting with sufficient notice given to the Committee 

to allow for an evaluation process to be established; 

 d. Submit to the NCWM A&P Committee the NTP training evaluation forms which participants complete 

(Student Evaluation Forms); 

e. Maintain an overall evaluation by the student participants of “Above Satisfactory” as well as the same 

evaluation by the Committee using the established evaluation process to be recertified. 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P – 8 

f. Be recertified every 5 years. A Certified Instructor will be evaluated every five years to insure that each 

instructor maintains the necessary training skills necessary to effectively deliver and train in each 

subject area. A Certified Instructor who has not conducted training during the past five-year period or 

does not meet the standards established by the Committee will lose certification. 

Trainers currently certified under the original NCWM Certified Instructor requirements will be automatically qualified 

under the new requirements. With the adoption of this plan, currently registered Certified Instructors will be subject to 

the same five-year review of their certification. For a Certified Instructor to receive recognition in a new NTP course or 

subject, he/she must participate in an OWM Instructor Training Course for the specific subject or through documented 

competency in the specific subject area and receive approval of the A&P Committee. Each Certified Instructor must 

continue to adhere to the standards set for Certified Instructors and NCWM-sanctioned training delivery. 

We encourage each regional association to sponsor a Train-the-Trainer Class so potential certification candidates can 

meet the first requirement. NCWM Certified Instructors may be available to assist weights and measures jurisdictions in 

training. A list of the currently certified NTP Instructors and the courses they teach is available on the Internet at 

http://www.nist.gov/ncwm or from the OWM's Fax-on-Demand System at 1-800-925-2453. (Request document 302.) 

Please contact the instructors directly. 

403-4 I Education Sessions – 2000 Conference 

Source: A&P Committee 

The A&P Committee sponsored presentations on the following topics during the 85th NCWM Annual Meeting in 2000. 

1. Presentation on the "Retail Motor Fuel Program Self-Assessment Checklist" developed by the Voluntary Program 

Assessment Working Group – Sid Colbrook (IL) and Ross Andersen (NY). 

2. Presentation on "Using the Internet to Publicize Weights and Measures Programs" – Amy Kiernan, Public Affairs 

Director, and David C. Frieders, Director, San Francisco County Department of Consumer Assurance. 

3. Presentation on “Electronic Carcass Evaluation Equipment” – Duane Short, Agricultural Marketing Specialist, U.S. 

Department of Agriculture, Grain Inspection, Packers & Stockyards Administration (GIPSA), Des Moines, IA. 

403-5 I Service Personnel Training 

Source: Gordon Johnson, Marconi Commerce Systems Inc. 

 Debbie Joines, Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association 

Background: Gordon Johnson and Debbie Joines requested that the NCWM sponsor educational programs for device 

service personnel similar to training provided to regulatory officials. They recommended that States consider making the 

training mandatory for registered service personnel who perform official tests. The Committee worked with Ms. Joines 

and Mr. Johnson to develop ways for delivering uniform training to service personnel. 

The Gasoline Pump Manufacturer’s Association (GPMA) developed a course entitled “Service Technicians and Weights 

and Measures Requirements.” Debbie Joines, GPMA Chairman, presented the course. The course included guidelines 

for organizing a class, background on legal and technical requirements, and test procedures. The course’s format allows 

the instructor to customize the presentations to reflect local weights and measures requirements regarding equipment 

repair and recalibration and notification. GPMA estimates that the complete one-day course can be presented in six hours 

of classroom work. 

The Committee commented on the outline, suggested some editorial and technical amendments, and recommended that 

GPMA test it by presenting a class for several service technicians following the Interim Meeting in January 2000. One 

class was presented in Illinois. To obtain a copy of the latest draft, contact Mike Gallo, Wayne Division, 124 West 

College Ave, Salisbury, MD 21804, by e-mail at mike.gallo@waynesby.com, or by telephone at 410-546-6600. 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P-9

404 Public Affairs 

404-1 I Weights and Measures Week 2001

The Committee has not yet developed a theme for Weights and Measures Week 2001. As soon as a theme is selected, it 

will be posted on the NCWM website. 

404-2 I National Consumer Protection Week 2000 

Source: Kathleen Thuner, San Diego County, California, and David Frieders, San Francisco City and County

February 14-20, 2000, was designated National Consumer Protection Week to highlight national consumer protection and 

education efforts. The theme was “Armchair Armor: Shopping Safely from Home.” Shopping from home offers choice 

and convenience, but consumers need to know the rules and use the tools to protect themselves from fraudulent offers and 

unsafe products. Shopping from home includes online/e-commerce, telemarketing, mail order, door-to-door sales, yard 

sales, and flea markets. For information on National Consumer Protection Week, refer to the Internet at 

http://www.consumer.gov/ncpw/shopsafe.htm

Janet Land reported to the Committee that the National Association of Consumer Agency Administrators (NACAA), 

which sponsors National Consumer Protection Week in conjunction with the Federal Trade Commission, the American 

Association of Retired Persons, the National Consumer League, the Consumer Federation of America, the U.S. Postal 

Inspection Service, and the National Association of Attorneys General, had not decided on a consumer theme for 2001 by 

the NCWM 85th Annual Meeting. She will notify the Committee as soon as she is informed of the theme. 

The A&P Committee believes that weights and measures officials and the NCWM need to promote the roles they play in 

consumer protection. This can be achieved in conjunction with National Consumer Protection Week activities and 

through closer cooperation with NACAA. David Frieders, San Francisco City and County, volunteered to serve as coliaison representative to NACAA from the NCWM. 

404-3 I Promoting Weights and Measures in the United States 

Informational Materials Displayed at Annual Meeting

The A&P Committee invited jurisdictions and regional associations to share public information and meeting 

announcements at the 85th NCWM Annual Meeting. Materials were displayed on a table in the reception area. The top 

three presenters received awards, and the fourth place winner received Honorable Mention. The articles were judged for 

creativity, appearance, and value for public. 

404-4 I Publicity for the 85th NCWM Annual Meeting 

The A&P Committee offered assistance to the State of Virginia to publicize the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting to be held 

July 16-20, 2000, at the Omni Hotel in Richmond, VA. No assistance was needed. 

404-5 I Participating in the NIST 100th Anniversary Celebration 

In 2001, the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) will celebrate its Centennial. The theme is “NIST – 

First Century of Service to the Nation.” The 86th Annual Meeting of the NCWM will be held in Washington, D.C., to 

allow meeting participants to attend the Centennial functions. The A&P Committee proposed to the Board of Directors 

that the NCWM present a commemorative 100th birthday plaque to the Secretary of Commerce and the NIST Director 

during a NIST tour that can be coordinated with a Conference outing. 

Submit ideas for ways in which NCWM can contribute to the celebration of NIST's Centennial to Lynn Sebring by e-mail 

at lynn.sebring@nist.gov or by telephone at (301) 975-4006. 

J. Flanders, Georgia, Chairman 

D. Frieders, San Francisco County, California 

L. Greenleaf, New Jersey 

S. Hadder, Florida 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P – 10 

Associate Membership Committee Representative: Robert Fuehne, Ralston Purina 

C. Gardner, Suffolk County, New York, Safety Liaison 

L. Sebring, NIST Technical Advisor 

J. Land, NIST Technical Advisor 

Committee on Administration and Public Affairs 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P-11

Appendix A 

NCWM Voluntary Program Assessment Work Group 

Administrative Responsibilities Evaluation Checklist 

Retail Motor Fuel Inspection Programs 

February 7, 2000 

Jurisdiction: __________________________ Director Name: _______________________________ 

Numbered items in normal text are the requirements. The standard to assess compliance with the standard is written immediately after 

the requirement in italic type in the form of questions. For each requirement, circle Yes or No, or NA if not applicable to answer the 

questions. The NA option may not be available for all questions. For each "No" circled, identify the requirement number and provide

and explanation on a comment sheet. Also use the comment sheet to make other notes regarding your findings. 

Items with an asterisk "*" after the number indicate non-critical program areas. A "No" or "NA" response for one of these items will 

not be considered a critical program deficiency. 

1. Provide Legal and Financial Basis for Inspection Program

Are laws enacted or regulations promulgated pursuant to procedures of the jurisdiction in the 

following areas? Sections taken from, or based on, Handbook 130 for each item below may be used to 

document compliance. Jurisdictions may also have unique wording to meet special needs.

1.1 Law enacted specifying authority to inspect and test devices, authorizing 

access to premises, etc. Do inspectors have legal power to enter commercial 

establishments and conduct inspections (See Handbook 130 Weights and 

Measures Law Section 12)? 

Yes No 

1.2 Law enacted specifying power to promulgate regulations to give full effect to 

the law. Does the Director (or agency head) have authority to promulgate 

regulations (See Handbook 130 Weights and Measures Law Section 12)? 

Yes No 

1.3 Law enacted specifying enforcement tools. Do inspectors have authority to 

issue condemnation and stop-use orders? 

Does the Director have authority to cite penalties, prosecute violators, and/or 

employ other enforcement tools (See Handbook 130 Weights and Measures 

Law Section 13)? 

Yes No 

Yes No 

1.4* Regulations in place setting frequency of inspection for devices. Is a 

regulation or are procedures in effect setting frequency of inspection for 

commercial devices? 

Yes No NA

1.5 Regulations in place promulgating current version of Handbook 44. Is a 

regulation in effect adopting the current version of NIST Handbook 44? 

Yes No 

1.6 Regulations in place requiring NTEP Certificate of Conformance for devices 

used or sold for use in commerce. Is a regulation in effect that requires that a 

device be traceable to a Certificate of Conformance, or otherwise approved by 

the jurisdiction (See Handbook 130 National Type Evaluation Regulation)?

Yes No 

1.7* Regulations in place to register service persons and define duties and 

responsibilities for service persons. Is a regulation in effect authorizing the 

Director to register servicepersons? 

Does the regulation in effect define qualifications, duties and responsibilities 

of servicepersons (See Handbook 130 Voluntary Registrations of 

Servicepersons Regulation)? 

Yes NA 

Yes No NA 

(Use NA only if 

NA above)

2. Define Program Goals and Performance Standards

The jurisdiction may use a combination of documents (Law, Regulations, Quality Manual and/or other 

documents) to set goals and standards. 

2.1 Management organizes the staff with defined areas of responsibility (both Yes No 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P – 12 

program areas and geographical territories or zones) and defined levels of 

supervision. Is the jurisdiction organized as recorded on an organizational 

chart for inspection functions, including administration, support staff, and 

field inspection staff?

2.2* Management maintains current job descriptions for each title/position. Does

the jurisdiction have written job descriptions describing duties and minimum 

qualifications for all positions? 

Yes No 

2.3 Management defines program goals. Are both general goals for the overall 

program as well as specific goals for individual projects defined in writing? 

Some goals will be defined in law and regulation, while most are 

administrative in nature.

Can the Director identify examples and explain the process by which goals 

are set? 

Yes No 

Yes No

2.4* Management maintains a performance evaluation program for all staff. Are

periodic performance evaluations conducted for each employee? Evaluations 

must include performance goals and standards, must identify training needs 

and must provide feedback to the employee? 

Yes No 

2.5* Management defines performance standards for registered serviceperson

programs. Are minimum performance standards established for registered 

servicepersons? 

Can management provide examples of how serviceperson performance is 

measured and describe how the program ensures that servicepersons are 

meeting their responsibilities? Management may use qualifying exams, 

follow-up inspections, etc. 

Yes NA 

Yes No NA 

(Use NA only if NA 

above)

3. Define Inspection and Test Procedures 

The jurisdiction may use a combination of documents (Quality Manual, NCWM Publication 12 

EPO's, and/or other manuals to define procedures. 

3.1 Management defines minimum inspection procedures in writing for each 

inspection discipline. Are written procedures in place to set minimum 

inspection criteria (refers to specifications, user requirements, labeling or 

markings, etc.) to be applied for each device inspected (See Section 3.2 for 

testing)? Procedures may be in the form of NIST Handbooks, EPO's (NCWM 

Publication 12) or may be specific guidance documents. 

Yes No

3.2 Management defines minimum test procedures in writing for each inspection 

discipline. Are written procedures in place to prescribe minimum tests (refers 

to examination of a device, package or practice for conformance with the 

tolerances and other applicable performance standards) to be applied to each 

device tested? Procedures may be in the form of NIST Handbooks, EPO's 

(NCWM Publication 12) or may be specific guidance documents.

Yes No

3.3 Management defines procedures for use in complaint and/or undercover 

investigations. Are written procedures in place to prescribe procedures and 

techniques for complaint and/or undercover investigations?

Yes No 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P-13

3.

4

Management defines enforcement procedures. Are written procedures in place 

for initiating enforcement actions? 

Do those procedures identify what actions are available and when they are to 

be used (stop-use and condemnation orders, warning letters, penalties, or 

prosecution)?

Do the procedures identify the forms used, the legal filing procedures, 

procedures for scheduling reinspections, etc.? 

Do the procedures include "Due Process" provisions?

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

4. Provide Training for Each Inspector or Supervisor

Jurisdictions may use completion of the NTP courses as evidence of compliance in this area. For 

each item, can management provide documentation of training provided to each staff member? 

4.1 Management provides training on law and regulations. Was training 

provided?

Yes No

4.2 Management provides training on organization and use of NIST Handbook 

44. Was training provided?

Yes No

4.3 Management provides training on NTEP and use of Certificates of 

Conformance. Was training provided?

Yes No

4.4 Management provides training on safety. Was training provided? Yes No 

4.5 Management provides training on appropriate inspection and test procedures. 

Was training provided?

Yes No

4.6 Management provides training on use and care of standards. Was training 

provided?

Yes No

4.7 Management provides training on completion and processing of report 

forms. Was training provided?

Yes No

4.8 Management provides training on completion and processing of official 

orders. Was training provided?

Yes No 

4.9 Management provides training on conduct of complaint and undercover 

investigations. Was training provided?

Yes No 

4.10 Management keeps records of training provided to each inspector. Are

records of training maintained for each staff member, ranging from trainer 

logs, to attendance lists, to a database? 

Are records in a form that can be accessed to assist in identifying training 

needs?

Yes No 

Yes No 

5. Provide Inspection Staff with Appropriate Reference Standards and Test Equipment

Is each inspector equipped with the necessary equipment and reference materials to conduct the 

inspections and tests specified for each inspection discipline? 

5.1 Management provides current versions of Law and Regulations. Are copies 

provided?

Yes No

5.2 Management provides current version of Handbook 44. Are copies 

provided?

Yes No

5.3 Management provides current version of written procedures, Quality 

Manual, EPO's, program directives, etc. Are copies provided?

Yes No
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P – 14 

5.4 Management provides inspectors with access to NTEP Certificates of 

Conformance. Can each inspector get access to the information in the 

Certificate of Conformance for a device? Access may range from a copy of 

the certificate (Publication 5) to contact with another person who has a 

copy.

Yes No

5.5 Management provides necessary standards and test equipment. Is each 

inspector provided with test measure(s), certified by a NIST traceable 

laboratory, which is(are) appropriate for the task, including capacity (5 

gallons for flow rates up to 20 GPM or equivalent of one minute at 

maximum flow for rates 20 GPM and over)?

Is each inspector issued other associated test equipment appropriate for the 

task (e.g., tape measure for hose length)? 

Yes No 

Yes No NA

5.6 Management provides necessary support equipment. Is each inspector 

provided with additional support equipment to conduct proper tests (e.g., a 

metal funnel with a non-sparking outlet), seals, including security seals and 

approval seals, seal press, other equipment (e.g., calculator, level and other 

hand tools, etc.)?

Yes No

5.7 Management provides inspectors with current versions of inspection reports, 

worksheets, and other forms. Is each inspector provided with current 

versions of inspection reports, worksheets, and other forms?

Yes No

6. Provide a Safe Working Environment 

6.1 Jurisdiction has a written safety program or policy. Does the jurisdiction have 

a policy, reflecting current federal and state laws, regarding worker safety? 

Documentation may be in the Quality Manual, or may be in other documents 

such as state worker safety rules or federal OSHA standards. 

Yes No

6.2 Management actively promotes safety in all activities. Is "Safety first" 

thinking integrated in all management programs including training, 

supervision, performance evaluation, etc.? 

Are safety issues presented in training for each inspection area?

Are supervisors required to evaluate inspector implementation of safety 

policies?

Does management include safe practices as standards in inspector 

performance evaluations? 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No

6.3 Management issues personal protective equipment and other safety equipment 

to each inspector. Has safety equipment been issued as necessary for each 

inspection discipline (See standards and equipment section for each device 

type)?

Yes No NA
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P-15

7. Provide Record Keeping Systems to Record and Evaluate Program Progress 

7.1 Management designs appropriate report forms to collect data to support the 

enforcement programs. (Check each box below as appropriate) 

Does the form provide space to record the following general information? 

 Form title, number and revision date. 

 Agency name, address and phone number. 

 Inspection number that uniquely identifies the inspection. 

 Inspection date. 

 Name, address and phone number of establishment inspected. 

 Remarks area for official comments and summary of inspection and test 

results.

 Signature of inspector. 

 Optional: Signature of establishment representative. 

 Optional: Type of inspection, routine, reinspection, investigation, etc. 

 Optional: Zone or territory where establishment is located. 

 Optional: Classification of the establishment. 

 Optional: Brand affiliation of establishment.

Does the form provide space to record the following specific information for 

each device inspected? 

 Manufacturer, model and serial number of the device inspected. 

 Size of the test draft(s) used in the tests. 

 Tolerance applied, acceptance or maintenance. 

 As-found error, normal test. (Maximum discharge rate) 

 As-found error, special test. (Minimum discharge rate) 

 Final error, normal test, if different from the as-found error. 

 As-found and final compliance of the device. May be P/F or narrative. 

 Optional: NTEP CC number for new devices. 

 Optional: Results of other tests (e.g., anti-drain valve, RFI/EMI, zerosetback interlock, price computation, etc.) 

 Optional: User identification of the device inspected. 

 Optional: Type or grade of product dispensed. 

 Optional: Unit price of product and value of any shortage or overage.

Yes No NA 

Yes No NA

7.2 Supervisors review and/or verify inspection reports of subordinates. Do

supervisors review inspection reports and/or conduct follow-up inspections to 

evaluate inspector performance and identify potential problems? 

Is this responsibility written in the performance evaluation program of each 

supervisor?

Yes No 

Yes No

7.3 Management collects inspection reports at a central location(s) for electronic 

data entry and/or filing. Is an organized filing system in place to retain 

official records?

Is the filing system documented and can authorized staff find and retrieve 

records as needed? 

Yes No 

Yes No

7.4* Management has an established record retention program and archiving 

procedure. Are record retention periods established for each type of record 

and are archiving procedures documented in writing?

Yes No
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P – 16 

8. Take Action on Violative Inspection Results

8.1 Agency takes appropriate enforcement actions against violators. Does

management have records of enforcement actions taken? 

Can management provide examples of how enforcement procedures were 

used at all levels (i.e., from field inspector issuing stop-use orders to 

management citing penalties, rescinding licenses, or initiating prosecutions)?

Yes No 

Yes No

9. Program Review and Improvement

9.1 Management evaluates program effectiveness at all levels. Does management 

have a documented review program to evaluate program effectiveness on a 

continuous and/or annual basis? 

Can management provide examples of the process and provide examples of 

changes that have been made to the laws or regulations, program goals and 

standards, inspection/test procedures, training program, inspection/test 

equipment, safety program, record keeping, and/or enforcement procedures? 

Yes No 

Yes No

9.2* Management reaches out to consumers and industry to promote the program 

and encourage compliance at all levels. Can management describe examples 

of outreach programs directed at regulated parties? 

Can management describe examples of outreach programs directed at 

servicepersons? 

Can management describe examples of outreach programs directed at 

consumers?

Yes No NA 

Yes No NA 

Yes No NA

Rater: _____________________________ Date: ____________________ 

See attached comment sheet. 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P-17

NCWM Voluntary Program Assessment Work Group 

Administrative Responsibilities Evaluation Checklist 

Retail Motor Fuel Device Inspection Programs 

February 7, 2000

Jurisdiction: __________________________ Director Name: _______________________________ 

Administrative Responsibilities Comment Sheet 

 Requirement Comment

Rater: _____________________________ Date: ____________________ 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P – 18 

NCWM Voluntary Program Assessment Work Group 

Inspector Responsibilities Evaluation Checklist 

Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers 

February 7, 2000 

Inspector Name: _______________________________ Jurisdiction: __________________________

Numbered items in normal text are the requirements. The standard to assess compliance with the standard is written immediately after 

the requirement in italic type in the form of questions. For each requirement, circle Yes or No, or NA if not applicable to answer the 

questions. For each "No" circled, identify the requirement number and provide and explanation on a comment sheet. Also use the 

comment sheet to make other notes regarding your findings. 

All items in this checklist indicate critical program areas. Any "No" response represents a critical program deficiency. 

1. The Inspector is Trained. 

Can each inspector cite references relating to the following areas and correctly answer questions 

(i.e., assessor may use review and exam questions from NTP courses) in each area?

1.1 The inspector has knowledge of program goals and objectives. Yes No

1.2 The inspector has knowledge of the pertinent laws. Yes No

1.3 The inspector has knowledge of the pertinent regulations. Yes No

1.4 The inspector has knowledge of Handbook 44. Yes No

1.5 The inspector has knowledge of NTEP and a Certificate of Conformance. Yes No

1.6 The inspector has knowledge of the prescribed inspection and test procedures 

for the devices. 

Yes No

1.7 The inspector has knowledge of safety issues and practices associated with 

device and products tested. 

Yes No

1.8 The inspector has knowledge of the proper use and care of the standards and 

equipment. 

Yes No

1.9 The inspector has knowledge of the prescribed procedures for complaint and 

undercover investigations. 

Yes No NA 

2. The Inspector is Prepared to Perform Inspections. 

Does the inspector have the following reference items at his/her disposal at the inspection site(s)? 

2.1 The Inspector has appropriate credentials. Yes No

2.2 The Inspector has copies of pertinent laws, regulations and reference books. 

Does inspector have current copies of law, regulations, Handbook 44, etc.? 

Yes No

2.3 The Inspector has NTEP Certificates or has access to them as needed. Can the 

inspector get access to an NTEP Certificate when needed? 

Yes No

2.4 The Inspector has copies of testing procedures. Does inspector have copies of 

procedures (NCWM Publication 12 and/or Jurisdiction Quality Manual)?

Yes No

2.5 The Inspector has necessary report forms, worksheets, and official orders. 

Does the inspector have copies? 

Yes No
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P-19

3. The Inspector has Necessary Equipment to Perform Tests. 

Does the inspector have the following test equipment and supplies at his/her disposal at the 

inspection site(s)? 

3.1 Inspector has appropriate standards. Are the test measures certified traceable 

to NIST and appropriate in capacity and division size? 

Are the test measures in good condition (i.e., clean and free of dents, clear 

sight tube, etc.) and protected while not in use (case or enclosure)? 

Does the inspector have other necessary standards (e.g., tape measure)?

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No N/A 

3.2 Inspector has support equipment including means to return product to proper 

storage. Does the inspector have appropriate equipment at the site (funnel, 

hoses, etc.)?

Yes No

3.3 Inspector has safety equipment. Does the inspector have appropriate safety 

equipment (safety cones, splash covers, protective gloves, etc.)?

Yes No

4. Inspector Conducts Inspections and Tests. 

4.1 Preliminary steps. Does the inspector identify him/herself to establishment 

manager and explain purpose of inspection (routine, complaint, etc, but not 

applicable for undercover investigations)? 

Does the inspector explain the manager's responsibilities (access to dispenser 

interior, audit trails, etc.)? 

Does the inspector identify appropriate product storage markings and verify 

ability to return product to storage?

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No

4.2 Inspector inspects each dispenser. Does the inspector: 

x Check suitability? 

x Check that device has valid NTEP Certificate of Conformance? 

x Check that devices are properly installed (plumb, level, etc.)? 

x Check for correct pump markings (ID, product identity, etc.)? 

x Check pump interior for leaks, exposed wiring, modifications, etc.)? 

x Check security seals/audit trails? 

x Check condition of hoses and nozzle? 

x Check condition of vapor eliminator system (pump systems only)?

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No

4.3 Measurement Tests - General. For each test draft, does the inspector: 

x Use the test measure correctly (wet down, level, reading at eye level, 30 

second pour/10 second drain, grounding during product return, etc.)? 

x Verify correct operation of primary and operational displays, and price 

computations? 

x Verify correct operation of totalizers? 

x Safely return product to correct storage tank?

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No

4.4 Conducts Normal Test(s) Does the inspector conduct normal tests on each 

device?

Does the inspector repeat tests, as required, to verify results?

Yes No 

Yes No

4.5 Conducts Special Test(s) Does the inspector conduct special tests on each 

device as required? 

Does the inspector repeat tests, as required, to verify results?

Yes No 

Yes No
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P – 20 

4.6 Conducts other performance tests on each dispenser. Does the inspector 

conduct anti-drain valve, zero-setback interlock, repeatability, price 

computation and other performance tests on each device according to 

jurisdiction guidelines? 

Yes No

4.7 Conducts other performance tests on system components, as required. Does

the inspector conduct tests of solenoid valves (submersible pump systems 

only) and verify operation of point-of-sale terminals or consoles (agreement 

of indications, etc.)?

Yes No 

4.8 Inspector looks for unusual situations or potentially fraudulent practices while 

conducting inspections. Does the inspector look for unusual situations and 

potentially fraudulent practices? 

Can the inspector describe the kinds of things he/she is looking for, or 

examples found in past inspections)? 

Yes No 

Yes No 

4.9 Inspector conducts complaint or undercover investigations. Does the 

inspector conduct assigned investigations as per jurisdictional guidelines and 

file appropriate reports? 

Yes No NA 

5. Inspector Completes Inspection 

5.1 Inspector completes the required reports documenting the inspection. Does

the inspector complete the inspection report(s) following jurisdiction 

guidelines?

Are compliant devices passed and non-compliant devices failed following 

jurisdiction guidelines?

Yes No 

Yes No

5.2 Inspector issues the appropriate directions and orders to the device user. Does

the inspector take appropriate enforcement action as per jurisdiction 

guidelines with respect to failing devices (issuing repair or condemnation 

orders, etc.)? 

Does the inspector explain the test results to establishment manager and 

explain any orders issued? 

Does the inspector answer questions about the inspection, as needed, 

following jurisdiction guidelines?

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No

5.3 Inspector reports unusual situations to superiors and/or conducts further 

investigations. If a situation arises, does the inspector report to supervisors 

and/or conduct investigations to verify whether operations are in 

conformance?

Can the inspector describe what form investigations may take and when each 

would be applied? 

Does the inspector prepare narrative reports of such findings?

Yes No 

Yes No 

Yes No

Rater: _____________________________ Date: ____________________ 

Rater should document and explain each deficiency on a separate page along with general comments. 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P-21

NCWM Voluntary Program Assessment Work Group 

Inspector Responsibilities Evaluation Checklist 

Retail Motor Fuel Device Inspection Programs 

February 7, 2000 

Jurisdiction: __________________________ Inspector Name: _______________________________ 

Inspector Responsibilities Comment Sheet 

 Requirement Comment 

Rater: _____________________________ Date: ____________________
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P – 22 

Form No./Rev Date 

Jurisdiction Name 

Street Address 

City, State, Zip 

Phone Number 

Date 

Retail Motor Fuel Device Report Form 

Test # 

Name Phone Zone 

Address Establishment Type Inspection Type 

City, State, Zip Product Brand 

1 Pump# Product $/gal Mfr Model S/N Visual Inspection 

 Pass Fail 

 Test Draft Tolerance Applied 

 Maint Accept 

Error Normal Error Special Error Other Other Tests 

 Pass Fail

Compliance 

 Pass  Fail

2 Pump# Product $/gal Mfr Model S/N Visual Inspection 

 Pass Fail 

 Test Draft Tolerance Applied 

 Maint Accept 

Error Normal Error Special Error Other Other Tests 

 Pass Fail

Compliance 

 Pass  Fail

3 Pump# Product $/gal Mfr Model S/N Visual Inspection 

 Pass Fail 

 Test Draft Tolerance Applied 

 Maint Accept 

Error Normal Error Special Error Other Other Tests 

 Pass Fail

Compliance 

 Pass  Fail

4 Pump# Product $/gal Mfr Model S/N Visual Inspection 

 Pass Fail 

 Test Draft Tolerance Applied 

 Maint Accept 

Error Normal Error Special Error Other Other Tests 

 Pass Fail

Compliance 

 Pass  Fail

5 Pump# Product $/gal Mfr Model S/N Visual Inspection 

 Pass Fail 

 Test Draft Tolerance Applied 

 Maint Accept 

Error Normal Error Special Error Other Other Tests 

 Pass Fail

Compliance 

 Pass  Fail

6 Pump# Product $/gal Mfr Model S/N Visual Inspection 

 Pass Fail 

 Test Draft Tolerance Applied 

 Maint Accept 

Error Normal Error Special Error Other Other Tests 

 Pass Fail

Compliance 

 Pass  Fail

7 Pump# Product $/gal Mfr Model S/N Visual Inspection 

 Pass Fail 

 Test Draft Tolerance Applied 

 Maint Accept 

Error Normal Error Special Error Other Other Tests 

 Pass Fail

Compliance 

 Pass  Fail

8 Pump# Product $/gal Mfr Model S/N Visual Inspection 

 Pass Fail 

 Test Draft Tolerance Applied 

 Maint Accept 

Error Normal Error Special Error Other Other Tests 

 Pass Fail

Compliance 

 Pass  Fail

9 Pump# Product $/gal Mfr Model S/N Visual Inspection 

 Pass Fail 

 Test Draft Tolerance Applied 

 Maint Accept 

Error Normal Error Special Error Other Other Tests 

 Pass Fail

Compliance 

 Pass  Fail

10 Pump# Product $/gal Mfr Model S/N Visual Inspection 

 Pass Fail 

 Test Draft Tolerance Applied 

 Maint Accept 

Error Normal Error Special Error Other Other Tests 

 Pass Fail

Compliance 

 Pass  Fail

Volume of Product Returned to Storage Grade/Gal Grade/Gal Grade/Gal Grade/Gal 

Remarks 

Acknowledged Inspected by 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

A&P-23

Appendix B 

Associate Membership Committee Scholarships 1999-2000 

Requesting Body Training or Activity to 

be Provided 

Scholarships* 

Awarded 

*@ $500 each 

Total Value 

1 Alabama Retail Scales and 

Package Testing 2 $1,000 

2 Arkansas NTEP 2 $1,000 

3 Arkansas Package Testing 1 $500 

4 Colorado NTEP 1 $500 

5 Georgia Retail Motor-Fuel 

Dispenser Testing 1 $500 

6 Georgia Package Testing 1 $500 

7 Idaho Retail Motor-Fuel 

Dispenser Testing 2 $1000 

8 Illinois LPG Meter Testing 1 $500 

9 Illinois Small Scale Testing 1 $500 

10 Illinois Livestock Scale Testing 1 $500 

11 Kern County, CA Heavy Capacity Scale 

Testing 1 $500 

12 Kern County, CA Retail Motor-Fuel 

Dispenser Testing 1 $500 

13 Louisiana NTEP 4 $2000 

14 Maryland Inspector Training 2 $1000 

15 Michigan LPG Meter Testing 5 $2500 

16 Missouri Livestock Scale Testing 2 $1,000 

17 Missouri Package Testing 1 $500 

18 Montana Retail Motor-Fuel 

Dispenser Testing 2 $1000 

19 Nevada Training Equipment 4 $2000 

20 Ohio Training Materials 1 $500 

21 Pennsylvania Retail Scales and Motor 

Fuel Dispenser Testing 2 $1,000 

22 Pennsylvania Loading-Rack Meter 

Testing 1 $500 

23 Seattle, WA Vehicle Scale Testing 2 $1,000 

24 Texas Inspector Training 2 $1,000 

25 Wisconsin LPG Meter Testing 3 $1500 

26 Indiana Association of 

Weights and Measures NTEP 1 $500 

27 Southern Weights and 

Measures Association Newsletter 1 $500 

28 Northeastern Weights and 

Measures Association Newslette 1 $500 

29 Central Weights and 

Measures Association Newsletter 1 $500 

Totals 50 $25,000 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

Appendix C 

Certification Summary 

* NTP Module I was inmrparated In Module 2. now Course No 202 (May 1894) 

"USDA Grain lnspeclioflackers and Stockyards Adminlslralbn 

A&P-24 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

0 0 

0 

0 

0 

Y 

0 

0 

0 

a0 

0 

0 

0 

CD 

A&P-25 

0 

0 

0 

-3 

0 

0 

0 

N 
A&P-26 

AdtP-28 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM REGISTRY 

SUMMARY OF METROLOGY SEMINAR ACTIVITY 

(AS of June 30,2000) 

Courses Listed in the NTP Registry: 

No. 201, Basic Metrology I 

No. 202, Basic Metrology I1 

No. 203, Intermediate Metrology 

No. 204, Advanced Metrology 

A&P-29 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

State 

Course No. 

201 202 203 

NJ 

Nm 

NY 

NC 

ND 

1 1 

1 1 I 3 

2 2 2 1 7 

10 7 4 2 23 

2 2 2 6 

OK 

OR 

PA 

1 2 3 

1 1 1 3 

I 1 2 4 

SC 

SD 

TN 

2 2 1 5 

1 1 2 

3 3 I 7 

A&P-30 

Tx 

UT 

W 

3 3 3 9 

1 1 

1 1 

VA I 4 4 I 3 I I 11 
000000 

00000 

OcQOdC\1 

7 

A&P-3 I 
\ \ 

000000 

00000 

000cL)d.cy 

F 

A&P-32 
k 8% 

I 

A&P-33 
c 

- * -I- P 

-1-1 1 1 ! 

A&P-34 
Administration and Public Affairs Codnee 

Sponsor Course Course Course Course Course 

No.207 No.306 No.307 No.501 No.603 

NISTNCWM 52 14 42 47 146 

NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM REGISTRY 

(As of June 30,2000) 

Courses listed in the NTP Registry and total NCWM Educational Units @Us) awarded: 

No. 207, Retail Computing Scales - 3.10 EUs 

No. 306, Liquefied Petroleum Gas Liquid-Measuring Devices - 3.5 EUs 

No. 307, Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers and Consoles - 2.8 EUs 

No. 501, National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) - 2.2 EUs 

No. 603, Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods - 3.5 EUs 

No. 604, Price Verification - 2.2 EUs 

SUMMARY OF NIST-NCWM INSTRUCTOR TRAINING PROGRAMS 

Course Total 

No.604 

114 415 

Course Course Course Course Course No. Course No. 

No.207 No.306 No.307 No.501 603 604 

182.00 49.00 117.60 103.40 51 1 .OO 250.80 

Total 

1414.00 

ALABAMA 

Steadman Hollis HB133 

Frank Gissendanner Price Verification 

HB133 

Scott Bowen 

Mike Campbell 

John M. Landis 

Mike Nethercott 

Carson Keith 

John Moore 

David A. Tumer 

ALASKA 

NTEP 

HB133 

Retail Computing Scales 

NTEP 

Price Verification 

ARIZONA 

NTEP 

HB133 NTEP 

Price Verification 

Retail Computing Scales 

ARKANSAS 

Tim Chesser NTEP 

HB133 

Roger Frazier Retail Motor- Fuel Dispensers 

Price Verification 

Richard Slater Retail Computing Scales 

Harlin Wheeler HB133 

CALIFORNIA 

Thomas Bloomer 

Steve Clay 

James Delperdang 

Marianne Delperdang 

Richard Greek 

Dennis Johannes 

Michael Kelly 

Roger Macey 

Brett Sanm 

Retail Computing Scales 

HB133 

Retail Computing Scales 

Price Verification 

NTEP 

HB133 

Price Verification 

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

HB133 

LPG 

A84P-35 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

COLORADO 

Robert Atheam HB133 

Price Verification 

Scott Boyd NTEP 

Dennis McCrary Retail Computing Scales 

Howard Noble HB133 

CONNECTICUT 

William Donahoe HB133 

Frank Forrest Retail Computing Scales 

Thomas Phelps LPG 

HB133 

CharlesR Smith Price Verification 

Peter Wilson HB133 

DELAWARE 

Steve Connors HB133 

Anthony Deserto LPG 

NTEP 

Price Verification 

William Lagemann Price Verification 

Stephen Nickerson HB133 

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA 

Douglas Jones NTEP 

Jefiey Mason 

Carlos D'Arcy 

Fred Derby 

Robert Garris 

Steve Hadder 

Don M. Williams 

Bryan Yongue 

Sam Burtz, Jr. 

Tony Davis 

Jerry Flanders 

Oscar Garrison 

Earl Payanal 

Dianne Yamamoto 

HB133 

Price Verification 

Retail Computing Scales 

FLORIDA 

HB133 

HB133 

NTEP 

Price Verification 

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

Price Verification 

Retail Computing Scales 

HB133 

GEORGIA 

Price Verification 

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

HB133 

HB133 

HAWAII 

Retail Computing Scales 

NTEP 

Price Verification 

HB133 

Mike Hart~ft 

Kevin Memtt 

Mike Proctor 

Richard Philmon 

Greg Plym 

Tad Tucker 

Kyran Wagenecht 

Jerry Clingaman, Jr. 

Sherry Fowlkes 

Michael Horan 

Michelle I. Phillips 

Darryl Brown 

Susan Bulver 

Ivan Hankins III 

Michael Norris 

Charles Oakley 

Arlyn Oman 

Ralph Venteicher 

Jim Behrendt 

Teg Chaffee 

Terry Davis 

Chris Farthing 

Maureen Henzlei 

Lewis Hutfles 

Robert Schneider 

Charles Stutesman 

IDAHO 

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

HB133 

Price Verification 

Retail Computing Scales 

NTEP 

ILLINOIS 

HB133 

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

LPG 

HB133 

Retail Computing Scales 

Retail Computing Scales 

INDIANA 

HB133 

Retail Computing Scales 

NTEP 

HB133 

Retail Computing Scales 

Price Verification 

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

IOWA 

Retail Computing Scales 

Price Verification 

HB133 

Retail Motor- Fuel Dispensers 

NTEP 

Price Verification 

HB133 

NTEP 

Retail Computing Scales 

Retail Computing Scales 

HB133 

NTEP 

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

LPG 

KANSAS 

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

Retail Computing Scales 

NTEP 

Retail Computing Scales 

HB133 

Price Verification 

Retail Computing Scales 

LPG 

Retail Motor- Fuel Dispensers 

NTEP 

A&P-36 
KENTUCKY 

Robert Ginter Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

James Kemp HB133 

Luther Nd Retail Computing Scales 

Randy Wise HB133 

Price Verification 

LOUISIANA 

Archie Lambert Retail Motor- Fuel Dispensers 

Isaiah Lawson HB133 

Price Verification 

Danny McCartney NTEP 

Retail Computing Scales 

HB133 

MAINE 

John Cunningham Retail Computing Scales 

Price Verification 

Danny Newcombe Price Verification 

Harold Prince HB133 

NTEP 

MARYLAND 

Eugene Baumann 

Robert Eaves 

Thomas Fagan Jr. 

Michael Frailer 

Lisa Gflith 

William Hall 

Mark Lambert 

Donald Mason 

Barbara Miller 

Edward Payne, Jr. 

James Price 111 

Kenneth Ramsburg 

Leila Smith 

Will Wotthlie 

HB133 

HB133 

Price Verification 

HB133 

HB133 

Retail Computing Scales 

HB133 

HB133 

HB133 

HB133 

Price Verification 

LPG 

HB133 

HB133 

Price Verification 

Retail Computing Scales 

NTEP 

HE3133 

HE3133 

Price Verification 

LPG 

Retail Computing Scales 

Retail Motor- Fuel Dispensers 

Retail Computing Scales 

NTEP 

HB 133 

LPG 

Retail Computing Scales 

NTEP 

Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

MASSACHUSETTS 

Stephen Agostinelli HB133 

Retail Motor- Fuel Dispensers 

Stephen Berard HB133 

Price Verification 

Retail Computing Scales 

Retail Computing Scales 

HB133 

NTEP 

Thomas Hansbury Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

Robert McGrath (Boston) HB133 

NTEP 

David Niemczura Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

Richard Oliver Retail Computing Scales 

Harvey Paclat (Boston) HB 133 

Mark Coyne (Brockton) 

Robert DeRubeis 

Terry Gawel 

Frank Iacopeli 

Brad Pagrati 

Ed Paladi 

Michael Pinagel 

Dennis Ross 

Judi VanScott 

Tim White 

Roger Menk 

Julie Quinn 

MICHIGAN 

Retail Computing Scales 

Price Verification 

Retail Computing Scales 

HB133 

Price Verification 

HB133 

HB133 

Price Verification 

LPG 

Retail Computing Scales 

NTEP 

HB133 

NTEP 

Price Verification 

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

NTEP 

MINNESOTA 

HB133 

Price Verification 

MISSISSIPPI 

Harold Baughman Price Verification 

Ralph Blake HB133 

Price Verification 

Retail Computing Scales 

Gerald Broom LPG 

William E. Burgess, Jr. Price Verification 

Mike Kusch Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

Sammy Lang HB133 

MISSOURI 

Wayne Fritts Retail Computing Scales 

HB133 

Price Verification 

Dwain Snider NTEP 

A&P-37 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

MONTANA 

Randy Griswold Price Verification 

Jack Kane HB133 

LPG 

NTEP 

Retail Motor- Fuel Dispensers 

Alfred Page LPG 

Fred Steinbacher HB133 

H. Ray Waylett Retail Computing Scales 

NEBRASKA 

Scott Amer LPG 

Don Onwiler NTEP 

Retail Motor- Fuel Dispensers 

Retail Computing Scales 

Terrence Powell HB133 

NEVADA 

Kevin Coyne HB133 

Retail Computing Scales 

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

George Dorsa Price Verification 

Edward M. Hoganson HB133 

NTEP 

Retail Computing Scales 

Price Verification 

David M. Scheller Price Verification 

NEW HAMPSHIRE 

Richard Cote Price Verification 

HB133 

Retail Computing Scales 

Jeff Wentworth Price Verification 

Ernest T. West HB133 

Kevin Young LPG 

NEW JERSEY 

Robert Alviene HB133 

John McGuire HB133 

Joseph Romano Price Verification 

NEW MEXICO 

Joe Gomez NTEP 

Price Verification 

HB133 

Wilfred Mendoza LPG 

Johnny M. Peralta HB133 

Steve Sumner Price Verification 

Retail Computing Scales 

David Turning Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

NEW YORK 

Steven A. Martin Price Verification 

Michael Sikula HB133 

NORTH CAROLINA 

Gerald Brown Price Verification 

HB133 

Retail Computing Scales 

Retail Compuhng Scales 

William Nelson HB133 

Donnie Perry HB133 

James L. Skipper Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

Jerry Butler NTEP 

NORTH DAKOTA 

Williim Bianco, Sr. HB133 

OHIO 

Barbara DeSalvo HB133 

John R. Gray HB133 

Thomas Kamphaus Price Verification 

Roger Lawson HB133 

Kenneth Wheeler Retail Computing Scales 

Jefiey Yankosky (Cincinnati) HB133 

OKLAHOMA 

Charles Carter HB133 

Retail Computing Scales 

Price Verification 

OREGON 

Clark Cooney LPG 

Henry Lasher Retail Computing Scales 

Christine A. Parks HB133 

James E. Ross NTEP 

Russ Wyckoff NTEP 

Retail Motor- Fuel Dispensers 

PENNSYLVANIA 

Winifred Anderson (Philadelphia) HB133 

John Banks (Philadelphia) HB133 

Vera Bames (Philadelphia) HB133 

Robert Bonner Price Verification 

Charles Bruckner Price Verification 

Paul Calvanelli HB133 

Marinne Caszatt Price Verification 

HB133 

Retail Computing Scales 

Retail Motor- Fuel Dispensers 

NTEP 

David Cutchineal (Bucks County) HB133 

James R. Davis (Northampton County) HB133 

Michele DeMarshall (Philadelphia) HB133 

Price Verification 

Retail Computing Scales 

Ken Deitzler HB133 

John Dillabaugh HB133 

Cathy Dunn HB133 

A&P-38 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

Pennsylvania (Continued) 

Dean Ely LPG 

Price Verification 

Rick A. Fogal HB133 

Price Verification 

HB133 

Albert Home (Delaware County) HB133 

William H. Jaeschke (Delaware County) HB133 

Bradley Lundberg Price Verification 

Retail Motor- Fuel Dispensers 

Mary T. Mahoney (Philadelphia) HB133 

Allen W. Martin Retail Computing Scales 

Michael McGoff Price Verification 

Joseph McGonigle (Delaware County) HB133 

Donald McGowan Price Verification 

George Mensch Price Verification 

Diane C. Mohollen (Philadelphia) HB133 

Anthony Pagan0 Price Verification 

Davud A, Patchell, 111 (Montgomery County) HB133 

Louis G. Patterson, 111 (Philadelphia) HB133 

Edward Petricca Price Verification 

Steven Reilly (Bucks County) (2) HB133 

Michael Rice (Montgomety County) HB133 

Ronald Roof Price Verification 

Douglas Rudy Price Verification 

Danielle Shiako Price Verification 

Edward Snow (Delaware County) HB133 

Joshua Stephanian Price Verification 

La Keshia Thomas (Philadelphia) HB133 

John Tobin (Montgomety County) HB133 

Edward Tully, Jr. (Philadelphia) HB133 

Evelyn M. Yancoskie (Delaware County) HB133 

A. Courtney Yelle (Bucks County) Price Verification 

PUERTO RICO 

Otilio Rodriguez Colon HB133 

RHODE ISLAND 

Bemard Augustine Price Verification 

Lynda Agresti Maurer HB133 

SOUTH CAROLINA 

David Ellisor Price Verification 

HB133 

Retail Computing Scales 

NTEP 

Ronnie P. West Price Verification 

SOUTH DAKOTA 

Dick Bowman HB133 

Retail Motor- Fuel Dispensers 

Ralph Busch NTEP 

Charles E. Coleman 

Dale Drinnon 

Rickey Freeman 

Randy Jennings 

William LaFont 

Danny Ray Scott 

James Thompson 

Robert G. Williams 

Clyde E. Woods 

Debborah Danford 

Harvey Fischer 

Oscar Garrison 

Pete Holcombe 

Sally Preston 

Edwin J. Price 

Richard Rendon 

Damon Slaydon 

Jim Wiechkoske 

Mark Demings 

Brett Gurney 

Mitzi Hansen 

Dale Kunze 

David Paice 

Greg Ballou 

Raymond Cioffi 

James Cameron 

Hugh Lund 

John L. Bates 

G. Weston Diggs 

Jeff Rogers 

HB133 

Price Verification 

Retail Computing Scales 

Retail Motor- Fuel Dispensers 

NTEP 

HB133 

HB133 

LPG 

HB133 

Retail Computing Scales 

HB133 

NTEP 

HB133 

NTEP 

Price Verification 

HB133 

TEXAS 

HB133 

HB133 

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

HB133 

Price Verification 

HB133 

Price Verification 

HB133 

Retail Computing Scales 

HB133 

NTEP 

Price Verification 

Retail Computing Scales 

LPG 

UTAH 

NTEP 

HB133 

Price Verification 

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

Retail Computing Scales 

VERMONT 

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

NTEP 

HB133 

HB133 

Price Verification 

Retail Computing Scales 

VIRGINIA 

Price Verification 

HB 133 

HB133 

Gary Cloyd 

TENNESSEE 

HB133 

A&P-39 
Administration and Public Affairs Committee 

VIRGIN ISLANDS 

Collin Brooks Price Verification 

Archie Corbitt HB133 

WASHINGTON 

John Allen HB133 

LPG 

Tim Douglas (Seattle) Price Verification 

Bruce Feagan (Seattle) HB133 

Retail Computing Scales 

Arthur Fluharty Price Verification 

Mike Mann Retail Computing Scales 

Rick Mulcahy Retail Computing Scales 

Keith Stoner (Seattle) Retail Motor- Fuel Dispensers 

WEST VIRGINIA 

Stephen Casto LPG 

Retail Computing Scales 

HB133 

NTEP 

William A. Cobb HB133 

Price Verification 

Dennis F. Harrison Retail Motor- Fuel Dispensers 

WISCONSIN 

Kathryn Dresser' Price Verification 

HB133 

Retail Computing Scales 

NTEP 

Retail Motor- Fuel Dispensers 

WYOMING 

Kim W. Decker HB133 

Quince Olsen HB133 

Albie Mickelson Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

Ron Weber HB133 

Albania 

Dritan Meta Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

Tanzania, East Africa 

Rose Katabi Retail Computing Scales 

Retail Motor- Fuel Dispensers 

Wayne Division -Dresser Industries 

Cheryl Forster Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

Dale Godfrey Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

A8~P-40 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-1 

Report of the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee 

Aves Thompson 

Director

Alaska Measurement Standards/Commercial Vehicle Enforcement 

Reference 

Key Number 

500 Introduction 

The National Type Evaluation Program Committee submits its Report for the 85th National Conference on Weights and 

Measures. This report consists of the Interim Report presented in NCWM Publication, as amended in the Addendum 

Sheets issued during the Annual Meeting, which was held July 16-20, 2000 in Richmond, Virginia. The Committee 

considered communications received prior to and during the 85th Annual Meeting which are noted in this report. 

Table A identifies all of the items contained in the report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The 

item numbers are those assigned in the Committee’s Interim Meeting Report. Voting items are indicated with a “V” or, if 

the item was part of the consent calendar, by the suffix “VC” after the item numbers. Items marked with an “I” after the 

reference key number are information items. An item marked with a “W” means that item has been withdrawn. Items 

marked with a “W” generally will be referred to the regional weights and measures associations or other groups because 

they either need additional development, analysis, and input, or they do not have sufficient Committee support to bring 

them before the NCWM. Table B lists the appendices to the report, and Table C provides a summary of the results of the 

voting on the Committee’s items and the report in entirety.

The attached report may contain recommendations to revise or amend NCWM Publication 14, Administrative Procedures, 

Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures or other documents. Revisions proposed and/or adopted by Committee 

members are in bold face print and are shown by crossing out information to be deleted and underlining information to 

be added. New items proposed and/or adopted for addition to NCWM Publication 14 or other documents are designated 

as such and shown in bold face print.

Table A – Agenda Items 

Reference Title of Item 

Key No. Page 

501-1 I U.S. – CANADA MUTUAL RECOGNITION OF TYPE EVALUATION PROJECT.................................................3 

501-2 I INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF LEGAL METROLOGY (OIML) CERTIFICATE PROJECT .......................4 

501-3 I TEST DATA EXCHANGE AGREEMENTS .......................................................................................................5 

501-4 I ADOPTION OF UNIFORM REGULATION FOR NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION BY STATES .............................6 

501-5 I NTEP POLICY: CHALLENGES TO A CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE AND VERIFICATION THAT .................

 PRODUCTION MEETS TYPE.........................................................................................................................7 

501-6 I NTEP PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES AND EVALUATIONS REPORTS .....................................................10 

501-7 I NTETC SECTORS REPORTS .....................................................................................................................11 

501-8 V NTEP POLICY: CHANGES TO THE DEFINITION OF AN “INACTIVE” CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE......13 

501-9 V PRIVATE LABEL CERTIFICATES OF CONFORMANCE .................................................................................15 

501-10 W IDENTIFYING A PRIVATE LABEL CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE...........................................................17 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-2 

 Table B - Appendices 

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page 

A Status of NTEP Adoption, SMA Map 501-4.................................................................. 19 

B Proposed Alternative for Production Meets Type 

and Challenges to a Certificate of Conformance – NTEP 

Business Plan Work Group October 1999 Proposal 501-5.................................................................. 20 

C Participating NTEP Laboratories Report 501-6.................................................................. 23 

D NTETC Grain Moisture & NIR Protein Analyzer 

 Sectors September 1999 Meeting Summary 501-7.................................................................. 25 

E NTETC Measuring Sector September 1999 

 Meeting Summary 501-7.................................................................. 49 

F NTETC Weighing Sector October 1999 Meeting Summary 501-7.................................................................. 70 

Table C 

Voting Results

House of State 

Reference Key No. Representatives House of Delegates 

Yes No Yes No Results 

501-8 

501-9 

500 (Report in its Entirety) 

33

36

36

0

0

0

46

47

47

0

0

0

Passed

Passed

Passed
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-3 

 Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number)

501-1 I U.S. – Canada Mutual Recognition of Type Evaluation Project 

Source: Carryover Item 501-1 of the Report of the NTEP Committee to the 84th NCWM, 1999. 

Background: In 1994, Canada and the United States established a joint program that enables a manufacturer to submit 

certain types of weighing devices to either country for type evaluation testing. Under this program, the device can be 

tested to both U.S. and Canadian requirements in a single evaluation. Upon completing the tests, the country performing 

the evaluation forwards the results to the other country; the results can be used as a basis for issuing a type evaluation 

certificate in that country. Each country reserves the right to perform additional testing and to decide whether or not to 

issue a type approval certificate based on the results. The program for weighing devices has operated successfully since 

its inception and was expanded over the years to include additional types of weighing devices. 

In August 1998, work began to establish a pilot program for liquid-measuring devices. When this program is 

implemented, a manufacturer can request an evaluation to be conducted by Measurement Canada according to NTEP 

requirements; this testing may be performed in conjunction with testing to Canadian requirements. NTEP will accept the 

resulting data from Measurement Canada as a basis for issuing an NTEP Certificate for the device. Measurement Canada 

asked that the scope of the program, at least initially, be limited to retail motor-fuel dispensers. This will facilitate 

implementing the program and enable Measurement Canada to confirm whether or not the program fits within the 

strategic direction of its organization. It should be noted that this program will not be a mutual recognition program as in 

the weighing area because Canada has requirements for retail motor-fuel dispensers to which NTEP is unable to test. 

NTEP cannot, therefore, provide test data which can be used by Measurement Canada to issue Canadian Notices of 

Approval. However, this program will allow NTEP to recognize data collected by Measurement Canada as the basis for 

issuing an NTEP Certificate. 

At the 1999 Annual Meeting, Tina Butcher, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) Office of Weights 

and Measures (OWM), and Gilles Vinet, Measurement Canada, reported that further work on the pilot program for liquidmeasuring devices has been put on hold pending discussions between NCWM and NIST to reorganize NTEP. Mrs. 

Butcher and Mr. Vinet also reported that the mutual recognition program with Canada on weighing devices continues to 

operate successfully with no changes in this area of the program. 

2000 Interim Meeting Action: NTEP Committee Chairman, Aves Thompson, reported receiving a November 30, 1999, 

letter from Alan Johnston, Measurement Canada, concerning the status of the U.S./Canada Mutual Recognition Program 

for Type Evaluation. In his letter, Mr. Johnston noted that the agreement between the two countries’ type approval 

programs expired in March 1999, but both countries continue to accept each other’s type evaluation results. Measurement 

Canada is willing to continue this practice; however, it is interested in formally renewing the agreement when NCWM, 

Inc., assumes responsibility for managing and administering NTEP. Measurement Canada suggested expanding the 

agreement at that time to include other device types. 

Mr. Thompson responded to Mr. Johnston in a December 9, 1999, letter in which he confirmed the objective of the 

mutual recognition agreement. He also commended the efforts of Measurement Canada, NIST, and NCWM to support 

the agreement. Mr. Thompson confirmed that the transfer of NTEP management and administration to NCWM, Inc., is 

scheduled for October 1, 2000, and that the Board of Directors welcomes the opportunity to renew and entertain 

expanding the agreement with Measurement Canada. 

In its review of this issue, the Committee confirmed support for the positions outlined in Mr. Thompson’s letter. The 

Committee also noted that, if Measurement Canada is amenable, it would like to expand the agreement to include retail 

motor-fuel dispensers immediately upon renewing the agreement. 

Tina Butcher, Technical Advisor, noted that the work done for retail motor-fuel dispensers, as described in the 

background section above, would enable NTEP and Measurement Canada to implement an agreement in this area rather 

rapidly. Mrs. Butcher also noted that the work in the area of liquid-measuring devices was different from that done for 

weighing devices. For measuring devices, there are significant differences in some areas of the two countries’ 

requirements, and NTEP does not have test facilities necessary to test devices to some of the Canadian requirements. 

Consequently, the pilot program, which was originally discussed, was to have been limited to one in which NTEP would 

accept Canadian results as a basis for issuing NTEP Certificates, but not one in which NTEP would perform testing for 

Measurement Canada. At Measurement Canada’s request, the pilot was to initially be limited to retail motor-fuel 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-4 

dispensers; however, NTEP maintains an active interest in expanding the area to include other types of liquid-measuring 

devices. 

2000 Annual Meeting Action: The Committee received comments from industry indicating continued support for 

renewing the agreement with Canada. The Committee also received written and oral comments from Mel Hankel, MCH 

Engineering Associates, Inc., and other members of the measuring industry supporting expansion of the agreement to 

include liquid-measuring devices. 

The Committee looks forward to continuing work with Measurement Canada and renewing the agreement. The 

Committee expresses its appreciation to Measurement Canada for its continued cooperation. 

501-2 I International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Certificate 

 Project 

Source: Carryover Item 501-2 of the Report of the NTEP Committee to the 84th NCWM, 1999. 

Background: This item is included on the Committee’s agenda to provide an update on NTEP’s work to issue OIML 

R60 and R76 Certificates. The status of activities as of the date of the agenda is outlined below. The Committee also 

received written and oral comments from industry during both the Interim and Annual Meetings supporting expansion of 

NTEP’s OIML test capability to include measuring devices. 

2000 Interim Meeting Action: 

OIML R60, Load Cells: Since announcing R60 test capability in April 1997, NTEP has received three applications for 

R60 testing. The first OIML Certificate was issued to Mettler-Toledo, Inc., in early 1999 and the second to Revere 

Transducers, Inc., shortly thereafter. Following additional testing, a third R60 Certificate was issued to expand the 

capacities listed on the original Revere Certificate. No additional requests for OIML R60 tests have been received. 

OIML R76, Non-Automatic Weighing Instruments: NTEP announced R76 test capability in July 1998. Just prior to the 

1999 Interim Meeting, NTEP received its first application for an R76 test; a second application was received shortly after. 

Testing has been completed on the first application and a Certificate issued. Testing is in process on the second 

application. 

The two R76 NTEP laboratories are reviewing a trial software package for recording and processing R76 test reports. A 

decision to purchase a software package for the two laboratories will be made based on feedback from the laboratories. 

Tina Butcher, Technical Advisor, reported that, at the Fall 1999 Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) meeting, NTEP 

received a request to consider evaluating separate components such as weighing elements and weight indicators to OIML 

R76 requirements. Subsequent to these discussions, OWM received examples of a test report and associated OIML 

Certificate for a weighing component, specifically an indicator. NIST-OWM reviewed the data packet with NIST staff 

and consulted with the NTEP laboratories and other NIST administrative and technical staff about the logistics and 

technical aspects of issuing such Certificates. On December 30, 1999, NIST announced that NTEP will begin issuing 

R76 Certificates for weighing elements and weight indicator components. 

Since the December 30, 1999, announcement was issued, the International Bureau of Legal Metrology (BIML) informed 

Sam Chappell, U.S. representative to International Committee on Legal Metrology (CIML), that BIML would not register 

OIML Certificates for components under R76. BIML noted that, while the issue of component testing has been discussed 

in the past and has generated interest, there are presently no separate test procedures and test report forms for separate 

components including indicators and weighing elements. Consequently, OIML is unable to recognize OIML Certificates 

issued for separate components under R76. 

Dr. Chappell reported to the Committee that, based on members’ strong degree of interest, his office would volunteer to 

prepare the test procedures and test reports for separate indicators and weighing elements under R76. Dr. Chappell noted 

that he would submit a proposal to undertake the task to Germany and France, which presently serve as joint secretariat 

for R76. OWM will continue to provide the service of testing components to R76 based upon its interpretation of 

applicable R76 requirements. However, manufacturers must be aware that the testing will result only in a report of test 

and not an OIML Certificate. Should provisions be made under OIML to issue Certificates to separate components at 

some future date, it is possible that the test reports might be used as a basis for obtaining the OIML Certificates. An 

announcement clarifying the available testing service will be distributed to all current NTEP Certificate holders. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-5 

2000 Annual Meeting Action: Industry members expressed support for continued work on this issue. Several 

companies, including SMA members, indicated that the test report would be helpful to U.S. manufacturers until such time 

that OIML Certificates for components are available. SMA would like NCWM, Inc., to consider issuing an R76 test 

certificate and associated test report on a component. SMA would like the NIST Office of Standards Services to pursue 

component approvals for OIML Certificates, in accordance with the first committee draft recommendation (OIML TC9) 

“Indicators for Weighing Instruments.” 

501-3 I Test Data Exchange Arrangements 

Source: Carryover Item 501-3 of the Report of the NTEP Committee to the 84th NCWM, 1999. 

Background/Discussion: In response to a request by the NCWM, a meeting was held at NIST in April 1998 to explore 

the possibility of establishing a multilateral agreement on type approval. The meeting was attended by representatives of 

the NCWM, NIST-OWM, NIST-TSA, eight other OIML countries, and the Director of the International Bureau of Legal 

Metrology (BIML). An initial draft of an agreement was presented at that meeting and, although participants did not 

agree to accept the agreement as written, they felt that it was a good start. An area of disagreement was in the scope of 

testing. Some participants wanted the agreement to establish the provision for “one-stop testing” in which any country 

can perform all tests according to another country’s requirements. Others, including the NCWM representatives, felt that 

the agreement should begin with a limited approach of recognizing OIML test data and be expanded as mutual confidence 

for operating the agreement is established among participating laboratories. The U.S. representatives noted the successful 

approach taken with US/Canada mutual recognition work. The U.S./Canada program began with simple devices and 

expanded to include more complex devices and a broader scope of activities as confidence was established in the program 

and in the participants. Participants in the meeting also acknowledged the need to establish confidence in each other’s 

laboratories and to establish criteria that might be used to assess the capabilities of participating laboratories in a specific

testing area. 

Several additional meetings have been held since that time, and subsequent drafts of the proposed agreement have been 

prepared and circulated among participants. Sam Chappell, Chief, NIST Technical Standards Activities Program, has 

provided the NTEP Committee with regular updates on activities in this area. During the Committee’s 1999 meetings, 

Dr. Chappell reported that some OIML member nations are quite interested in quickly establishing an agreement, and he 

provided a proposed schedule of activities to an OIML work group to encourage progress of the work. 

The participants in this work established a target date for a framework agreement that would be endorsed by CIML at its 

October 1999 meeting. Under the current proposed framework, only two member countries must sign up in any one 

testing category for measuring instruments or devices. A different agreement will exist for each category of instrument 

covered. The proposal includes the concept of one-stop testing and also calls for criteria for establishing mutual 

confidence either by accreditation or peer review of the testing laboratories and issuing (certifying) body. It is hoped that 

NCWM members will select agreements in which they feel comfortable participating. 

At the 1999 NCWM Annual Meeting, Dr. Chappell reported that a Work Group Meeting was held in Paris during the first 

week of June to discuss the proposed test data exchange agreement. Approximately 40 representatives of 17 different 

countries attended the meeting. In addition to Dr. Chappell, U.S. representatives at the meeting included Barbara Bloch, 

Director, California Division of Measurement Standards, representing NCWM; John Elengo, NIST Technical Consultant; 

Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo; and Gary Lameris, Hobart Corporation. Ms. Bloch provided the NTEP Committee with 

a report of that meeting; a copy of her report is found in Appendix A of the Committee’s 1999 Final Report. Dr. 

Chappell noted that the scope of the agreement is limited to a particular category of instruments and, while this does not 

represent a big community of participants that issue type approval certificates, it is a global community. 

During its July 1999 discussion of this issue, Committee members again noted that some international work group 

participants have expressed an interest in conducting, in addition to testing to OIML recommendations, testing to 

participating country requirements (e.g., NTEP tests) on devices submitted to their laboratories. Such an approach would 

provide the convenience of “one-stop testing” to manufacturers who could have their devices tested to multiple countries’ 

requirements in one location. The Committee noted that NTEP currently accepts results of NTEP tests conducted by 

Measurement Canada, based on establishing mutual confidence in each country’s test capabilities. The proposed mutual 

agreement includes provisions for establishing mutual confidence among participants’ laboratories, including methods 

similar to that used by the United States and Canada. 

With the fairly recent issuance of the first U.S. OIML Certificates, the Committee noted an interest in seeing whether or 

not other countries accept the test data accompanying U.S.-issued OIML Certificates before taking a position on mutually 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-6 

accepting other countries’ test results. Under such an agreement, the Committee was willing to accept another country’s 

OIML CC test data as a basis of issuing an NTEP CC, but noted that the agreement provides for additional testing to be 

conducted by participants if indicated by the test report. The Committee is interested in hearing whether NCWM 

members’ jurisdictions would be willing to accept test data based on NTEP requirements from other countries since the 

proposed agreement would include provisions for other countries to perform NTEP tests if they choose to do so. It is 

noted that mutual confidence must be established among all participants with regard to their competence in testing. 

2000 Interim Meeting Action: In December 1999, Dr. Sam Chappell distributed the 5th Draft of OIML Document 

“Mutual Acceptance Agreement on OIML Pattern Evaluation” to interested parties. He requested that comments on the 

document be submitted by January 31, 2000. During the Interim Meeting, Dr. Chappell discussed the current status of the 

5th draft and noted that the OIML participants have been generally pleased by the progress in establishing the framework 

for the final agreement. The 5th draft provides for participants to indicate their country-specific tests in the agreement; the 

agreement allows other participants to perform those tests in conjunction with tests to OIML requirements if they want to 

do so. 

During the Interim 2000 work sessions, the Committee discussed the 5th draft and submitted comments supporting the 

document to Dr. Chappell following the Interim Meeting. The Committee expressed appreciation to Dr. Chappell’s office 

for continued work on the agreement. 

The Committee also received comments concerning the presentation of the background material on this item. Comments 

indicate concern that the background implied that the proposed agreement represented a less acceptable compromise than 

the current agreement between the United States and Canada. The Committee agreed that this was not the intention of the 

background information; the information was intended to describe in detail the U.S./Canada agreement for comparison. 

Comments also requested clarification that countries do not presently accept other countries’ OIML Certificates without 

first reviewing the accompanying test data and pertinent information. The Committee reaffirmed support of the proposed 

agreement, and changed the background section of this issue to reflect these comments. 

The Committee heard comments from industry members representing both the weighing and measuring sectors 

supporting the continuation of work to establish test data exchange agreements with other countries. Comments from the 

liquid-measuring device industry specifically supported establishment of agreements which would include liquidmeasuring devices. 

2000 Annual Meeting Action: Dr. Chappell reported to the Committee that the OIML Work Group on the Mutual 

Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) met in June 2000 in Paris to review the 6th draft of the proposed arrangement. NTEP 

Committee chairman, Aves Thompson, represented the NCWM at that meeting. Dr. Chappell reported that work is 

progressing well on the development of the framework OIML document for the MAA. The MAA will be discussed at a 

roundtable in October 2000 in conjunction with the Quadrennial International Conference on Legal Metrology. On behalf 

of the NCWM, Mr. Thompson expressed support for continued work on this arrangement. 

501-4 I Adoption of Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation by States 

Source: Carryover Item 501-4 of the Report of the NTEP Committee to the 84th NCWM, 1999. 

Background/Discussion: Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA), updated the NTEP Committee at both 

the 1999 Interim and Annual meetings on the status of SMA's drive to assist States to adopt two regulations: (1) the 

Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation (URNTE), and (2) the Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary 

Registration of Servicepersons and Service Agencies (VRR). At the 1999 Annual Meeting, Mr. Tonini reported that 

Vermont continues to work toward adoption, and Kentucky’s Attorney General’s Office plans to proceed with NTEP 

adoption. Texas reports that, although they do not presently intend to formally adopt NTEP, they ask for NTEP 

Certificates of Conformance when questions arise concerning compliance of a device with Handbook 44. Gary West, 

NM, reported to the Committee at that meeting that New Mexico is in the process of adopting an NTEP regulation and 

asked various members of the weights and measures community for comments on a draft regulation. 

SMA continues to host NTEP breakfasts for State Directors at the regional weights and measures association meetings. 

SMA polled the NTEP laboratories for suggestions on questions to be discussed at future breakfasts. Discussions at these 

breakfasts have greatly assisted States to implement NTEP and to identify differences in implementation among the 

States.

Mr. Tonini reported that States with registered service agency programs seem to have the strongest programs. These 

States use the registered service agency requirements to require training of service personnel, thus strengthening and 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-7 

improving the general compliance of devices with Handbook 44. Lou Straub, MD, reported to the Committee at the 1999 

Interim Meeting that Maryland prepared draft material to establish a registration program and received support from 

Maryland’s Department of Agriculture. Mr. Straub recognized the importance of extending training beyond the weights 

and measures staff to the service personnel. 

2000 Interim Meeting Action: Mr. Tonini updated the Committee on the status of adoption of URNTE. He reported that 

Florida is now operating as an NTEP jurisdiction. New Mexico continues to work toward adoption of NTEP. Mr. Tonini 

was unable to make contact with representatives from Kentucky, but he will continue to try to obtain information on their 

status.

Mr. Tonini also reported on the ongoing SMA-sponsored NTEP State Directors’ breakfasts. These breakfasts are 

designed to enable jurisdictions to share information about adopting NTEP in their respective jurisdictions. They help to 

encourage non-NTEP jurisdictions to adopt the regulation and allow current NTEP jurisdictions to share ideas on how to 

make enforcement more effective and uniform among their States. The breakfasts also provide NTEP management with 

information relative to areas in which the operation and implementation of the program can be improved. 

Mr. Tonini reported that the breakfasts continue to be successful and well received. The results of the 1997, 1998, and 

1999 breakfast meetings are available through SMA’s web site at www.scalemanufacturers.org. SMA chose two new 

topics for the coming year’s meetings: 

(1) Have you encountered devices within your jurisdictions where you felt that production did not meet type and, if 

so, how did you deal with them? 

(2) What are your thoughts about dealing with the issue of repaired and remanufactured equipment? 

Mr. Tonini also noted that OWM asked if meeting participants could be polled concerning their opinions on the NTEP 

Certification of Conformance web site. 

2000 Annual Meeting Action: Daryl Tonini provided an update to the NCWM on progress in this area since the Interim 

Meeting. (A copy of the current SMA map is included in Appendix A.) Mr. Tonini reported that New Mexico and Texas 

continue to express their intentions toward adoption. Mr. Tonini also reported that Vermont is now interested in pursuing 

adoption of NTEP. Mr. Dave Quinn, Fairbanks, is working on behalf of SMA and Fairbanks to coordinate a meeting with 

representatives of NTEP and NTEP States neighboring Vermont to discuss issues surrounding adoption and 

implementation of NTEP in Vermont. Vermont has now indicated its availability to schedule this meeting. 

The Committee expressed appreciation for SMA’s continued efforts to encourage adoption of NTEP. 

501-5 I NTEP Policy: Challenges to a Certificate of Conformance and Verification 

that Production Meets Type 

Source: Carryover Item 501-5 of the Report of the NTEP Committee to the 84th NCWM, 1999. 

Recommendation: The NTEP Business Plan Work Group recommends that NCWM consider the proposal outlined in 

Appendix B as an approach for addressing the issues of production meets type and challenges to Certificates of 

Conformance. 

In developing procedures to handle actual challenges, the NTEP Committee developed the following proposal for 

production meets type or conformity assessment. It was developed to address the specific type of device involved in the 

challenges. The Committee recognizes that one process may not address all device types and that additional elements 

may need to be considered for other device types. The Committee asks that the NTEP Business Plan Work Group 

consider this proposal during its review of conformity assessment procedures. 

Outline for Discussion - NTEP Process 

The NTEP Committee offers the following outline to the NTEP Business Plan Working Group for their consideration. 

The following new evaluation process is proposed: 

i Manufacturer submits application for Certificate of Conformance (CC) 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-8 

i Manufacturer submits device for prototype evaluation 

i Prior to issuance of certificate NCWM, Inc., will: 

3⁄4Evaluate manufacturer’s quality assurance system and manufacturing processes 

3⁄4Perform an on-site visit where appropriate (at the manufacturer’s cost) to review the manufacturer’s 

facilities and ability to follow the processes 

3⁄4Request the manufacturer to provide an affidavit that production models will conform to the prototype 

i Provided the above is satisfactory, NCWM, Inc., will issue the CC 

i As a condition of issuance of the CC, periodic evaluations by NCWM, Inc., will continue to include: 

3⁄4An annual submission by the manufacturer of statistical records of the products manufactured 

3⁄4Every 3 to 5 years, an NCWM, Inc., representative will visit the manufacturer’s facility to conduct an 

evaluation

3⁄4During the site visit, the representative will review statistical quality assurance and production records and 

may conduct a random test of a production device in the manufacturer’s test facility 

3⁄4NTEP Committee examination of documentation submitted by field inspectors regarding performance of the 

device. (The NTEP Committee is aware that field inspectors cannot test for influence factors, such as 

temperature.) 

i The NTEP Committee discussed, but did not reach a conclusion on, whether the CC should have an expiration 

date 

Background/Discussion: In 1998, the NTEP Business Plan Work Group drafted procedures to: 1) address the issue of 

ensuring that weighing and measuring devices produced for the marketplace are the same as the model or type of the 

device that NTEP approved; and 2) resolve challenges to NTEP Certificates of Conformance. The procedures were 

intended to ultimately become part of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Publication 14, NTEP 

Administrative Procedures, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures. 

The draft procedures were published for comment in NCWM Publication 16, Program and Committee Reports for the 

83rd Annual Meeting. Based on the comments it received, the Work Group felt that there was a lack of strong support for 

the original proposal concerning verification that production meets type. Consequently, the Work Group began 

considering an alternative proposal that involves receiving feedback from the States at the initial verification stage in the 

U.S. legal metrology system. The Work Group decided to collect industry comments on how to help ensure that 

production meets type. The Scale Manufacturers Association, the Gasoline Pump Manufacturers Association (GPMA), 

and the Meter Manufacturers Association (MMA) were asked to take the original proposal and the new proposal back to 

their respective organizations and develop input for the Work Group to consider by December 1, 1998. The production 

meets type issue was also added to the agendas of the fall 1998 meetings of the National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee (NTETC) Weighing and Measuring Sectors. 

At the 1999 Interim Meeting, Barbara Bloch, NTEP Business Plan Work Group Chairman, reported the Work Group’s 

progress to the NTEP Committee. Ms. Bloch reported that the Work Group received comments from SMA, GPMA, 

MMA, and others on the “alternative proposal” described above. The Work Group agreed to review these comments at 

its February 1999 meeting. Ms. Bloch encouraged members of the NTEP Committee and other interested parties to 

attend the Work Group’s meeting. 

At the 1999 NCWM Annual Meeting, Ms. Bloch again updated the Committee on the Work Group’s progress. Ms. 

Bloch gave the Committee notebooks that included the July 1999 report, a detailed progress report, and other related 

materials. (A copy of the Work Group’s July 1999 report to the NTEP Committee is included in Appendix E of the 

Committee’s 1999 Final Report. A few copies of the notebooks presented at the July 1999 meeting are available upon 

request from NIST-OWM.) The NTEP Committee again acknowledged the contributions of the Work Group and 

expressed appreciation of its continued efforts. 

The Work Group met briefly during the 1999 NCWM Annual Meeting to review the original and alternative proposals 

and the comments received to date. Following that meeting, the Chairman of the Work Group revised the proposal as 

discussed by the Work Group and forwarded the results to Work Group members for comments. Based on input from 

Work Group members, Ms. Bloch forwarded a revised proposal (see Appendix B) to the NTEP Committee Technical 

Advisor requesting that it be added to the NTEP Committee’s 2000 Interim agenda. Ms. Bloch also requested that the 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-9 

two previous proposals (presented in Appendix C and Appendix D of the NTEP Committee’s 1999 Final Report) be 

deleted. 

At an October 1999 meeting, the NTEP Committee invited Peter Perino, Consultant, to discuss “production meets type” 

with the Committee and the Board of Directors. At that time, an outline of a plan emerged and Simon Stapleton, NCWM 

legal counsel, was asked to develop the outline shown in the recommendation above. The outline shows a definite shift in 

direction away from testing of individual devices to determine that “production meets type” to a method that focuses on 

the production and quality control processes that are used to ensure that “production devices meet type.” Although the 

concept has been developed, specific procedures need to be further developed. The Committee supports the work of the 

NTEP Business Plan Work Group and feels that the outline above adds to the body of knowledge and may provide 

additional material for reaching a solution for the production meets type issues. 

2000 Interim Meeting Action: The Committee received comments expressing concern about whether or not the proposed 

procedure published by the Committee in the Interim Agenda was intended to replace the procedures being developed by 

the NTEP Business Plan Work Group. Concerns were also expressed that the procedures proposed by the Committee 

may not be appropriate for all types of devices. The Committee noted that the procedures were intended only to present 

an alternative for the Work Group to consider in developing conformity assessment procedures, not to replace or usurp 

the efforts of the Work Group or to replace the Work Group’s current proposal. 

The Committee reported that NCWM, Inc., hired a consultant, Mr. Pete Perino, to provide technical guidance in resolving 

challenges and in assisting the Committee to develop a framework for adding a conformity assessment component to 

NTEP. Mr. Perino briefly described the work done by the Committee and the approaches the Committee considered. The 

Committee considered the approach of testing devices to verify or disprove the challenge. With such an approach, the 

party being challenged would probably question how the device was tested in generating the challenge and whether or not 

the device might have been altered from its original design. Another question that would arise is what number of devices 

must be tested to verify the challenge. To determine the number of devices to be tested, it would first be necessary to 

define the size(s) of the production lot(s). The Committee recognized that it is only possible to use statistics if you are 

concerned with devices from the same population. The weights and measures community is interested in the compliance 

of devices from different production lots. 

During the discussions of the proposed approach, questions arose about whether or not this approach should be used for 

all device types. The Committee agrees that one set of procedures may not be appropriate for all device types and that the 

procedures need to be carefully examined and revised where appropriate to adequately address all device types. It was 

noted, however, that there are some elements which would be appropriate for all device types. Some noted that the 

proposed procedures are appropriate for devices subject to influence factor requirements since complying with these 

requirements can only be verified in a laboratory environment. However, additional comments indicated that even device 

types not subject to influence factor requirements would benefit from the procedures. Problems have been found with 

other device types, and there are elements even in these devices which could change in the absence of a quality system. 

The Committee concluded that the best and most cost-effective solution was not to test devices after production as the 

primary tool. Rather, it should examine the front part of the process by performing an initial accreditation and subsequent 

audits of the quality and manufacturing systems. Mr. Perino noted that this approach is not contrary to the Business Plan 

Work Group’s proposal because it specifies that applicants must agree to provide proof that they can produce devices 

which conform with the requirements. The approach that the Committee is considering requires that, in addition to 

producing the device which is tested, the manufacturer must also produce documentation which says there are quality and 

production systems in place. The primary tool in this approach is that, annually, the manufacturer would submit for his 

Certificate of Conformance a statistical report of the verification that occurred to ensure that the production devices 

comply with type. Mr. Perino noted that the Committee continues to refine the proposed procedures and welcomes 

comments on the proposed approach. 

The Committee explained that the procedures were developed as part of efforts to resolve challenges involving a specific 

device type, a load cell. Because the Committee had current challenges before it, it needed to develop procedures to be 

implemented immediately rather than waiting until the Work Group completed its assigned tasks. The Work Group had 

also acknowledged that different procedures might be appropriate for different device types. The Committee published 

procedures to enable interested parties to review and comment on a possible alternative and to provide a mechanism for 

the Committee to hear feedback which might assist it in its review of the challenges. 

The Committee again expressed appreciation for the Work Group’s efforts. The Committee commends the Work Group’s 

past efforts and fully supports its continued operation. The Committee agreed that the Interim Report would include 

language to reflect this position. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-10 

The Committee also heard comments from Dave Quinn, Chairman of the SMA Business Practices Work Group, who 

briefly described the history of the SMA Work Group. Mr. Quinn noted that one issue arising from their Work Group’s 

discussions was how long is the manufacturer responsible for production devices conforming with type. One could 

operate under the premise that the time frame ends when the device leaves the production line because the manufacturer 

does not always have control over alterations that might be made to the device after it leaves the manufacturer’s facilities. 

However, their work group chose, instead, to say that it extends unconditionally for 30 days after initial verification. 

Following this 30-day period, if a problem is encountered, the manufacturer would reserve the right to inspect the device 

to ascertain whether or not alterations not authorized by the original manufacturer had taken place. If the manufacturer 

finds no unauthorized modifications, then the device would be covered for a period of a year, including the initial 30-day 

period. 

In considering this issue, the SMA Work Group looked at two elements: 

(1) If the manufacturer gets word that there is a device that looks like it does not meet type, the manufacturer wants to 

look at the device and find out why this has occurred. If the manufacturer finds out that a load cell has been abused, 

or that something has been changed, then the manufacturer is not responsible. But as long as the device has not been 

altered, the manufacturer will stand behind the production device. 

(2) How long must the device continue to meet type? The SMA Work Group’s feeling is that the device must perform 

and look like its type for life. The SMA Work Group must write a standard which addresses repair to type. This 

must also be under some kind of quality assurance program. Anyone in the industry that wants to follow this 

procedure in the industry can do so. 

Mr. Quinn indicated the SMA Work Group has not addressed the issue of repairs to the production device, and the Work 

Group will examine this issue after developing the basic conformity assessment system. 

The Committee received comments from SMA, Mel Hankel, and other industry members who expressed support for the 

NTEP Business Plan Work Group’s work and the NTEP Committee on the general issue of conformity assessment. 

Some industry members expressed concern that the proposed approach for addressing conformity assessment by 

examining the manufacturer’s production processes might not be adequate to address the current challenges before the 

NTEP Committee. The Committee also heard a suggestion that the Committee and the NTEP Business Plan Work Group 

re-examine the existing criteria in the Administrative Policy section of Publication 14 to determine if the criteria might be 

slightly modified to form the basis of the conformity assessment criteria. 

Administratively, the Committee reported that Barbara Bloch, Chairman of the Work Group, is retiring, and the 

Committee is looking for a replacement. The Committee asked that people who are interested contact the Committee 

with replacement suggestions. The Committee sincerely appreciates Ms. Bloch’s work during her tenure as Chairman 

and wishes her well in retirement. 

Following the Interim Meeting, the Committee was pleased to announce that Ross Andersen, Director, New York Bureau 

of Weights and Measures has agreed to serve as Chairman of the Work Group. 

2000 Annual Meeting Action: NTEP Committee Chairman Aves Thompson reported that the NTEP Committee had 

successfully resolved two challenges since the 2000 Interim Meeting. 

During discussion of this item at the 2000 Annual Meeting, the Committee discussed the need to refine the process for 

lodging appeals and challenges with NTEP. Based on the recommendations of the NTEP Business Plan Work Group, the 

Committee will be reviewing the current process outlined in Appendix B, Section O, “Appeals Process,” of the 1990 

NCWM Executive Committee report and proposing revisions as appropriate. 

501-6 I NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Reports 

Source: Carryover Item 501-6 of the Report of the NTEP Committee of the 84th NCWM, 1999. 

2000 Interim Meeting Action: Tina Butcher provided the following updates to the Committee on NTEP laboratories’ 

activities. 

Laboratory Activities: In October 1999 Representatives from Measurement Canada, several of the NTEP Weighing 

Laboratories, NIST-OWM, and several U.S. companies participated in training on OIML R76 Non-Automatic Weighing 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-11 

Instruments. NIST-OWM and Measurement Canada jointly organized the training, with assistance from the Scale 

Manufacturers Association in coordinating industry participation. Measurement Canada hosted the seminar in Ottawa, 

Ontario, Canada. Keith Mann and Kerry Marston, both with the Australian National Standards Commission, presented 

the training. Comments from participants indicated that the training was very beneficial. Participants also expressed 

appreciation to those who were involved in organizing the seminar and the instructors for their presentations. 

The NTEP Weighing Laboratories met prior to the October 1999 Weighing Sector Meeting in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. 

NIST-OWM and NCWM extended particular thanks to Measurement Canada for hosting the seminar and to Mr. Mann 

and Ms. Marston for their expert training. 

Laboratory Evaluations: Lynn Sebring, NIST-OWM, presented a report of laboratory evaluation activity (as of January 

2000) to the Committee. 

The Committee reviewed the average time frames reported for various stages of the NTEP process. Comments indicate 

satisfaction with the time frame for NTEP’s issuing of OIML Certificates. One area of particular concern was that of the 

time between the Effective date (when a Certificate number is assigned) and the Issue date (when a Certificate is issued). 

Providing a number to the manufacturer immediately upon completion of a type evaluation enables the manufacturer to 

begin selling and distributing the device. However, until the final Certificate is issued, the inspector and service agencies 

have no information about which devices will be covered on the Certificate and under which conditions the devices can 

be used. Delays in the time between Effective and Issue dates can include delays in the laboratory’s drafting of the CC, 

delays in the manufacturer review and approval of the Certificate, and delays in NIST’s final processing of the CC. 

Based on comments heard during the Interim Meeting, the Committee discussed alternative approaches that might be used 

to minimize the length of time between the Effective and Issue dates. Alternatives discussed included: (1) not issuing a 

CC number until the draft CC has been prepared by the laboratory and (2) requiring the manufacturer to submit a draft CC 

with the application. Some individuals expressed concerns over the first alternative because both the manufacturer and 

NTEP can contribute to the delays. There was general support for the second alternative. The Committee supported the 

second alternative, but noted that delays must be minimized to ensure that inspectors have the information necessary to 

conduct inspections. 

The Committee also discussed continued concern over the use of NTEP as a testing service. Some manufacturers submit 

equipment that is not ready for type evaluation: rather than perform their own research, they use NTEP to identify areas of 

noncompliance that must be corrected. This practice results in delays for other manufacturers who are well prepared for 

the type evaluation process. OWM reports that it is considering implementing procedures to limit the number of failures 

that can occur during a type evaluation. Should the number of failures exceed the specified limit under the procedure, the 

manufacturer would be required to provide additional information and test data to demonstrate that the areas of 

noncompliance have been corrected before NTEP could re-test the device. The proposed process was reviewed with the 

laboratories at the last laboratory meeting and continues to be refined. Another suggestion was to require a manufacturer 

to submit data with the application (similar to what is currently required for load cells) demonstrating that the device is 

ready for evaluation. Comments during the Interim Meeting indicate general support for both approaches. The 

Committee indicated support for submitting test data with the application. 

Mrs. Sebring noted that OWM continues to work with laboratories and manufacturers to clean up old, outstanding files. 

OWM will consider the alternatives presented as possible means to minimize the delays and eliminate unprepared devices 

from the type evaluation process. OWM will also continue to work with the laboratories to refine the proposed failure 

procedures. 

2000 Annual Meeting Action: The Committee received a copy of an updated Participating Laboratories and Evaluations 

report prepared by Mrs. Sebring for the period January 1, 2000, to present. A copy of this report is included in Appendix 

C.

501-7 I NTETC Sectors Reports 

Source: Carryover Item 501-7 of the Report of the NTEP Committee to the 84th NCWM, 1999. 

Background/Discussion: The Committee heard updates on the activities of the National Type Evaluation Technical 

Committee Sectors as outlined below. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-12 

The Committee noted a related issue concerning scheduling Sector meetings in Item 101-18 on the Board of Directors’ 

2000 Interim Report. See Item 101-18 of the Board of Directors’ 2000 Final Report for additional details. 

The Committee also discussed the timeliness of Sector reports. Comments indicate that the reports are being provided in 

a more timely manner than in the past; however, some laboratories have expressed the need to receive reports more 

quickly. NIST-OWM noted that laboratories are expected to apply the Sector’s decisions immediately following the 

Sector meetings and should take necessary steps prior to the end of the meetings to ensure that they understand Sector 

decisions. However, NIST-OWM also recognized the importance of distributing the reports as soon as possible to ensure 

consistent interpretation among laboratories and manufacturers and will continue to improve the distribution process. The 

Committee also noted that, because of the practice of applying decisions immediately, NTEP Committee members must 

work to keep abreast of Sector activities and decisions. 

Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector: Members of the Sector were saddened to learn of the death of Norm Johnson, former 

Chairman of the Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector. Mr. Johnson died in October 1999, after a five-year battle with brain 

cancer. He served as Sector Chairman from 1994 until his resignation in August 1999. Mr. Johnson contributed 

significantly to the Sector during his term as Chairman, and the Sector will greatly miss his expertise and presence. 

On a more positive note, the Sector is pleased to announce that Paul Chase, Chase Technology, Inc., has agreed to serve 

as new Chairman of the NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector. Sector members elected Mr. Chase to the position by mail 

ballot in October. 

The Sector has also had a change in technical advisors. Former Technical Advisor, Thomas Ahrens, left NIST-OWM in 

November 1999, to take advantage of a career opportunity with Lockheed Martin Corporation. The Sector will miss Mr. 

Ahrens’ expertise and contributions. Richard Suiter, NIST-OWM, has been designated to replace Mr. Ahrens as 

Technical Advisor to the Sector. 

The NTETC Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector last met in October 1998. A request for agenda items was distributed to the 

Sector in July 1999 for a possible meeting in October 1999. Insufficient items were received to warrant a 1999 meeting. 

At the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, Mr. Suiter reported that the next Belt-Conveyor Sector meeting is tentatively 

scheduled for the week of September 10, 2000, in conjunction with the Weighing Sector meeting in Columbus, OH, 

provided that sufficient agenda items are submitted to warrant a meeting. 

At the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, Tina Butcher confirmed that the next meeting of the Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector 

would be held September 12-13, 2000, in Columbus, OH. The meeting will be held in conjunction with the Weighing 

Sector’s Annual Meeting. 

[Editor’s Note: Following the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, a memorandum was distributed announcing the 

cancellation of the 2000 Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting. Insufficient agenda items were received to warrant a 2000 

meeting.]

For questions on the current status of Sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, contact Technical Advisor, 

Mr. Suiter. He can be reached by telephone at 301-975-4406, by fax at 301-926-0647, by e-mail at rsuiter@nist.gov, or 

in writing at NIST, 100 Bureau Drive – Stop 2350, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899-2350. 

Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein Analyzer Sectors: The Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein Analyzer 

Sectors held a joint meeting in St. Louis, MO, in September 1999. 

At the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, a copy of the meeting summary was presented to the NTEP Committee (see 

Appendix D), and Diane Lee was available to respond to Committee questions. Ms. Lee reported that the next Sector 

meeting was tentatively scheduled for August 2000 in Kansas City, MO. A training session on NIR devices is tentatively 

scheduled prior to the meeting. 

At the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, Tina Butcher reported that the next meeting of the Grain Moisture and NIR Protein 

Analyzer Sectors would be held August 23-25, 2000 (beginning on Wednesday afternoon and ending on Friday 

afternoon) in Kansas City, MO. Mrs. Butcher reported that a technical training session on NIR devices, which was 

tentatively scheduled prior to the Sectors’ meetings, was cancelled. 

For questions on the current status of the Sectors’ work, contact either of the Sector Technical Advisors, Diane Lee, 

NIST-OWM, or Jack Barber, J.B. Associates. Ms. Lee can be reached by telephone at 301-975-4405, by fax at 301-926-

0647, by e-mail at diane.lee@nist.gov, or in writing at NIST, 100 Bureau Drive – Stop 2350, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899-
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-13 

2350. Mr. Barber can be reached by telephone at 217-483-4232, by fax at 217-483-3712, by e-mail at 

jbarber@cityscape.net, or in writing at J.B. Associates, 10349 Old Indian Trail, Glenarm, IL, 62536. 

Measuring Sector: The NTETC Measuring Sector met on September 24-25, 1999 in Olympia, WA. The Sector has also 

had a change in Technical Advisors. Former Technical Advisor, Thomas Ahrens, left NIST-OWM in November 1999 to 

work for Lockheed Martin Corporation. The Sector will miss Mr. Ahrens’ expertise and contributions. Richard Suiter, 

NIST-OWM has been designated to replace Mr. Ahrens as Technical Advisor to the Sector. 

At the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, the NTEP Committee received a copy of the meeting summary prepared by Mr. 

Ahrens and Juana Williams (see Appendix E). Current Technical Advisor, Richard Suiter, was available to respond to 

Committee questions. Mr. Suiter reported that the next Sector meeting was tentatively scheduled for October 2000 in 

Austin, TX, in conjunction with the Southern Weights and Measures Association Meeting. 

At the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, Mrs. Butcher reported that the next meeting of the Measuring Sector was scheduled 

for October 6-7, 2000, in Austin, TX. 

For questions on the current status of Sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, contact Mr. Suiter. He can be 

reached by telephone at 301-975-4406, by fax at 301-926-0647, by e-mail at rsuiter@nist.gov, or in writing at NIST, 100 

Bureau Drive – Stop 2350, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899-2350. 

Weighing Sector: The Weighing Sector met on October 4-5, 1999, in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. The Sector thanks 

Measurement Canada for assistance in coordinating the October 1999 meeting. 

At the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, a copy of the meeting summary was presented to the NTEP Committee (see 

Appendix F), and Richard Suiter was available to respond to Committee questions. Mr. Suiter reported that the next 

Sector meeting was tentatively scheduled for September 2000, in Columbus, OH. 

At the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, Mrs. Butcher confirmed that the next meeting of the Weighing Sector was 

scheduled for September 10-12, 2000, in Columbus, OH, in conjunction with the 2000 Meeting of the Belt-Conveyor 

Scale Sector. 

[Editor’s Note: Following the 2000 NCWM Annual Meeting, a memorandum was distributed announcing the 

cancellation of the 2000 Belt-Conveyor Scale Sector Meeting. Insufficient agenda items were received to warrant a 2000 

meeting.]

For questions on the current status of Sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, contact Mr. Suiter. He can be 

reached by telephone at 301-975-4406, by fax at 301-926-0647, by e-mail at rsuiter@nist.gov, or in writing at NIST, 100 

Bureau Drive – Stop 2350, Gaithersburg, MD, 20899-2350. 

2000 Annual Meeting Action: The Committee heard updates of Sector activities from Mrs. Butcher as outlined in the 

information above. 

The NTEP Committee reported that electronic and hard copies of the 2000 edition of NCWM Publication 14 have been 

provided to the NCWM Headquarters for publication. Publication 14 will be published and available for purchase. 

Contact the NCWM Headquarters for additional details. 

501-8 V NTEP Policy: Changes to the Definition of an “Inactive” Certificate of 

 Conformance 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Carryover Item 501-11 of the Report of the NTEP Committee to the 84th NCWM, 1999. (Original 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association) 

Recommendation: Revise NCWM Publication 14, Section 1, Administrative Policy and Procedures, Part N, Subsection 

4, as follows: 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-14 

N. Status of Certificate of Conformance, Maintenance Fee

..... 

4. Inactive Status 

An iInactive Certificate of Conformance is a Certificate which was previously aActive, but the devices are no 

longer being manufactured or remanufactured for commercial applications. However, dDevices already 

manufactured, installed, or in inventory, but not yet sold, may be used, sold, repaired, and resold under an 

Inactive Certificate of Conformance already installed may be used, repaired, and resold under an Inactive 

Certificate of Conformance. Provided NTEP is supplied with the serial number or date code of the last device of 

that model manufactured for commercial applications, new devices already manufactured or in inventory, but 

not yet sold, may be sold under an Inactive Certificate of Conformance. If NTEP is not supplied with the last 

serial number or date code, new devices already manufactured or in inventory, but not yet sold, may be sold 

under an Inactive Certificate of Conformance for a period of 12 months after the date that the Certificate is 

made Inactive.

Justification: The amendment would provide weights and measures officials with the information needed to know what 

devices the Active Certificate of Conformance covers and the means to identify those devices that are manufactured after 

the Certificate becomes Inactive. If the manufacturer does not provide the serial number of the last manufactured device 

under the Active Certificate, devices can continue to be sold for 12 months after the date on which the Certificate 

becomes Inactive. Devices sold after this date would not be traceable to an NTEP Certificate of Conformance. 

Background/Discussion: At the 1999 Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments that not all manufacturers use a 

serial number to track the manufacturing history of a device; instead, many use a date code which includes information 

relevant to the manufacture of a device. The technical Sectors of NTEP submitted similar comments. The Committee 

agreed that the proposed language should be broadened to recognize other means that a manufacturer might use to 

identify the date of manufacture. 

During the Committee’s open hearings, people expressed concerns about how the proposal would impact equipment in a 

distributor’s stock when the original manufacturer goes out of business. If the original manufacturer does not supply the 

last serial number or date code, this may result in a penalty to the distributor who would not then be able to sell equipment 

in stock. The Committee indicated that the intent of the proposal is not to penalize the distributor or the original 

equipment manufacturer, but is to assist weights and measures officials who have difficulty determining whether or not a 

particular device is covered under an Inactive Certificate of Conformance. To address the concern over equipment in a 

distributor’s stock, the Committee is considering incorporating into the proposed language a time frame that would 

provide adequate time for the sale and distribution of equipment in stock. The Committee discussed a possible time 

frame of 12 months; however, it would like to hear comments on a reasonable time frame. Some indicated that most 

weights and measures jurisdictions would work with distributors to help resolve such situations rather than unduly 

penalize them. 

The Committee also heard concerns about how the proposed criteria apply to remanufactured equipment. The Committee 

noted that the S&T Committee is reviewing the issue of remanufactured equipment. The proposal presented by the NTEP 

Committee is simply intended to assist weights and measures officials in applying the NTEP regulation in their 

jurisdictions. It is not intended to define when a particular device is considered to be repaired or remanufactured. 

The Committee received written comments from George Anderson, DurEquip, and heard comments during its open 

hearings at the 1999 Interim Meeting indicating that the language in the original proposal needs clarification. After 

reviewing several proposed alternatives, the Committee agreed on the language outlined above. Because of the many 

comments heard on this issue during the Interim Meeting, the Committee decided to retain this as an information item to 

allow for additional study. The Committee is interested in hearing alternatives which might provide the information that 

weights and measures officials need to determine whether or not a device is covered by an Inactive Certificate of 

Conformance. 

At the 1999 Annual Meeting, the Committee heard few additional comments on this item. The Committee encourages 

interested parties to study the proposed language and provide comments to the Committee. 

2000 Interim Meeting Action: Comments heard during the Interim Meeting generally supported the proposed changes to 

the definition of an “Inactive” Certificate. Some comments indicated that the proposed language refers to devices no 

longer being “manufactured or remanufactured”; however, it is difficult to determine exactly when a device is no longer 

being remanufactured. Comments also indicated that, since the Task Force on Remanufactured Equipment is studying 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-15 

terminology used to address remanufactured equipment, the Committee might want to consider deleting the reference to 

remanufactured equipment. 

The Committee also discussed comments that it received regarding how the proposed language would affect devices 

which are in the distribution pipeline at the time a CC becomes Inactive. The Committee recognized that if the CC holder 

does not supply the last serial number or date code, this could penalize companies that hold devices in the distribution 

pipeline because they have no control over the Certificate holder. The Committee decided that a time frame should be 

added to the language to allow the devices in the pipeline to be sold and distributed, even if the last serial number is not 

supplied. 

Based on these comments, the Committee decided to delete the reference to remanufactured equipment and to add a 12-

month time frame as shown in the recommendation. 

2000 Annual Meeting Action: The language proposed by the Committee in its 2000 Interim Report specifies that the 

manufacturer supplies NTEP with this information. At the 2000 Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments that 

not all original equipment manufacturers apply the serial number or date code to devices; in some cases, the private label 

company applies this information to the device. To recognize this scenario, the Committee revised the proposed language 

as shown in the recommendation above to state only that NTEP must be supplied with the information, without specifying 

who must supply the information. 

501-9 V Private Label Certificates of Conformance 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Carryover Item 501-12A (Original Source: NIST-OWM NTEP Management) 

Recommendation: Modify NCWM Publication 14, Section 1, Administrative Policy and Procedures, Part E, as follows: 

E. Request for Type Evaluation 

...

A company that is marketing a device (e.g., scale, indicator, or load cell) from a manufacturer and relabeling it under its own name must submit a separate request for a Certificate of Conformance using 

the forms found in Appendix D. The forms include a statement that, except for the change in 

proprietary markings, the device is not changed from the original type. The original manufacturer must 

verify that: 

(1) the manufacturer is providing the device to the company; 

(2) the re-labeling is authorized by them; and 

(3) the device provided to the company is identical to the original type for which the manufacturer 

has received a Certificate of Conformance. 

If a company re-labels equivalent devices (e.g., load cells) from multiple suppliers, the company must: 

(1) satisfy the requirements above for each manufacturer; and 

(2) assign a unique model designation to each type from each manufacturer. The same model 

series may be used, but unique prefixes or suffixes must be used. 

The private label agreement forms the basis for NTEP to determine metrological equivalence of a private 

labeled device with a device produced under a CC issued to an original equipment manufacturer (OEM). The 

OEM and the holder of a private label CC must notify NTEP of any change in status of the private label 

agreement as it relates to NTEP. The private label CC will be rendered INACTIVE as of the date of the 

cancellation of the private label agreement. If the OEM CC becomes INACTIVE, then the private label CC will 

also become INACTIVE.

Background: Publication 14, Part E, of the NTEP Administrative Policy and Procedures allows a company to apply for 

an NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) under a private labeling agreement sometimes referred to as a "piggyback" 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-16 

Certificate. The company that re-labels the devices must apply for a CC in its own name. The original equipment 

manufacturer (OEM) must give permission for that company to use the results of the evaluation. The forms found in 

Appendix D of Publication 14 must be completed by the company requesting the CC and the OEM; these forms confirm 

that the devices provided to the private labeler are the same as the devices originally evaluated under the OEM’s CC. The 

forms also confirm that the company that private labels the devices does not modify them in any way other than marking 

the devices with its own proprietary information. This documentation ensures that the devices that are privately labeled 

are metrologically equivalent to the devices evaluated under the original CC. 

NTEP policy does not specify how a private label CC is affected if one or the other party cancels the private label 

agreement. NTEP is not concerned with the business details of the agreement; however, there is concern that canceling 

the agreement also cancels the terms of the agreement that relate to the metrological equivalence of the private-labeled 

devices. Although the metrological equivalence of devices already produced and sold was guaranteed through the 

original agreement, the metrological equivalence of devices produced after the cancellation of the agreement has not been 

guaranteed. Consequently, it is proposed that a private label CC be changed to an INACTIVE status when one or the 

other parties cancel the private-label agreement. Note that an inactive status does not affect devices already in service. 

During discussions of this issue at the 1999 Interim Meeting, questions were raised concerning how a private-label CC 

will be affected if the OEM makes its parent CC Inactive. The Committee agreed to modify the proposed language to 

indicate that the private-label CC will become Inactive if the parent CC becomes Inactive. A particular concern 

expressed how the devices in the private-labeler’s stock will be affected. The Committee noted that, as proposed in Item 

501-11, the OEM and the private-labeler must provide the last serial number or date code to NTEP. Any devices in either 

the OEM’s or the private-labeler’s stock would continue to be covered by the Inactive CC as long as this required 

information is provided to NTEP. 

This item was originally presented as a voting item on the Committee’s 1999 Annual Meeting Agenda. At the 1999 

Annual Meeting, the Committee heard comments indicating that the proposed language may need to be changed to better 

reflect the scenarios under which changes to private label agreements might affect the status of related Certificates of 

Conformance. To allow the opportunity for additional comments and development of the language, the Committee 

changed this item to an informational status. 

2000 Interim Meeting Action: The Committee received comments from SMA suggesting elimination of the last sentence 

and revisions to the language to eliminate redundancies. The Committee agreed that the reference to either party who 

canceled the agreement was redundant and deleted the language from the original proposal as shown above in the 

recommendation. 

The Committee discussed eliminating the last sentence; however, it believes that the last sentence should be retained. The 

Committee considered the situation where the OEM decides to discontinue manufacturing a device under the OEM name, 

but the OEM maintains an agreement with the private labeler to continue producing devices under the private label 

agreement. The Committee also recognizes that the private labeler is ultimately responsible for the devices produced 

under a private-label CC. However, since the basis for issuing the private-label CC is based on the OEM’s production 

processes, the Committee felt that there should be assurances that the link between the two companies is maintained, even 

if the OEM no longer produces the equipment under its own label. Particularly in light of the work being done by 

NCWM, Inc., to establish a program to ensure that production is consistent with the type evaluated, the Committee 

believes that this link is important and that the last sentence should be retained. 

During discussions of this item, the Committee decided to change the title of this item to better reflect its content and for 

easier reference. 

2000 Annual Meeting Action: The Committee heard no opposition to the proposal outlined in the recommendation 

above.
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-17 

501-10 W Identifying a Private Label Certificate of Conformance 

(This item was withdrawn.) 

Source: Carryover Item 501-12B (Original Source: NTEP Committee) 

Recommendation: Add the following text to Publication 14 Section E. Request for Type Evaluation: 

When a new Certificate of Conformance (CC) is created for a company under a private label agreement, the new 

CC must reference original CC number.

Background/Discussion: During discussion of Item 501-12A (Item 501-9 on the Committee’s 2000 Agenda) at the 1999 

Interim Meeting, the Committee heard comments indicating that field officials and NTEP administration are experiencing 

difficulty identifying NTEP Certificates of Conformance which have been issued as a result of private-label agreements. 

NIST-OWM reported instances where the company that is private labeling a device has difficulty keeping track of the 

original equipment manufacturer (OEM) that supplied the device covered by the private-label Certificate of Conformance. 

This occurs particularly when the manufacturer holds multiple CCs for similar device types such as load cells. The NIST 

OWM also reported finding OIML Certificates which reference privately labeled load cells with the OEM’s name. 

Facilitating the identification of the OEM (or the OEM’s CC) assists weights and measures officials and NTEP 

administration to resolve problems with non-compliant devices and to maintain private label CCs consistent with the 

parent CC. 

Some manufacturers expressed concern over making the private label status of their CCs public knowledge. Some 

companies prefer that their customers do not know that another company manufactures the devices. 

The Committee believes that identifying CCs issued under a private label agreement is necessary; however, it does not 

want to create undue hardship for either the private labeler or the original equipment manufacturer. The Committee 

recognizes and appreciates possible marketing concerns in such cases, but believes that it is essential that the field 

officials receive the information needed to use the CC efficiently. The Committee also heard alternate suggestions to 

address the problem, such as: (1) including a statement that the CC is a private-label CC, but not the parent CC number; 

(2) including a code in the CC number to indicate that the CC is a private-label CC; and (3) providing a cross-reference 

list of CC numbers and their parent CCs. Comments indicate that those who support the proposed language would prefer 

the identification of the parent CC number on the private label CC. 

The Committee included this item on its agenda to enable further study and to hear additional proposals that might assist 

the field official and NTEP Administration in addressing these concerns. 

At the 1999 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard additional comments from SMA and Rice Lake Weighing 

opposing the proposed language. Some comments indicated that a private label Certificate should mirror the original 

“parent” Certificate; however, it was noted that not all companies holding private label Certificates request the same 

range of sizes, capacities, and other parameters as that requested by the original manufacturer. Weights and measures 

officials noted continued difficulty in locating information involving private labeled devices under the current system. 

The Committee solicits additional comments on how these concerns might best be resolved. 

2000 Interim Meeting Action: The Committee continues to recognize the difficulty that field officials have in locating 

test information on private-label Certificates. The Committee heard industry comments expressing concern about 

identifying the manufacturer who holds the parent CC on the private-label CC. The Committee also heard comments 

from other industry members indicating that identifying the parent Certificate number on the private label CC would not 

be a problem if done inconspicuously. One suggested approach was to include the parent CC information in the “Test 

Conditions” section of the private label CC. The Committee also considered including the parent CC information in a 

code format. 

The Committee also discussed including the parent Certificate information in parenthesis following the name of the 

person who conducted the evaluation. This is similar to what is currently done for an addendum to a CC. For example: 

“Tested by: J. Doe (97-123),” where the number 97-123 would refer back to the parent CC. 

The Committee maintains its position that information must be included on the private-label CC to enable the inspector to 

trace it back to the parent CC. The Committee considered specifying how the information should appear on the CC, but 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-18 

preferred to state only that the information must be included, but not be specific about the location of the information. In 

recognition of concerns about identifying the name of the original manufacturer/holder of the parent CC, the Committee 

modified its original proposal as recommended above. 

2000 Annual Meeting Action: The Committee received a number of comments from industry and weights and measures 

officials in opposition to this item. Industry claimed that identifying the OEM on the private label certificate would 

violate contractual confidentiality agreements between the OEM and the private label Certificate holder; therefore, NTEP 

needs to consider such information as proprietary. The Committee also received comments from the original submitter of 

this item suggesting that this item be withdrawn based upon these comments. The submitter felt that other equally 

effective administrative mechanisms such as fields in the NTEP database might be used by NTEP laboratories to obtain 

the information needed to identify a private label CC. The Committee agreed that, while the item has merit, comments 

indicate that marking the CC is not the only mechanism for identifying a CC as a private label CC. Consequently, the 

Committee withdrew this item from its agenda. 

A. Thompson, AK, Chairman 

M. Hile, AR 

L. Straub, MD, NCWM Chairman-Elect 

S. Malone, NE 

G. West, NM 

R. Andersen, NY 

G. W. Diggs, VA, NCWM Chairman 

J.A. Rogers, VA, NCWM Treasurer 

NIST Technical Advisor: T. Butcher 

National Type Evaluation Program Committee
NTEP Committee 

* 

NTEP- 19 
NTEP Committee 

Appendix B 

Proposed Alternative for 

Production Meets Type and Challenges to a Certificate of Conformance 

NTEP Business Plan Work Group 

October 1999 

(Note: The following proposals are intended to replace previous proposals presented by the NTEP Business Plan Work 

Group and included in the NTEP Committee’s 1999 NCWM Final Report as Appendix C and Appendix D.) 

Draft Proposals 

Proposed additions to Publication 14’s administrative procedures: 

Part A. Administration: 

1. Amend the NTEP application to include a conditional statement that in the event that the device fails to meet its 

performance requirements, the manufacturer agrees to submit additional production models for future testing. 

This agreement will stipulate that the manufacturer shall pay for the cost of such production device testing. The 

number of devices required to be submitted will need to be determined. (Note: given comments on this item, it 

was suggested that this be held for redrafting after the production meets type discussion matures further.) 

All applicants agree to provide proof that production devices will meet type. Demonstrating that production 

devices will meet type may be satisfied by: (Note: to be developed further.) 

2. 

A device manufacturer can adopt an NTEP approved production meets type program, or can adopt its own program 

provided that it can meet NTEP criteria. It is anticipated that the criteria under either option would essentially be the 

same. It may be possible to allow a company to elect to substitute production lot testing under some defined schedule in 

lieu of a “production meets type” quality program. This last option would be structured such that it would be 

uneconomical for large production levels. The NTEP Committee would be responsible for approving production meets 

type programs for device manufacturers. 

NTEP Laboratory Process, Initial Verification Process and Subsequent Verification Process 

Note: This proposal contains three parts: one to address the NTEP laboratory process, one to address initial verification 

and one to address the subsequent verification process. 

Part I. Type Evaluation Process 

Proposal: 

That if a device submitted to an NTEP laboratory fails in specific metrologically significant areas (to be determined, 

possibly by device type), the device is returned to the manufacturer. The manufacturer may correct the device and 

reapply for type evaluation, including payment of application fees, and submission of a test data package to assure NTEP 

compliance. The device may be placed at the end of the laboratory testing queue. 

Part 11. Initial Verification Process 

Proposal: 

That an initial verification system be developed within NTEP that would establish specific criteria (possibly by device 

type) for metrologically significant areas to be evaluated and reported during the initial installation by weights and 

measures officials (and possibly service agencies). Only devices found to be deficient in the specific criteria areas would 

be entered into the system. 

NTEP-20 
NTEP Committee 

(Comment: consideration should be given to types of devices and applications where the installation can have a major 

effect on the performance of the device, e.g., Vehicle, hopper, railroad and belt- conveyor scales; loading rack and VTM 

meters. The initial verification should be limited to the weighindmeasuring element level.) 

That a reporting form containing appropriate information (to be developed) be made a part of the examination procedure 

outlines (EPO's), and become a cooperative effort of weights and measures jurisdictions. (Possible to establish a pilot 

program to evaluate effectiveness. Test criteria, testing standards, inspector training, etc., would all need to be considered 

in developing this proposal.) 

That a database be developed by NTEP to track the critical criteria and that performance standards be established to notify 

NTEP when a number (to be determined) of devices have failed the initial verification. 

That criteria for device reevaluation be established to require a manufacturer (at the manufacturer's expense) to resubmit 

production devices to NTEP. 

That criteria be established for the reevaluation if non-conformance to type is found (corrective action or withdrawal of 

the Certificate of Conformance). 

Part 111. Subsequent Verification Process 

Proposal: 

To establish a very limited set of criteria (to be determined) for reporting by weights and measures jurisdictions (and 

service agencies?) in areas ofperformance which would continue to be related to production meets type. 

As with "production meets type," specific evaluation criteria would need to be established to determine if a reevaluation 

is necessary. (To be further developed.) 

Part B. Challenges to a Certificate 

A challenge to an existing certificate may be brought by any weights and measures jurisdiction or by any interested party. 

The challenge shall list the name of the manufacturer, the certificate number, the specific model number of the device in 

question, the alleged deficiency to Handbook 44, and supporting documentation of the allegation. The challenge shall be 

submitted in writing along with the required information to the Chairman of the NTEP Committee. (Possibly through 

NIST). The NTEP Committee Chair will review and, if warranted, forward the information to the NIST NTEP 

Administrator. The NTEP administrator will assign an NTEP laboratory (or other competent representative) to conduct an 

investigation of the device in question. 

Procedures to Address a Challenge an NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) 

(Note: These procedures were developed to address one specific device type. Modifications to the procedure will be 

made on a case-by-case basis to best address the specific type of device being challenged.) 

The NTEP Committee will review the information and data provided by entity lodging the challenge. If the NTEP 

Committee fmds there is sufficient information to continue, the following steps will be taken. If insufficient information 

is provided, the NTEP Committee will contact the challenger and identify the information required. 

The NTEP Committee will consult with NIST statistical staff to determine the number of devices that would need to be 

tested and how the results should be analyzed relative to selecting additional devices for test. 

Locate sources of supply for the model of device being challenged. Attempt to determine the approximate number of the 

device in supply. Ask the supplier(s) if the manufacturer supplies special instructions, mountings, or other peripheral 

equipment for installing and using the device. 

Send a letter to the entity lodging the challenge stating that NTEP will proceed with the complaint. Indicate that they may 

be responsible for the costs of the evaluation if the results of the evaluation show the devices meet the requirements. Note 

that, unless NTEP hears from the challenger in IO days, NTEP will proceed with the challenge. If the challenger objects 

to this condition, then NTEP will consider the challenge closed. The letter will also outline the procedures that NTEP 

will follow in addressing the challenge. 

NTEP-2 1 
NTEP Committee 

A letter will be sent to the company whose Certificate of Conformance is being challenged to notify it of the challenge 

and indicate the steps that NTEP will follow to address the challenge. The letter will indicate that, should the devices fail 

to meet requirements, the company holding the CC will be assessed the fees for testing and the CC may be withdrawn. 

NTEP recognizes that factors such as peripheral equipment and installation can be significant in device performance. If 

the company wishes to supply the required information or equipment or to provide additional instructions, it has the 

option of providing them If the manufacturer wishes to participate in the testing he is welcome to do so. If the 

manufacturer objects to the proposed procedure, he must contact NTEP within two weeks. Note that the CC holder can 

request to have more cells tested than prescribed by NTEP during the challenge process; however, the CC holder is 

responsible for the costs of the additional testing. Objections to the proposed procedures will be addressed on a case-bycase basis. 

The testing process will begin with NTEP obtaining the devices to be tested. Two production devices of the model and 

capacity being challenged will be selected. An attempt will be made to get the devices from different distributors. 

One device will be submitted to NTEP for testing. 

If the resulting test data does not correspond with test results submitted by the entity lodging the challenge (Le., 

the device passes or its perfonnance is sipiicantly different), the challenger will be notified of the results by 

phone and in writing. The challenger will be asked whether or not he wants to proceed since he may be 

responsible for additional costs. If the challenger wishes to proceed, then NTEP will proceed to the next step. 

If the frst device fails, the second device is tested as described below. 

The next device will be tested. 

If the device passes, the complaint is resolved and both parties are notified 

If the device fails, then the holder of the NTEP CC is to be contacted and asked if he wishes to proceed to test 

more devices in accordance with the statistical sampling plan. If the CC holder elects to take corrective action at 

that point, he will be asked to voluntarily suspend the Certificate, which would also require him to recall all 

devices in his and the distributors' existing stock. If NTEP continues with testing of the devices and fmd that the 

devices continue to fail, NTEP can proceed to withdraw the Certificate and notify the States. 

Cost of Investigation: 

Initially any costs incurred in the conduct of an investigation will be paid from the NTEP fund of the NCWM. If the 

investigation fmds that production did not meet type, the entire cost of the investigation will be assessed to the 

manufacturer of the device. To discourage 6ivolous challenges, if a challenge to a certificate is initiated by a competing 

manufacturer and the investigation finds that production does in fact meet type, the entire cost of the investigation may be 

assessed to the entity that initiated the challenge. A deposit may be required at the time of submission of the challenge. 

(Amount to be determined). 

NTEP Initiation of Investigation: 

If NTEP has reason to believe that production of a model does not meet type, the same procedures will be followed. The 

reason for this type of investigation could come from complaints by several jurisdictions or information from a National 

Data Base which provides sufficient information to indicate that production does not meet type. In this type of 

investigation, if it is found that production meets type, NTEP will absorb the cost of the investigation. If it is found that 

production does not meet type, the cost will be assessed to the manufacturer of the device. 

Devices Requiring Field Evaluation: 

If a challenge is brought against a device or system that requires field evaluation, only the device which was brought into 

question will initially be evaluated. If the device or system passes the evaluation, it will be assumed that production meets 

type. If the device fails, a second device of the same type will be evaluated. If the second device fails, it will be 

determined that production does not meet type and the procedures outlined above will be followed. 

Due Process Procedures: See Publication 14. 

'NTEP-22 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP- 23 
NTEP-24 
NTEP Committee 

Appendix D - NTETC Grain Moisture & NIR Protein Sectors 

September 1999 Meeting Summaries 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) Sector 

September 8-9,1999, St. Louis, MO 

Meeting Summary 

Agenda Items * I. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

6. 

7. 

8. 

9. 

* IO. 

1 1. 

* 12. 

Note: 

Election of Sector Chairperson 

Proposed Test Weight per Bushel Criteria for Section 5.56(a) of NET Handbook (HB) 44 

Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Use of Manufacturer Supplied Data in NTEP Calibration Updates 

Review of Evaluation Procedure Outlines (EPOs) and Test Procedures for the Field Evaluation of GMM 

Devices 

Update on the Status of the Interagency Agreement for Funding the Ongoing Calibration Program (OCP) 

Update on NTEP Type Evaluation and OCP (Phase 11) Testing 

Status of NTEP Meters in the Field - Review of Data from State Inspections 

Process for Making Midyear Changes to NTEP GMM Certificates of Conformance 

Fees for NTEP Applications and Evaluation of Grain Moisture Meters (Phase I) 

Update on the Structure of NCWM and the Organization of NTEP 

Report on the 1998 NCWM Annual Meeting and the 1999 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings 

Time and Place for Next Meeting 

Because of common interest, items marked with an asterisk (*) were considered in joint session of the 

NIR Grain Analyzer and the Grain Moisture Meter Sectors. 

1. Election of Sector Chairperson 

Richard (Will) Wotthlie, Maryland Weights and Measures, was re-elected to the post of Chairperson for both the Grain 

Moisture Meter Sector and the Near Infrared Grain Analyzer Sector by unanimous vote of those present. Under the rules 

adopted by the Sector in March of 1996, he will serve for a 3-year term or until a successor is elected. 

2. Proposed Test Weight per Bushel Criteria for Section 5.56(a) of NIST Handbook 44 

Background: At least two NTEP Grain Moisture Meters have the capability to automatically provide an indication and 

recorded representation of test weight per bushel (TW). Because of unrealistic tolerances in the existing Code, the TW 

indications of GMMs are typically not allowed to be used for commercial transactions. For this reason manufacturers of' 

GMMs have programmed their devices to either display or record words such as "approx.," "approximate," or "estimated" 

by the TW reading when the TW feature is enabled. Enforcement varies from state to state. Some states do not allow moisture 

meters with TW capability to display TW. Others allow "approximate" TW to be displayed, but require that a notice be posted 

on the meter to the effect that the TW indication is an approximation and is not approved for determining discounts. Since 

March 1996, the Sector has had many discussions on the criteria for TW in NIST HB 44. Several presentations were given 

on the current standard and on other standards used for this measurement. At its September I997 meeting, the Sector agreed 

that priority should be given to drafting changes to the Grain Moisture Meter Code to specify field test methods and reasonable 

tolerances. At its March 1998 meeting, the Sector reviewed a draft of proposed changes to the Code which was subsequently 

sent out for letter ballot. In response to Committee Ballot 84-03 to add the proposed changes to NIST HB 44, Section 5.56(a), 

most of the Sector members agreed with the need for criteria, but were not in agreement with the proposed tolerances. The 

results of the ballot were as follows: 

NTEP-25 
NTEP Committee 

Affirmative Affirmative Negative Abstain 

6 2 7 1 

Discussion: One member suggested that the Sector look at the tolerance issue more broadly, with a separate standard 

covering automatic test weight per bushel (TW) devices and tolerances targeted to the needs of the application. It was noted 

that the Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) would soon be evaluating a prototype automatic 

TW apparatus which might have tolerance requirements more stringent than moisture meters can achieve. Another member 

was of the opinion that, to be acceptable to the trade, TW performance tolerances would have to be the same for both standalone automatic TW devices and moisture meters with TW capability. It was also pointed out that it would be much easier 

to add to the Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) code than to develop a separate code. If required, the development of a separate 

code for stand-alone automatic TW apparatus could be considered later. 

Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA, presented repeatability data for the official TW apparatus based on two TW values collected on 

each moisture sample during the 1998 Phase I1 On-going Calibration Program (OCP). Data summarizing GIPSA system-wide 

TW using the official TW apparatus was also presented. These data suggested that the tolerance groups to which some of 

the grain types had been assigned should be reconsidered. The Sector agreed that three tolerance groups would be sufficient. 

Corn and oats would be assigned to the group with the largest tolerance; all classes of wheat would be assigned to the group 

with the smallest tolerance; and soybeans and all other NTEP graindoil seeds would be placed in the middle tolerance group. 

After lengthy discussion, tolerances of i0.8 pounds per bushel for corn and oats; i0.5 pounds per bushel for all classes of 

wheat; and M.7 for soybeans, barley, oats, rice, sunflower, and sorghum were proposed for further study. Although several 

members opposed adopting the proposed tolerances and groupings for the following reasons: 1) difficult to meet the proposed 

tolerance for wheat; 2) difficult to obtain samples for field test; and 3) not discriminating enough for corn, they agreed to 

consider them for further study. 

A number of enforcement issues were raised by some of the Sector's W&M members: 

Assuming that the proposed changes are adopted, and that a model is NTEP approved for TW, if a device of that same 

model passes a field test for moisture, but fails the field test for TW, can it be used for moisture if the TW feature is 

turned off? 

Will GMMs manufactured or placed in service after January 1, 1998, but prior to the adoption ofthe proposed changes, 

be allowed to continue to display (or record) an "approximate" or "estimated" TW for batching or screening purposes? 

The proposed change applies only to Sec. 5.66(a). Should pre-NTEP meters and those manufactured or placed in service 

before January I, 1998, be allowed to continue to display an "approximate" or "estimated" TW? 

* 

- 

Although these enforcement issues are up to individual jurisdictions to decide, several possible scenarios were suggested 

assuming that the proposed changes are adopted and that at least one GMM is NTEP-approved for TW: 

- For all jurisdictions: 

GMMs which are NTEP approved for TW shall not display or record any words indicating that the TW is "approximate" 

or "estimated," and they must pass the field inspection tolerance tests. 

A GMM of the same type as one which is NTEP-approved for TW, but which was manufactured or placed in service 

before type approval was received for TW, should not be allowed to display "approximate" or "estimated." If the TW 

feature is to be used, the device should be returned to the manufacturer for up-grading, and it must pass the field 

inspection tolerance tests. 

* For jurisdictions allowing the continued use of "approximate" TW: 

For GMMs which do not have NTEP approval for TW (regardless of date of manufacture): 

NTEP-26 
NTEP Committee 

Arkansas 

Illinois 

North Carolina 

Maryland 

Nebraska (tentative) 

Conclusion: The Sector concluded that it was premature to recommend that the National Conference adopt the proposed 

changes as part of the GMM code. However, the Sector considered the matter of sufficient importance to recommend that 

it be submitted to the Central Weights and Measures Meeting and the Southem Weights and Measures Meeting for 

consideration as an item for development so it can appear on the Conference's Interim Agenda. The proposed changes are 

shown below: 

Proposed Test Weight per Bushel Criteria for Section 5.56(a) of Handbook 44 

A. Application 

A.1. This code applies to grain moisture meters: that is, devices used to indicate directly the moisture content of cereal 

grain and oil seeds. The code consists of general requirements applicable to all moisture meters and specific requirements 

tions or recorded 

ture. 

ited for "test weieht oer bushel lndica 

we 

applicable only to certain types of moisture meters. &@gw.n!s c 

reoresentations are applicable to d evices incomora tine an wc test ieht Der bushel de fea 

". . 

Missouri 

NTEP-27 
NTEP Committee 

S. Specifications 

S.1. Design of Indicating, Recording, and Measuring Elements. 

S.l.1. 

(a) 

(b) 

(c) 

Digital Indications and Recording Elements. 

Meters shall be equipped with a digital indicating element. 

The minimum height for the digits used to display moisture content shall be 10 mm. 

Meters shall he equipped with a communication interface that permits interfacing with a recording 

element and transmitting the date, grain type, grain moisture results, and 

calibration version identification. 

(d) A digital indicating element shall not display, and a recording element shall not record, any moisture 

content values gr test weieht 

Moisture content results shall be displayed and recorded as percent moisture content, wet basis. 

before the end of the measurement cycle. 

(e) 

shall be d1s-s Der bum Subdivisions of tkis 

units shall be in terms of decimal subdivisions (not fractions). 

(0 A meter shall not display or record any moisture content su test w&kg&u&I values when the 

moisture content p~ test w- of the grain sample is beyond the operating range of the 

device, unless the moisture &ad test we representations includes a clear error indication (and 

recorded error message with the recorded representation). 

On multi-constituent gr multi-urom meters (e.g., meters which also measure wt Der bush4 

QC grain protein). provision shall be made for displaying and recording the constituent label 

(such as moist, protein, etc.) to make it clear which constituent is associated with each of 

the displayed and recorded values. 

(9) 

(Added 1995) 

(Added 1993)(Amended 1994 and 1995) 

S.1.3. Operating Range. - A meter shall automatically and clearly indicate when the operating range of the meter has 

been exceeded. The operating range shall specify the following: 

(a) Temperature Range of the Meter 

The temperature range over which the meter may he used and still comply with the applicable requirements shall 

be specified. The minimum temperature range shall be 10 "C to 30 "C. No moisture value may be displayed 

when the temperature range is exceeded. An appropriate error message shall be displayed when the temperature 

of the meter is outside its specified operating range. 

(b) Temperature Range of each Grain or Seed 

The temperature range for each grain or seed for which the meter is to be used shall be specified. The minimum 

temperature range for each grain shall be 0 "C to 40 "C. No moisture value may he displayed when the 

temperature range is exceeded. An appropriate error message shall be displayed when the temperature of the grain 

sample exceeds the specified temperature range for the grain. 

NTEP-28 
NTEP Committee 

(c) Moisture Range of the Grain or Seed 

The moisture range for each grain or seed for which the meter is to be used shall be specified. A moisture value 

may be displayed when the moisture range is exceeded if accompanied by a clear indication that the moisture range 

has been exceeded. 

(d) Maximum Allowable Meter/Grain Temperature Difference 

The maximum allowable difference in temperature between the meter and the sample for which an accurate 

moisture determination can he made shall be specified. The minimum temperature difference shall be 10 "C. No 

moisture value may be displayed when the maximum allowable temperature difference is exceeded. An 

appropriate error message shall be displayed when the difference in temperature between the meter and the sample 

exceeds the specified difference. 

(Added 1993)(Amended 1995) 

@ Test Weieht Der Bushe 1 Ranee of the Grain or Seed 

ieht Der bushel ranee for each erain or seed for which the mete r is to be used s hall be sDecified. A 

when the test weieht Der bushel range is exceeded if accomDanied 

The test we 

may be waved 

bv a clear indication that the test we ieht De r bushel ranee has been exceed& 

S.1.4. Value of Smallest Unit. - The display shall permit m"t moisture value determination to both 0.01 percent 

and 0.1 percent resolution. The 0.1 percent resolution is for commercial transactions; the 0.01 percent resolution is for 

type evaluation and calibration purposes only, not for commercial purposes. Test weieht oer bushel values shall be 

S.2.4. Calibration Integrity 

S.2.4.1. Calibration Version. - A meter must be capable of displaying either calibration constants, a unique 

calibration name, or a unique calibration version number for use in verifying that the latest version of the calibration 

is being used to make moisture content md test we ieht De r bushel determinations. 

(Added 1993)(Amended 1995) 

S.2.6. Determination of Quantity and Temperature. - The moisture meter system shall not require the operator to judge 

the precise volume or weight and temperature needed to make an accurate moisture determination. Extemal grinding, 

weighing, and temperature measurement operations are not permitted. la addition. if the meter is caoable of measuring 

weieht for th is measurement shall be fu Ilv automat' IC. -le .. volume and 

(Added 1994)(Amended 1995) 

S.4. Operating Instructions and Use Limitations. - The manufacturer shall furnish operating instructions for the device 

and accessories that include complete information conceming the accuracy, sensitivity, and use of accessory equipment 

necessary in obtaining a moisture content. Operating instructions shall include the following information: 

(a) name and address or trademark of the manufacturer; 

(h) the type or design of the device with which it is intended to he used; 

(c) date of issue; 

(d) the kind or classes of grain or seed for which the device is designed to measure moisture content and test weieht DS 

m; 

NTEP-29 
NTEP Committee 

(e) the limitations of use, including but not confined to the moisture measurement range, -, 

grain or seed temperature, maximum allowable temperature difference between grain sample and meter, kind or class 

of grain or seed, moisture meter temperature, voltage and frequency ranges, electromagnetic interferences, and 

necessary accessory equipment. 

(Added 1984) 

N. Notes 

N.l. Testing Procedures. 

N.l.l. Transfer Standards.' - Official grain samples shall be used as the official transfer standards with moisture content 

md test wedoer bushel values assigned by the reference methods. The reference methods shall be the 

weipht to a test weight ' transfer 

I1 be the avw of 10 test ieht -e test woven drying methods as specified by the USDA GIPSA. test 

we 

Tolerances shall be applied to the average of at least three measurements 

on each official grain sample. Official grain samples shall he clean and naturally moist, but not tempered (Le., water not 

added). 

.. 

(Amended 1992) 

N.1.2. Minimum Test.'- A minimum test of a grain moisture meter shall consist of tests with samples of each grain or 

seed 

with samples having at least two different moisture content values within the 

operating range of the device,- 

(b) tests of test we-t the lo west moisture samules used in (a) above. 

(need not exceed three) for which the device is used, and follo Wiee; . ... (a) tests of m- 

. ... 

(Amended 1986 and 1989) 

[Editor's note: Paragraph N. 1.2. has been completely re-organized. Some of the wording formerly in sub-paragraph (a) 

has been moved to the main paragraph. The wording formerly in sub-paragraph (b) has been moved to (a). and the 

wording now in (b) is new. Underlining indicates only additions to wording. No indications are given for relocated 

wording. ] 

' The US. Department of Agriculture, Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) uses a 

single brand and model of moisture meter for official inspection of moisture content in grains and other 

commodities. The &@E calibrations for the model are based on the official air-oven method and are developed 

and monitored on an established schedule using a broad range (with respect to geographical source, kind, class, 

moisture content, maturity, etc.) of grain samples at its central laboratory. GIPSA uses a hierarchical series of 

meter-to-meter intercomparisons to determine whether its field meters are operating within acceptable tolerances 

(*0.2% with respect to standard meters). It has been shown that field meters checked by GIPSA procedures 

perform within H4.l maintenance tolerances (T.2.) when tested (N.1.) using official grain samples. Agencies 

lacking a sample capability representing the entire nation and traceable to the official laboratory reference method 

shall not use meter-to-meter field testing. 

T. Tolerances' 

T.l. To Underregistration and to Overregistration. - The tolerances hereinafter prescribed shall be applied to errors 

of underregistration and errors of overregistration. 

T.2. Tolerance Values. - Maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall be as shown in Table T.2. Tolerances fnr 

moisture measur- are expressed as a fraction of the percent moisture content of the official grain sample, together with a minimum tolerance. mces for test weieht Der bushel are ( +) wsitive or (-) negative with resDect to the value .. assued to the official txamuh 

NTEP-30 

, 
NTEP Committee 

- 

These tolerances do not apply to tests in which grain moisture meters are the transfer standard. 

-- ~~~ 

Corn, oats, rice, sorghum, 

sunflower 

All other cereal grains and oil 

seeds 

Table T.2. Acceptance and Maintenance Tolerances for Grain Moisture Meters 

Moisture 

0.05 of the percent moisture 

content 

0.04 of the percent moisture 

content 

0.8 percent in moisture content 

0.7 percent in moisture content 

Minimum Tolerance 

Tolerance I Type of Grain or Seed 

Tolerw II 

UR. User Requirements 

UR.l. Selection Requirements. 

UR.l.l. Value of the Smallest Unit on Primary In&cating and Recording Elements. - The resolution of the 

moisture meter display shall be 0.1 percent moisture and 0.1 uomel test w e' g& during commercial use. 

UR.3.4. Printed Tickets. 

(a) Printed tickets shall be free from any previous indication of moisture content or type of grain or seed selected. 

(b) The customer shall be given a printed ticket showing the date, grain type, grain moisture results, 

bd$,hd. and calibration version identification. The ticket shall be generated by the grain moisture meter system. 

(Amended 1993 and 1995) 

UR.3.10. Posting of Meter Operating Range. - The operating range of the grain moisture meter shall be clearly and 

conspicuously posted in the place of business such that the information is readily visible from a reasonable customer 

position. The posted information shall include the following: 

(a) The temperature range over which the meter may be used and still comply with the applicable requirements. If 

the temperature range varies for different grains or seed, the range shall be specified for each. 

@) The moisture range apd test WW ' for each grain or seed for which the meter is to be used. 

NTEP-3 1 
NTEP Committee 

(c) The temperature range for each grain or seed for which the meter is to be used. 

(d) The maximum allowable difference in temperature that may exist between the meter and the sample for which an 

accurate moisture determination can be made. (Added 1988) 

3. 

Background: At its March 1998 meeting, the Sector reviewed the NCWM Publication 14 requirements for evaluating 

moisture meter performance in the OCP (Phase 11). Of particular concern was the restriction that only the latest 3 years of 

NTEP data would be used to make decisions regarding the need to make a calibration update. It was pointed out that dropping 

1995 data could significantly reduce or eliminate data for samples at hard to obtain moisture levels. When it was suggested 

that manufacturers could re-submit the 1995 high moisture data as “manufacturer supplied data,” manufacturers noted that 

under existing rules calibration status for any range can be no better than “pending approval“ when based solely on 

manufacturer data. They pointed out that changing a range from “approved” to “pending approval” from one year to the next 

gives the appearance that the meters aren’t as good this year as last. 

Several opinions were voiced regarding a proposal to modify Publication 14 to allow the NTEP Laboratory to use more than 

three years of crop data to evaluate performance. The NTEP laboratory representative did not want the NTEP laboratory to 

have to decide which years to use or not use (unless it could be shown that any year‘s data were not valid). He also favored 

using only the three most recent years of data on the grounds that handling anything other than that was excessively 

cumbersome and would lead to increased possibility of errors in data handling alone. Some felt that using up to 5 years of 

data would increase the probability that resultant calibrations would be closer to the mean of year to year variations. Others 

believed that the recent acceleration in the rate of introduction of new varieties would give excessive weight to 4- or 5-year 

old data. 

When finally put to a vote, the Sector decided by 14 to 0 to retain the existing Publication 14, Section IV requirement to use 

only the latest 3 years of data [where available]. 

Discussion: Several instances were noted this year (1998 crop year) where dropping the 1995 NTEP data affected the 

“approved” andor “pending approval” status for a moisture interval. As expected, the moisture intervals most often affected 

were at the calibration extremes. In most cases, it was possible for the manufacturer to maintain a “pending approval” moisture 

range (the moisture range beyond which “out of moisture range” warnings are triggered) by resubmitting some or all of the 

1995 crop data as manufacturer data. There was, however, quite a bit of confbsion regarding the criteria for submitting and 

reviewing manufacturer data. 

The review of NTEP calibration data was fairly straight-forward for the first 3 years of the program. AAer data collection 

was completed for the most recent crop year, a calibration report was developed using all available NTEP calibration data 

(none older than 3 years). Where applicable, a second report was developed that included all NTEP data plus any data 

previously submitted by the manufacturer. If there were no changes to a calibration, the initial reports were used to update 

moisture ranges on the certificate of conformance (CC). Where new calibrations were developed, manufacturers re-predicted 

moisture values, using both NTEP and manufacturer data, and a second set of calibrations reports was produced for updating 

ccs. 

Proposed Change to Publication 14 - Use of Manufacturer Supplied Data in NTEP Calibration Updates 

Consider the situation for the fifth year ofthe calibration program. It is still necessary to generate a report using the three most 

recent years of calibration data (1997, 1998, and 1999). A second report could be developed at the same time using, in 

addition, data previously submitted by the manufacturer (that would include NTEP data from 1995), but the NTEP laboratory 

would not know whether the manufacturer wants to use some or all of the 1996 data. One solution to this problem would be 

for manufacturers to submit a file with manufacturer data (including 1995 and 1996 “old” NTEP data) before November I, 

1999. 

There is some confusion regarding tolerances to be applied when reviewing calibration reports that include manufacturer data. 

Calibration review criteria currently state that “Calibration status for any range can be no better than “pending approval” when 

based solely on manufacturer data.” It is not clearly stated whether “approval” status can be assigned to moisture intervals 

containing both NTEP (most current three years) and manufacturer data. The NTEP laboratory currently does not assign a 

calibration status better than “pending approval” to any moisture interval where an instrument does not meet approval 

tolerances using only the most recent 3 years of NTEP data, and it upgrades calibration status to “pending approval” only 

NTEP-32 
NTEP Committee 

if the addition of manufacturer data brings instrument performance within “approval” tolerances. Although the NTEP Lab 

believes this was the Sector’s intention, it is not stated explicitly in Publication 14. 

Conclusion: To address these concerns, the Sector unanimously approved the following changes to Part V, “Criteria for 

NTEP Moisture Calibration Review”, Case VI1 of the Checklist for Grain Moisture Meters in NCW Publication 14. 

Case VII. Manufacturers may submit supplementary data to extend calibration “pending approval” ranges beyond 

available NTEP moisture ranges:: 

All or a portion of the NTEP calibration data not included in the last three croD vears mav be 

submitted as manufacturer data. Only manufacturer data supplied in the standard data format, as defined 

in Appendix C, will be considered when determining calibration ranges and pending approval status 

.. . .. 

a. 

-. An initial calibration report is DreDared wine the most recent three vears of NTEP 

calibration data. “ADDrOVal” and “pendine aooroval” moisture ranees are determined usine the criteria in 

Section IV (“Tolerances for Calibration Performance”) and Section V C‘Snecial Cases Dealine with 

lnadeauatelv Reoresented Moisture Intervals”). “ADDrOVal” ranees are determined solelv on the basis of 

the most recent three vears of NTEP calibration data and cannot be extended bv including manufacturer 

data. “Pendine aooroval” ranees can be extended through the use of manufacturer data. 

b. 

~ The 

process described in (a) is reoeated wine a second calibration reDort DF“d mine the most recent three 

years of NTEP calibration data DIUS manufacturer submitted data. Moisture intervals listed as “not 

anmoved” on the initial calibration reDort can be uoeraded to “Dendine asoroval” if the bias to air oven is 

within the annroval tolerance for that moisture interval. Confidence intervals are not aDDkd to ao~roval 

tolerances for use in determinim Dending aDDroval ranees when manufacturer data is used. 

4. Review of Evaluation Procedure Outlines (EPOs) and Test Procedures for the field evaluation of GMM devices 

Background: At the March 1998 GMMNIR Sector meetings a working group was established to develop EPOs and Field 

Evaluation Test Procedures for GMM and NIR devices to provide guidance to States on implementing NlST HB 44 as it 

applied to these devices, Templates were developed to assist the working group with their assignments in documenting the 

EPOs and field evaluation test procedures. The working group was divided into the 3 teams: 

.. - 

Team 1 - EPO XXX for Grain Moisture Meters and NIST HB 44 Recommended Field Evaluation Test 

Procedures for Grain Moisture Meters, Whole Grain Sample Method. 

EPO XXX for Near Infrared Grain Analyzers and Appendix A of EPO XXX, “NET HB 44 

Recommended Field Evaluation Test Procedures for Near Infrared Analyzers.” 

Appendix B, Alternative Field Evaluation Test Procedures for Grain Moisture Meters, Meter to 

Meter Method. 

Team 2 - 

Team 3 - 

Discussion: Diane Lee, NET-OWM, explained that EPOs are intended to be check lists which follow NlST HB 44. Test 

Procedures, on the other hand, should include specific procedures which must be followed to perform field evaluations 

(procedures for preparing samples may be included, as appropriate). Initial drafts of the EPOs and Test Procedures were 

reviewed by the Sector. 

EPO Review and Comments 

1. 

2. 

Several of the items in the check list are specifications which can be verified only during NTEP conformance 

testing. 

The organization of items is confusing. It was suggested that items common to both Sec. 5.56.(a) and 

Sec.5.56.(b) of the code be placed in a section listing requirements applicable to all GMMs regardless of date 

NTEP-33 
NTEP Committee 

of manufacture. Also, some ofthe items listed from the General Code are covered in detail in the GMM Code. 

In these cases, the GMM Code takes precedence, and the General Code need not be repeated. 

Reference is made to NTEP and non-NTEP meters, but the requirement states that the "NTEP requirements are 

applicable to any GMM manufactured or in service after January 1, 1998. 

The Scope section should be expanded to include what is being evaluated when using the Test Procedures of 

Appendix A vs. Appendix B (e.g., Appendix B, Meter to Like Meter - hardware check). 

3. 

4. 

Test Procedures Review and Comments 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Editing is needed to achieve consistency between the procedures. 

If alternative procedures are available, the Scope section of each procedure should describe the situation that 

would lead to the choice of that particular procedure. 

Equipment lists should contain only those items necessary to perform the field test described by the procedure. 

The sub-title of Appendix A, "Whole Grain Sample Method'' is not sufficiently descriptive (Appendix B also uses 

"whole grain samples"). Alternate suggestions: "Oven Reference Method Using Grain Samples as Transfer 

Standards" or, simply, "Oven Reference Method." 

Don Onwiler, Nebraska Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures Division, suggested that the sentence, "This 

procedure is not the recommended test procedure of NIST HB 44" be removed from the draft Test Procedure for the Meter 

to Meter Method. He pointed out that a properly administered meter-to-like-meter testing program is a valid method of 

determining if devices are functioning properly. He reminded the Sector that an "adjusted" oven moisture method, also not 

the recommended NIST HB 44 procedure, was being used in other jurisdictions. [Definition of "Adjusted" oven moisture 

method: At the time the inspector obtains "fresh" oven moisture samples from the lab, a comparison is made between the oven 

moisture value of each sample and the moisture determined on a GMM which the inspector carries on inspections. 

Subsequently, before each field inspection, samples are again measured on the inspector's GMM. If this measurement 

(compared to the initial measurement made on the inspector's meter) reveals a moisture loss on any sample, the oven moisture 

of that sample is adjusted to reflect this loss. When the moisture loss exceeds a specified amount, samples are discarded.] 

Don's comments sparked a discussion on the pros and cons of meter to meter testing, raising questions on the validity of meterto-unlike-meter tests. One Sector member pointed out that although it was possible to locate samples which responded 

similarly on different models of dielectric based GMMs, it would be much more difficult to fmd samples which responded 

similarly on both dielectric and NIR devices. Sidney Colbrook, Illinois Department of Agriculture, recalled that prior to 1987, 

Illinois had used the meter to lie meter method, but more than once found it difficult to explain to a grain elevator operator 

how two meters of different make could both pass their test but be different from each other by 1.5 % in moisture content. 

The Sector acknowledged that the situation today is different. There is now a national program to standardize moisture 

calibrations. The NTEP Phase I1 Ongoing Calibration Program uses a National Sample Set tlaceable to the official laboratory 

reference method. Meters of different make in the NTEP Phase I1 OCP are now closely aligned to this National Sample Set. 

A meter to like meter program includes: 1) verifying that the correct calibration is installed, and 2) that a meter is functioning 

properly (a hardware test) on each grain type. With meter-to-like-meter testing, it may be possible to reduce the maintenance 

tolerance to be more discriminating because the tolerance will not have to include the added variance required to account for 

the inability to get exactly the same results on different meter ws (even with carefully selected samples). Also, with meterto-like-meter testing, oven moisture determinations do not have to be performed on field test samples. The inspector's meter 

becomes the transfer standard. The grain is a medium used to obtain a relevant comparison. 

Considering Don Onwiler's request, the Sector suggested that the sentence, "This procedure is not the recommended test 

procedure of NIST HB 44" be replaced by wording to the effect: "This procedure is an alternative procedure applicable to 

meters of the same types as those in the NTEP Phase I1 Ongoing Calibration Maintenance Program where the accuracy of 

moisture calibrations have been verified with a National Sample Set traceable to the official air oven reference method." 

Conclusion: Because of time limitations, and recognizing that major editing might be involved in a line-by-line review of 

each EPO and Test Procedure, the NIST representative was asked to edit the EPOs and Test Procedures to incorporate the 

Sectofs suggestions. Electronic copies of the edited documents will be sent to Sector members for review and comment by 

November 15, 1999. 

NTEP-34 
NTEP Committee 

5. 

Background: At the Sector's March 1998 meeting, Diane Lee, representing NIST, and Rich Pierce, representing GIPSA, 

announced that NIST and GIPSA had agreed on a proposal for funding the Ongoing Calibration Program (0CP)on a more 

permanent basis beyond 1999. As proposed in March 1998, the initial agreement would cover a five-year period. After that, 

it would be renewed automatically, subject to annual review to determine if changes should be made. Under the proposed 

agreement, NIST and GIPSA would each contribute one-third of the cost of the program subject to an annual maximum of 

$I 8,000 each. The remaining costs would be borne by manufacturers and would depend on the number of meter models in 

the NTEP "pool." Program costs would exclude the official meter (for which GIPSA would cover the costs associated with 

the ofticial meter), but DICKEY-john would participate in the program contributing on the same basis as other participating 

manufacturers. Manufacturers were polled to determine if the proposed sharing of costs was acceptable. They were in general 

agreement that the one-third, one-thud, one-third sharing of costs (even with an $18,000 cap each for GIPSA and NIST) was 

reasonable, noting that the proposed fees for participating in the OCP were small in comparison to the costs they had incurred 

in obtaining NTEP approval and keeping up with changes in NTEP requirements. 

Discussion: Diane Lee reported that the Interagency Agreement had been signed by both parties. The new OCP Fee Schedule 

will become effective at the beginning of the Federal Government's Fiscal Year 2000 (October 1, 1999) and will run through 

FY2004. The cost to manufacturers will depend on the number of meter types in the NTEP Pool (see following table). 

Update on the Status of the Interagency Agreement for Funding the Ongoing Calibration Program (OCP) 

Number of meters in NTEP Cost to Manufacturer 

pool (excluding GIPSA's 

Official Meter) 

1 

2 

II- 3 I $3,375 II 

per Meter Type 

$2,250 

$3,000 

4 

5 

$7,313 

$3,600 

$5,250 

9 I $8,550 

6. 

Rich Pierce of the Grain Inspection, Processors and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA, formerly FGIS), the NTEP 

Participating Laboratory for Grain Moisture Meters, reported that the NTEP laboratory had three active applications: 1) testing 

has been completed and a report is being prepared on an application to add a like model to an existing certificate; 2) testing 

has also been completed to extend the temperature ranges on an existing certificate; and 3) an application was received in June 

1999 for a new meter model, but because of Phase I1 OCP priorities, no testing has been performed yet on that model. He 

also presented summary data for the crop years 1996 - 1998 showing how well meters in the NTEP Phase II Ongoing 

Calibration Program have performed as a group. Meters are well aligned with each other and also well aligned with the official 

air oven. An abbreviated summary for five of the 15 NTEP grains is shown in the following table. 

Update on Type Evaluation and Phase I1 Testing 

NTEP-35 
NTEP Committee 

Moisture Interval 

YO 

moisture 

Average Difference between All Meters and Air Oven 

All Samples from National Calibration Set for 1996, 1997, and 1998 Crop Years 

(% moisture content) 

4-6 

6-8 

8-10 

10- 12 I 0.03 I 0.01 I 0.06 I 0.16 1 0.09 

CORN SOYBEAN SOFT RED SORGHUM SIXWINTER ROWED 

WHEAT BARLEY 

_______ ----___ -_____- __-____ _______ 

0.15 

0.00 0.10 0.00 -0.27 0.16 

-0.14 0.23 ---____ --_____ 

12 - 14 

14 - 16 

16- 18 

18 - 20 

20 - 22 I -0.03 I -027 -0.17 -0.26 1 --0.61 

-0.04 0.00 0.04 0.09 0.03 

0.04 0.00 0.01 -0.04 -0.05 

0.10 -0.11 -0.10 -0.11 -0.48 

0.15 -0.05 0.09 -0.12 -0.19 

22 - 24 I 0.08 I -1.29 I ------- I -0.14 I _______ 

7. 

Background: At previous Sector meetings, the issues of: 1) the States becoming more involved with NTEP, and 

2) obtaining objective evidence that NTEP and the OCP are working, have been discussed. To address these issues, several 

States provided NIST with data obtained in the process of performing field inspections on NTEP Grain Moisture Meters (both 

dielectric and near infrared types). Diane Lee reported on results received from Arkansas, Maryland, Illinois, and North 

Carolina. The Sector was encouraged by the results, which showed significant improvement compared to baseline data 

collected several years ago. 

Status of NTEP Meters in the Field -Review of Data from State Inspections 

NTEP-36 
NTEP Committee 

Moisture 

Interval 

% 

moisture 

10- 12 

12- 14 

14- 16 

16- 18 

18-20 

Average Difference between NTEP Meters and Air Oven 

All Data from Field Inspections in AR, MD, IL, & NC 

( % moisture content / SDD ) 

SOFT RED 

WINTER 

WHEAT 

no data K 0 no data 

0.05 / 0.27 

no data 

0 I no data 

0 I no data 

n = number of meters 

8. 

Background: In February of 1999, the USDA Grain Inspection, Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) released 

revised moisture calibrations for corn, high moisture com, and soybeans for the official grain moisture meter, stipulating that 

the new calibrations were to be used for all official moisture determinations on and after February 22, 1999. The changes 

were meant to correct moisture measurement differences observed in the field under certain testing conditions, and to 

improve moisture measurement accuracy for com and soybeans at extIeme temperatures. GIPSA's action necessitated a midyear change to the NTEP CC for DICKEY-john's GAC 2100, the official grain moisture meter. NIST, in conjunction with 

the NTEP laboratory, developed a process for handling mid-year CC changes. Diane Lee and Rich Pierce explained the 

process emphasizing that regardless of when a CC is re-issued for a mid-year change, all CCs expire on June 30. The costs 

assessable to manufacturers for re-issuing CC, may make it advisable to plan for some types of change (such as adding a new 

model of like type or changing a description or feature) to coincide with the normal annual re-issue date. A copy of the 

revised flowchart of the process is attached. 

9. 

Background: For the benefit of present and potential applicants for NTEP evaluation of Grain Moisture Meters, Diane Lee, 

representing NIST, and Rich Pierce, representing the NTEP participating laboratory, reviewed the process for submitting an 

application for device type evaluation and enumerated the fees relating to various steps in Phase I (initial device evaluation) 

and Phase I1 (ongoing calibration program). The fee structure is summarized in the following tables. 

On a related matter, Dr. Pierce, representing the NTEP laboratory, reported that several manufacturers were not observing 

the deadlines for submission of re-predicted data and calibration changes. This causes a delay in updating CCs. It was 

suggested that sending reminders to manufacturers and publishing a table of due dates on the web site might alleviate the 

problem. The possibility of assessing "late fees" was also mentioned, but no action was taken. 

Process for Making Mid-year Changes to NTEP GMM/NIR Certificates of Conformance (CCs) 

Fees for NTEP Applications and Evaluation of Grain Moisture Meters 

NTEP-37 
NTEP Committee 

CC Maintenance Fee 

Fees Associated with the National Type Evaluation Program OJTEP) for Grain Moisture Meters II 1 I I I 

$100 annually Cost of maintaining CCs NCW, 

(December) Inc. 

Type of Fee 

processing 

by NIST 

application 

$500 perCC 

Condition I Billed by 

Initial evaluation (Phase I) 

Phase I1 (OCP) only if changes have been made to 

the device. 

Ifno changes have been made, there is no fee for 

phare II applicatiom. 

- 

NISTOW 

When CC is drafted by NIST NIST- I OW 

CC processing only I by NIST 

$150 I perCC When CC is drafted by the NTEP Laboratory or NISTmanufacturer I OW ~~ 

CC Drafting by I NTEP Lab 

see note per hour When CC is drafted by the NTEP Laboratory or NTEP Lab 

1 manufacturer ~ I see note 2 ~~ 

Phase I Testing II NTEP Lab 

see note 2 

see note per hour Testing performed by NTEP Laboratory 

1 ~ 

Phase I1 Testing I see note per hour Testing performed by NTEP Laboratory 

I I I NTEP Lab I see note 2 ~~ 

Phase I1 

Participation Fee 

(Starting FY 2000) 

see annually 

GMM I 

agenda 

item 5 

When participating in the Phase I1 OCP 

(participation is required to maintain an Active 

CC) 

NTEP Lab 

see note 2 

NTEP-38 
NTEP Committee 

Publication 14 Checklist 8 

National Type Evaluation Program - Grain Moisture Meters 

Typical NTEP Laboratory Fees for Phase I, Initial Type Evaluation 

0 $384.00 

ActivityITest 

Instrument Stability 

Instrument Temperature Sensitivity 

Estimated Air Oven Tests Fees 

Labor (hours) see note 3 see note I 

2 12 $168.00 

2.25 18 $216.00 

Sample Temperature Sensitivity 

Accuracy, Precision, and Reproducibility 

Prepare Test Sample Sets $288.00 

Power Supply $126.00 

Storage Temperature $1 14.00 

Leveling $84.00 

Warm-up Time 1.25 $78.00 

25.5 0 $1,224.00 

20.25 180 $2,052.00 

11 Humidity 1 1.75 1 3 1 $102.00 

Prepare NTEP Test Report 

Draft Certificate of Conformance 

8 0 $384.00 

6 0 $288.00 

Total Estimated Cost 

~~ 

IGfofor 12 NTEP Grains I 27 I 288 I$3,024; 

$8,532.00 

10. 

Background: A decision was made by NlST management that the Office of Weights and Measures would not hire an 

employee to continue meeting planning activities for the Conference after its meeting planner retired. NlST contracted with 

the meeting planner to continue providing these services for two years to give the NCWM time to make other arrangements. 

The NCWM contracted with a management company to perform these administrative functions of the Conference. 

The NCWM was incorporated in August 1997 to protect it from liability in various NCWM activities. NCWM, Inc. is now 

assuming many of the NCWM business and administrative functions previously performed by NIST. For the most part, the 

impact of these changes will be transparent with respect to the operation of the technical sessions of the Conference. The 

NCWM's current Constitution and Bylaws are combined into one publication called the "Bylaws of the National Conference 

on Weights and Measures, Inc." Under the Bylaws, the Executive Committee has become the "Board of Directors" (BOD) 

of the corporation and the NTEP Board of Governors has become the "NTEP Committee." 

Update on the Structure of NCWM and the Organization of NTEP 

NTEP-39 
NTEP Committee 

Diane Lee reported that the NCWM, Inc. BOD recently decided to assume responsibility for management and administration 

of NTEP. Some of the transition activities and recent meetings were reviewed with the Sector. Several Sector members 

whose companies were recognized under IS0 9001 expressed concem about the effect of the move of their CCs from NIST 

to NCWM, Inc. on their IS0 9001 status. 

(Editorial Note: In a meeting on October 28, 1999, at NCWM Headquarter's, NIST and the NCWM BOD tentatively agreed 

on a plan of actions and strategies to clarify and redefine respective roles in support of uniformity of the U.S. weights and 

measures system. NIST's redefined roles will foster stronger technical support and assistance to NCWM activities and provide 

a smooth transition of the management of NTEP to NCWM, Inc.) 

Current information on the NTEP Transition is located on the NIST-OWM web site at http//www.nist.gov/nteptransition. As 

the transition progresses, updates will be provided. 

11. 

Background: Diane Lee, NIST/OWM, reported on items of interest to the Sector that were acted on at NCWM Annual and 

Interim Meetings which have taken place since the Sector last met in March of 1998. 

The 1998 National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Annual Meeting was held July 12-16, in Portland, Oregon. 

The Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee GMM items listed below were adopted by the Conference as proposed 

in the Program and Committee Reports for the 83"'Annual Meeting, NCWM Publication 16, dated April 1998. Additional 

discussion of these issues can be found in that publication. The changes have been incorporated in the 1999 edition of 

Handbook 44, issued November 1998. 

Report on the 1998 NCWM Annual Meeting and the 1999 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings 

S&T ltem 356-1: Table S.2.5 Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing; Category 3 

Background: During its 1997 review of proposed Sealing Requirement changes to Publication 14, the Sector noted 

that there was no requirement for a Category 3 device to indicate that it is in the configmtion mode during remote access 

to sealable parameters. The Sector agreed that the requirements for a Category 3 device should be no less stringent than 

for Category 2 devices. When in the remote configuration mode, Category 2 devices must clearly indicate that they are 

in the remote mode and shall not be capable of providing measurement operations. The Sector recommended that similar 

requirements be added to Table S.2.5. of Grain Moisture Meter Code 5.56(a) for Category 3 devices. 

S&T ltem 356-2 Grain Types Considered for Type Evaluation and Calibration and Minimum Acceptable 

Abbreviations 

Background: GlPSA has combined the wheat classes "Eastem White Wheat" and "Westem White Wheat" into a single 

new class designated "Soft White Wheat." At its September 1997 meeting the Sector unanimously recommended changes 

to Table S.1.2. of Grain Moisture Meter Code 5.56(a) to reflect this change in wheat classes. 

S&T ltem 356-3 Amend S.2.4.3 Calibration Transfer 

Background: At its March 1997 meeting, the Sector proposed revisions to paragraph S.2.4.3. of Grain Moisture Meter 

Code 5.56(a) to make it clear that calibrations must be transferable between instruments of like type without requiring 

user slope or bias adjustments. The proposed revisions were also intended to clarify the difference between 

standardization adjustments (or parameters) and grain calibration coefficients. The Sector recommended that the changes 

be nonretroactive and effective as of of January 1, 1999. 

The Executive Committee GMM agenda item listed below was changed from voting to informational because of the 

extent of changes from the March 1998 Sector meeting and because of due process concems. [Note: This item was 

carried over to the Agenda for the 1999 Interim Meeting as Board of Directors (BOD) Item 102-9. Because of the 

incorporation of the NCWM and changes in the organization of NTEP, this item became NTEP Committee Item 501-9 

at the 1999 Annual Meeting.] 

NTEP-40 
NTEP Committee 

Executive Committee Item 102 -10 Additions and Revisions to the Definitions for Grain Moisture Meters in 

NCWM Publication 14 

Background: This item addressed the unique treatment of Certificates of Conformance (CCs) for grain moisture meters 

(GMMs). Modifications to the Administrative Procedures of Publication 14 were proposed to specify the requirements 

for maintaining an active CC for a GMM and to defme what happens when a CC is allowed to expire. 

The 1999 NCWM Interim Meeting was held January 31 - February 4, 1999 in Albuquerque, New Mexico. The NTEP 

Committee, accepted Item 102-9 (renamed NTEP Committee Item 501-9) as a voting item for the 1999 Annual Meeting as 

proposed in the Interim Meeting Agenda, NCWM Publication 15. Item 102-9 was a carry over from Item 102-10 from the 

1998 Conference. 

The NCWM Annual Meeting was held July 25-29, 1999 in Burlington, Vermont. The following item was approved by the 

Conference. mote: The item number shown below corresponds to the item number in Committee ReportF for fhe 84'" Annual 

Meeting, NCWM Publication 16. It was Item 102-9 at the 1999 Interim Meeting.] 

NTEP Committee Item 501-9 Additions and Revisions to the Definitions for Grain moisture Meters in NCWM 

Publication 14. 

Background: This is a carry over of Item 102-10 from the 1998 Annual Meeting (see above.: The final 

recommendation approved by the Conference is shown below ( additions are underlined.) 

N. Status of Certificate of Conformance; Maintenance Fee 

Exceot fm Moisture hi.&& a Certificate of Conformance does not have an expiration date; however, the device 

manufacturer must update the design of a device to meet new or modified requirements adopted by the NCWM. The 

NCWM charges a maintenance fee for Active Certificates to support the technical and administrative activities of the 

NCWM for NTEP. 

1. Declaration of Status by Certificate Holder 

The Certificate holder. usually the manufacturer or remanufacturer, declares intent to continue to manufacture or 

remanufacture the device by paying to the NCWM, an annual maintenance fee for the Certificate. If the maintenance 

fee is not paid (or if other outstanding bills have not been paid or arranged to be paid for the issuance of a Certificate), 

the Certificate is "inactive." 

facturers must oav an mua 1 oarticioation fee for the NTEP 

P (Phase 11) in order to maintain their certificate in an Active status. 

Jn addition to the above. Gram Moisture Meter manu 

-ration Proeram. OC 

2. Active Status 

Devices are being manufactured or remanufactured for commercial applications under an NTEP Certificate of 

Conformance. This means that the Certificate is in force with a hard copy of the Certificate issued and distributed. 

P (Phe 11). and themcturer must cont inue 

lllpav the rea-e fee. Gram Moisture Meter Certificatesalso be assiened Mve status if: (1) thq 

In addition to the above. a &a in Moisture Meter must remam m the OC 

vice bwes to0-e OCP 

ires for a de vice in which the original 

the de 

11): or (2) a elects to ma-tions after a Cm exu 

.. 

.. 

.. 

.. 

.. 

rs or re .. . .. .. 

factur ine the dw. (See NoteJ 

3. Effective Status 

Equivalent to ACTIVE status, but a hard copy of the Certificate of Conformance has not yet been issued and distributed. 

Therefore, a hard copy of the Certificate is not yet included in Publication 5. 

4. Inactive Status 

An Inactive Certificate of Conformance is a Certificate which was previously Active, but the devices are no longer being 

manufactured or remanufactured for commercial applications. However, devices already manufactured, installed, or in 

inventory, but not yet sold, may be used, sold, repaired, and resold, under an Inactive Certificate of Conformance. 

NTEP-4 1 
NTEP Committee 

5. Withdrawn Status 

The Certificate of Conformance remains valid unless withdrawn as the result of a specific determination by NTEP. 

A Certificate of Conformance may be withdrawn 

a. 

b. 

for deficiencies in the type, or 

when production devices do not meet type. 

DCP (Phase 11). Anv ~ be sold QI&G&&Q service fpr .. 

5. ExDird&&!s 

elects Q 

isted on the CC were 0- 

after a C- sold or phwhluwice for use. Meten .. 

m service mav be used. but a- taken would dspend on s. (See 

. .. . .. . . .. would be allowed to assume the -s for a device which h&j 

et the device wlll no or remanuIn this -: (1) sufler for use om 

.. . .. .. out re-en- Phase I if the in the OCP (P-e Year the .. .. 

.. .. .. 

.. n: (3) for the device: (4) .. . 

fee for -: and 

a new number would be 1ssul;d for the device 

12. 

The next meeting is tentatively planned for the week of August 21,2000, in the Kansas City, MO, area. Meetings will be held 

in the conference facility at the GlPSA Tech Center. An optional NIR training session for W&M Field Inspectors and other 

interested parties is being planned to precede the Sector meetings. A tentative schedule is shown below. 

Time and Place for Next Meeting 

Tuesday, August 22 

Wednesday, August 23 

Wednesday, August 23 

Thursday, August 24 

Friday, August 25 

1:00 pm - 5:OO pm 

8:OO am - 12:OO noon 

1:OO pm - 5:00 pm 

8:00 am - 5:00 pm 

8:OO am - 12:OO noon 

Optional NIR training session 

Optional NIR training session 

NIR Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting 

GMM Sector Meeting 

GMM Sector Meeting 

The above schedule is subject to change pending confrmation of finding availability and determination of fmal agenda issues. 

Please try to keep that week open until firm dates have been set. 

NTEP-42 

- 
NTEP Committee 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Near Infrared (NIR) Grain Analyzer Sector 

September 10,1999, St. Louis, MO 

Meeting Summary 

Agenda Items * I. 

'2. 

3. 

'4. 

5. 

6. 

Election of Sector Chairperson 

Update on the Structure of NCWM and the Organization of NTEP 

Report on the 1999 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings 

Time and Place for Next Meeting 

NIR Tentative Code Study and NCWM Specifications and Tolerance Committee Item 357-2, Indication of 

Additional Constituent Values 

Review of Evaluation Procedure Outlines (EPOs) and Test Procedures for the Field Evaluation of Near Infrared 

Grain Analyzers 

Because of common interest, items marked with an asterisk (*) will be considered in joint session of the NIR 

Grain Analyzer and the Grain Moisture Meter Sectors. 

Note: 

1. Election of Sector Chairperson 

Richard (Will) Wotthlie, MD Weights and Measures, was re-elected to the post of Chairperson for both the Grain Moisture 

Meter Sector and the Near Infrared Grain Analyzer Sector by unanimous vote of those present. Under the rules adopted by 

the Sector in March of 1996, he will serve a 3-year term or until a successor is elected. 

2. 

Background: A decision was made by NIST management that the Office of Weights and Measures would not hire an 

employee to continue meeting planning activities for the Conference afier its meeting planner retired. NlST contracted with 

the meeting planner to continue providing these services for 2 years to give the NCWM time to make other arrangements. 

The NCWM contracted with a management company to perform these administrative functions of the Conference. 

The NCWM was incorporated in August 1997 to protect it from liability in various NCWM activities. NCWM, Inc. is now 

assuming many of the NCWM business and administrative functions previously performed by NIST. For the most part, the 

impact of these changes will be transparent with respect to the operation of the technical sessions of the Conference. The 

NCWM's current Constitution and Bylaws are combined into one publication called the "Bylaws of the National Conference 

on Weights and Measures, Inc." Under the Bylaws, the Executive Committee has become the "Board of Directors" (BOD) 

of the corporation and the NTEP Board of Governors has become the "NTEP Committee." 

Diane Lee reported that the NCWM, Inc. BOD recently decided to assume responsibility for management and administration 

of NTEP. Some of the transition activities and recent meetings were reviewed with the Sector. Several Sector members 

whose companies were recognized under IS0 9001 expressed concern about what effect the move of their CCs from NlST 

to NCWM, Inc. might have upon their IS0 9001 status. 

(Editorial Note: In a meeting on October 28, 1999, at NCWM Headquarter's, NlST and the NCWM BOD tentatively agreed 

on a plan of actions and strategies that will clarify and redefine respective roles in support of uniformity of the U.S. weights 

and measures system. The NIST's roles will foster stronger technical support and assistance to NCWM activities and provide 

a smooth transition of the management of NTEP to NCWM, Inc.) 

Current information on the NTEP Transition is located on the NIST-OWM website at www.nisl.gov/ntep. As the transition 

progresses, updates will be provided. 

Discussion: In connection with a discussion relating to what effect the NTEP transition might have on NTEP participating 

laboratories, David Funk, GIPSA, announced that GIPSA was now ready to move fonvard to obtain recognition as the NTEP 

Update on the Structure of NCWM and the Organization of NTEP 

NTEP-43 
NTEP Committee 

laboratory for NIR Grain Analyzers. ( The approval of an NTEP laboratory for NIR Grain Analyzers has been on hold for 

several years.) He was urged to submit the required information as soon as possible (preferably by the end of 1999). 

3. 

The 1999 NCWM Interim Meeting was held January 3 I - February 4, 1999, in Albuquerque, NM, and the 1999 NCWM 

Annual Meeting was held July 25-29 in Burlington, VT. Diane Lee, NIST/OWM, reported on items of interest to the Sector. 

Report on the 1999 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings 

0 S&T Item 357-1 Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers - Tentative Code; Removal of Retroactive Dates. 

This item was accepted by the conference. In the next issue of NIST Handbook 44, retroactive dates will be removed 

and the non-retroactive date of January I, 2000, will be changed to January I, 2002. 

0 S&T Item 357-2 Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers - Tentative Code; Indication of Additional Constituent 

Values. 

Based on industry comments that the requirements may be premature, the Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

assigned this issue informational status. See Agenda Item 5, this Summary, for additional discussion of this issue. 

4. 

The next meeting is tentatively planned for the week of August 21,2000, in the Kansas City, MO, area. Meetings will be held 

in the conference facility at the GIPSA Technical Center . An optional NIR training session for W&M Field Inspectors and 

other interested parties is being planned to precede the Sector meetings. A tentative schedule is shown below. 

Time and Place for Next Meeting 

Tuesday, August 22 

Wednesday, August 23 

Wednesday, August 23 

Thursday, August 24 

Friday, August 25 

1:OO pm - 5:OO pm 

8:OO am - 12:OO noon 

1:OO pm - 5:OO pm 

8:OO am - 5:OO pm 

8:OO am - 1200 noon 

Optional NIR training session 

Optional NIR training session 

NIR Grain Analyzer Sector Meeting 

GMM Sector Meeting 

GMM Sector Meeting 

The above schedule is subject to change pending confmation of funding availability and determination of fmal agenda. issues. 

Please try to keep that week open until firm dates have been set. 

5. NIR Tentative Code Study and NCWM Specifications and Tolerance Committee Item 357-2, Indication of 

Additional Constituent Values 

Background: At the Sector's March 1998 meeting, Weights and Measurers representatives reported that they were seeing 

an increasing number of NIR Analyzers in their jurisdictions. It was also reported that much of the commercial usage for the 

NIR devices was for corn and soybeans. In recognition of this fact, the Sector proposed modifications to the NIR Grain 

Analyzer Tentative Code (See Item 357-2, Committee Reports for the 84" Annual Meeting, NCWM Publication 16 for details 

of the modifications) to include tests for corn (protein, oil, and starch), barley (protein), and soybeans (protein, oil). The 

Sector also determined that with an increasing number of instruments in the field and an increasing need for requirements to 

regulate NIR Analyzers, additional information from a study of these devices in accordance with the NIST Handbook 44 NIR 

Tentative Code would provide useful information needed to make recommendations to upgrade the tentative code to a 

permanent code. 

Discussion: Several states participated in a study of the Tentative Code and the proposed modifications. Maryland and 

Georgia collected samples. Arkansas, Iowa, Illinois, Missouri, Nebraska, and North Carolina collected samples and tested 

NIR devices. At the time of the Sector's September 1999 meeting, results were received from five states: Arkansas, Iowa, 

Illinois, Nebraska, and North Carolina. Diane Lee, NIST Office of Weights and Measures, presented the results of the study. 

In the study, NIR instruments were tested using soft red winter wheat (protein), soybeans (protein and oil) and corn (oil). 

Soybean samples used in the study were from Georgia, Missouri, and Maryland, the soft red winter wheat samples were from 

North Carolina, and the corn samples were from Illinois. Reference constituent values were determined by USDNGIPSA. 

The samples used in the study met the requirements of the Tentative Code, Tests for protein and starch in corn were to be 

included in the study, but the samples tested did not meet the requirements of the Tentative Code and, therefore, were not 

included in the study. The results of Nebraska's July 1996 survey of 29 devices using three samples of hard red winter wheat 

NTEP-44 
NTEP Committee 

(as opposed to five samples specified in the Tentative Code) were also included in the report. The overall results are 

summarized in the following table. 

Number of devices tested 

Number of devices failing 

one or more tests 

device rejection rate 

Corn Soybeans Wheat 

oil @ 0% m oil Q 13% m protein Q 13% m protein @ 12% m 

51 31 32 48 

21 3 6 21 

47.4% 9.1% 18.8% 43.8% 

% failing test criteria 1 

% failing test criteria 2 

21.1% 9.1% 18.8% 18.8% 

8.8% 0.0% 12.5% 35.4% 

criterion 1: individual sample test; criterion 2: average of 5 samples; and criteria 3: range for 5 retests, 

m = moisture (wet basis) 

The final NIR study report will be completed and distributed after additional information which was requested from the 

participants is included in the report. 

In comments submitted by Grain Industry representatives on the Sector's proposed addition of corn, soybeans, and barley to 

the Tentative Code, the industry expressed the belief that it was premature to establish a specific moisture basis in the NIR 

code for products other than the 12% basis for wheat because the marketplace is currently unsettled on an appropriate moisture 

basis for many of the commodities, such as high oil corn. It was their belief that establishing specific moisture bases for these 

products could create confusion and potential market disruption if W&M officials enforce the proposed moisture bases for 

corn and soybeans when commercial contracts call for different bases. The Grain Industry prefers flexibility in setting a 

moisture basis for a specific product because ofthe wide differences in moisture bases used when buying or selling grains with 

unique characteristics. 

Reviewing the field survey data, the Sector noted that a significant number of rejects may have been due to a misunderstanding 

on the part of some device operators as to what moisture basis the device had been calibrated for, or confusion about how to 

handle the conversion between the device's reading and a different moisture basis. 

When one Sector member questioned the tolerance applied to the range of five retests for oil in corn, believing it might be 

too tight, another member suggested that the instruments exhibiting excessive range may, in fact, have sample feeding 

problems. 

In the ensuing discussion, it became apparent that the practical problems associated with maintaining uniformity between 

devices in the field seemed to mandate that inspections, tolerances, and regulatory samples used in inspection be based on 

specified fixed moisture bases. On the other hand, the Sector recognized that the Grain Industry requires the flexibility to use 

different moisture bases. The Federal System addresses this problem by reporting constituent concentrations at both a 

"standard" moisture and at the moisture basis requested by the customer (if other than "standard"). For example, if a dry basis 

protein is requested for wheat which has a "standard" moisture basis of 12%, the report contains a statement to the effect: 14% 

protein at 12% moisture; at 0% moisture the protein is 15.9%. 

Present day commercial devices handle the conversion to different moisture bases in a variety of ways. Some of the devices 

encountered on the survey had been calibrated to read direct at dry basis. Conversion to other moisture bases was 

accomplished by manually multiplying the device's dry basis reading by 100 minus the new basis divided by 100 (e.g., 

~~ 

NTEP-45 
NTEP Committee 

multiply device reading by 0.85 to fmd constituent value at 15% moisture basis). Some measured on an “as is” moisture basis 

and could convert to any moisture basis keyed in by the operator, but also required that the device be calibrated to measure 

moisture of the sample. Others were calibrated to read direct at a fixed non-zero moisture basis. Assessing the suitability of 

many NIR instruments for operating in a regulatory environment, the Sector recognized the following problems: 

constituent results were frequently displayedrecorded with no clear indication of moisture basis 

there was no way for field inspectors to determine the moisture basis on which calibration was derived 

The issue of special calibrations for genetically modified organisms (GMOs), such as herbicide resistant soybeans and high 

oil com, was raised. A case was cited in which a calibration was tailor-made to fit a company’s product. Contracts stipulated 

the use of the tailor-made calibration in determining product acceptability. A measurement system closely tied to one product 

raises a barrier to entry for other products. Competitive products of equal inherent value were less likely to pass because they 

didn’t “fit“ the special calibration. It was suggested that it might be appropriate for NIST/OWM to hold an informational 

meeting at which representatives of the special genetics industry, the grain processing industry, the grain trade, and producer 

organizations could be made aware of what is meant by national uniformity and how the desire to provide equity in the 

marketplace will affect the use of NIR devices in a regulated environment. Noting that although GIPSA is not required to 

provide inspection for non-grade determining factors, David Funk reported that GIPSA did have an interest in providing 

measurements on value added commodities, especially those which might lead to expanded markets for U.S. grain. In this 

regard, he said that GIPSA would meet individually with some of the bio-technology companies that have developed GMOs 

to discuss how GIPSA and these companies might work together. 

Several Sector members expressed the belief that establishment of a nationally recognized reference laboratory was a key 

requirement for a workable enforcement program. Even if multiple laboratories were recognized, it would be important to 

establish a single referee laboratory with the authority to settle disputes. 

Conclusion: Until issues discovered during the NIR Tentative Code study can be resolved, the Sector agreed that the existing 

Code should remain tentative as modified by the conference at the 1999 Annual Meeting (See Summary Item 3, Conference 

Item 357-1, Removal of Retroactive Dates ), and that Conference Item 357-2, Indication of Additional Constituent 

Values, should be made an item for development. The Sector’s Technical Advisor and the NTEP laboratory representative 

were asked to develop a proposal for addressing the moisture basis issue for consideration by the Sector at or before its August 

2000 meeting, the goal being to forward a recommendation on 357-2 to the S&T Committee for consideration at their January 

200 1 meeting. 

6. 

Background: At the March 1998 GMMMIR Sector meetings a working group was established to develop Examination 

Procedure Outlines (EPOs) and Field Evaluation Test Procedures for GMM and NIR devices to provide guidance to States 

on implementing NIST HB 44 as it applied to these devices. Templates were developed to assist the working group with their 

assignments in documenting the EPOs and field evaluation test procedures. The working group was divided into the 3 teams: 

EPO XXX for Grain Moisture Meters and NIST HB 44 Recommended Field Evaluation Test 

Procedures for Grain Moisture Meters, Whole Grain Sample Method. 

EPO XXX for Near Infrared Grain Analyzers and Appendix A of EPO XXX, “NIST HB 44 

Recommended Field Evaluation Test Procedures for Near Infrared Analyzers.” 

Appendix B, Alternative Field Evaluation Test Procedures for Grain Moisture Meters, Meter to 

Meter Method. 

Review of EPOs and Test Procedures for the field evaluation of Near Infrared Grain Analyzers 

Team 1 - 

Team 2 - 

Team 3 - 

Discussion: Diane Lee, NIST-OW, explained that EPOs are intended to be check lists which follow NIST HB 44 

requirements. Test Procedures, on the other hand, should include specific procedures which must be followed to perform field 

evaluations (procedures for preparing samples may be included, as appropriate). 

Commenting on the Draft EPO for NIR Grain Analyzers, the Sector noted: 

I, Several of the items in the check list are specifications which can be verified only during NTEP conformance 

testing. 

NTEP-46 
NTEP Committee 

2. The retroactive dates have been removed from the Tentative Code. It would be helpful if the EPO provided 

some suggestions on which portions of the code should be applied to pre-NTEP devices. 

The Test Procedure was not available for review, but the Sector noted 

1. The test protocol developed for the NIR Tentative Code Study (see Item 6, this Summary) contains the essential 

information needed for the Test Procedure. 

2. When the Test Procedure is developed, it should be edited to be consistent with the Test Procedures for GMMs. 

Conclusion: Because of time limitations, and recognizing that major editing might be involved in a line-by-line review of 

each EPO and Test Procedure, the NIST representative was asked to edit the EPO and Test Procedure to incorporate the 

Sector's suggestions. Electronic copies of the edited documents will be sent to Sector members for review and comment by 

November 15, 1999. 

NTEP-47 
NTEP Committee 

Name & Affiliation Internet E-Mail Address September 

I I 

11 Jack Barber, JB Associates I ibarber@cityscape.net IXIXIX 

Connie Brown, DICKEY-john Cop. 

Randy Bums, Arkansas Bureau of Standards 

Sidney Colbrook, Illinois Dept. of Agriculture 

Bob Davis, Illinois Deuarhnent of Agriculture 

cbrown@dickey-john.com xxx 

BumsR@aspb.state.ar.us xxx 

scolbrook@agr.state.il.us xxx 

bdavis@aer.state.iI.us xxx 

Cassie Eigenmann. DICKEY-john Corp. 

Arnold Eilert, Bran+Luebbe 

ceigenmann@dickey-john.com X X X 

eilert@branluebbe.com xxx 

Andrew Gell, Foss North America 

Rich Flaugh, GSF Inc. 

Charles Hurburgh, Jr., Iowa State University 

Thomas E. Jennings, Illinois Dept.of Agriculture 

G. Diane Lee, NIST/Office of Weights & Measures 

11 Cheryl Tew, North Carolina Dept. Of Agriculture I Cheryl.Tew@ncmail.net IXIXIX 

agell@fossnorthamerica.com xxx 

richf@gsfmc.com xxx 

tatry@iastate.edu xxx 

TJennings@agr.state.il.us X 

diane,lee@nist.gov xxx 

11 Angelo Losurdo, Seedburo Equipment Co. 

Stephen Muench, United Soybean Board 

Ray Oberg, Zeltex, Inc. 

Don Onwiler, Nebraska Dept. of Agriculture 

Richard Pierce, GIF'SA 

Joe Rothleder, California Dept. of Food & Ag. 

Jacqueline Russell, Perten Instruments 

alosurdo@Seedburo.com xxx 

stephen-muench@sba.com X 

rayo@zeltex.com xxx 

donlo@agr.state.ne.us xxx 

rpierce@gipsakc.gov xxx 

JRothleder@cdfa.ca.gov xxx 

JRussell@perten.com xxx 

NTEP-48 

Cliff Watson, Consultant 

Robert Wittenburger, Missouri Dept. of Agriculture 

Richard Wotthlie. State of Mawland 

xxx 

bwittenb@mail.state.mo.us xxx 

wotthh@mda.state.md.us xxx 

David Funk, GIPSA dfunk@tsd.fgiskc.usda.gov xxx 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-49 

Appendix E 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Measuring Sector 

September 24-25, 1999, Olympia, WA 

Meeting Summary

Agenda Items 

1. Update to NCWM Publication 14 to Reflect Changes to NIST Handbook 44....................................................49 

 A) G.S.1. Identification; Serial Number 

 B) Table S.2.2. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing 

 C) T.2.1.X. Tolerances for Devices Delivering Less than One Gallon 

 D) Measurement of Asphalt 

 E) S.3.3. Vapor Elimination, Accuracy Classes for Mass Flow Meter Applications, and Testing Procedures 

 F) Heated Products Metered with Mass Flow Meters 

2. Identification of Model Number..............................................................................................................................55 

3. Duplicate Receipts....................................................................................................................................................56 

4. Width of Index and Graduations ............................................................................................................................56 

5. Test Method for Card-Activated Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers..........................................................................57 

6. Sealable Parameters for Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser Systems...........................................................................58 

7. Stationary Cryogenic Cylinder Filling ...................................................................................................................58 

8. Discount Fueling Using a POS System ...................................................................................................................59 

9. Permanence of Labeling on Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers ..................................................................................59 

10. Printed Receipts for Pre-Paid Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser Deliveries ..............................................................60 

11. Number of Tests of Meters Used in Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers......................................................................60 

12. Considerations When Testing LPG Meters ...........................................................................................................61 

13. Software-Based Console Controllers ......................................................................................................................62 

14. Testing of Single Compartment vs. Split Compartment Vehicle Tank Meters ..................................................62

15. Adding Ethane to the Mass Flow Meter Family of Products Table ....................................................................63 

16. Multi-Product Testing of Mass Flow Meters.........................................................................................................64 

17. Compatibility of Electronic Components...............................................................................................................65 

18. Recorded Representation of Count Items on ECR Systems.................................................................................66 

19. Location of ID Information Required by G-S.1. Identifcation ............................................................................66 

20. Temperature Compensation of Vehicle-Tank Meters ...........................................................................................67 

21. Meeting Location for 2000 NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting...........................................................................67 

22. New Agenda Discussions ..........................................................................................................................................68 

1. Update to NCWM Publication 14 to Reflect Changes to NIST Handbook 44 

Background: In July 1999, the 84th National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) adopted the following 

items that will be reflected in the 2000 edition of NIST Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical 

Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices, and NCWM Publication 14, National Type Evaluation Program 

(NTEP) Administrative Procedures, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures. These items are part of the 

agenda to inform the Measuring Sector of changes that immediately affect the NTEP policy and procedures. 

A) G.S.1. Identification; Serial Number 

Handbook 44 Changes:

G-S.1. 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: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor; 

(b) a model designation that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device; 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-50 

(c) except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts, a non-repetitive serial number; and 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968.] 

(d) the serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly identifies the 

number as the required serial number; and

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986.] 

(e) the serial number shall be prefaced by the words “Serial Number” or an abbreviation of that term. 

Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “S,” and abbreviations for the

word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser. No, and S No.).

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001.]

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity of the 

disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device. 

(Amended 1985, 1991, and 1999) 

Corresponding Changes to Publication 14:

Modify Liquid-Measuring Devices Checklist paragraph 1.1.3 as follows: 

1.1.3. The serial number must be prefaced with words or an abbreviation that clearly identifies it as the 

serial number. The serial number shall be prefaced by the words “Serial Number” or an 

abbreviation of that term. Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, begin with 

the letter “S,” and abbreviations for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the 

letter “N” (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser. No, and S No.).

Modify Electronic Cash Registers Interfaced with Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers Checklist paragraph 1.4 as follows: 

1.4 The serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol that clearly identifies the 

number as the serial number. The serial number shall be prefaced by the words “Serial Number” or 

an abbreviation of that term. Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, begin with 

the letter “S,” and abbreviations for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter 

“N” (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser. No, and S No.).

Discussion: The technical advisor reviewed the changes made to Handbook 44 paragraph G-S.1. at the 1999 Annual 

Meeting of the NCWM. There were no comments from the Sector. The Sector agreed to modify the 2000 edition of 

Publication 14 as noted above to reflect changes made to paragraph G-S.1. 

B) Table S.2.2. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing 

Handbook 44 Changes: At its 1999 Annual Meeting, the NCWM voted to amend Table S.2.2. of the Liquid-Measuring 

Devices Code as follows to clarify the application of Category 2 and Category 3 requirements: 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-51 

Table S.2.2. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing

Categories of Device Method of Sealing

Category 1: No remote configuration 

capability.

Seal by physical seal or two event counters: one for calibration 

parameters and one for configuration parameters.

Category 2: Remote configuration capability, 

but access is controlled by physical hardware. 

Device shall clearly indicate that it is in the 

remote configuration mode and record such 

message if capable of printing in this mode. 

[Category 2 applies only to devices 

manufactured prior to January 1, 2005. 

Devices with remote configuration capability 

manufactured after that date must meet the 

sealing requirements outlined in Category 3. 

Devices without remote configuration 

capability manufactured after that date will be 

required to meet the minimum criteria outlined 

in Category 1.] 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2005.]

[The hardware enabling access for remote communication must 

be on-site. The hardware must be sealed using a physical seal or 

an event counter for calibration parameters and an event 

counter for configuration parameters. The event counters may 

be located either at the individual measuring device or at the 

system controller; however, an adequate number of counters 

must be provided to monitor the calibration and configuration 

parameters of the individual devices at a location. If the 

counters are located in the system controller rather than at the 

individual device, means must be provided to generate a hard 

copy of the information through an on-site device.]* 

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1996]

Category 3: Remote configuration capability 

access may be unlimited or controlled through 

a software switch (e.g., password). 

The device shall clearly indicate that it is in the 

remote configuration mode and record such 

message if capable of printing in this mode or 

shall not operate while in this mode.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001.]

Category 3 will be modified in 2005 to apply to

Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2005, all 

devices with remote configuration capability 

must comply with the sealing requirements of 

Category 3.

An event logger is required in the device; it must include an 

event counter (000 to 999), the parameter ID, the date and time 

of the change, and the new value of the parameter. A printed 

copy of the information must be available through the device or 

through another on-site device. The event logger shall have a 

capacity to retain records equal to ten times the number of 

sealable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 

records are required. (Note: Does not require 1000 changes to 

be stored for each parameter.)

[Nonretroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 1995.]

(Table added 1993) (Amended 1995, and 1998, and 1999)

The Sector should note that similar changes were adopted to Table S.3.5. Categories of Device and Methods of Sealing in 

the Mass Flow Meters Code because both technologies are used in comparable applications and, therefore, are held to 

similar requirements. 

Corresponding Changes to Publication 14: 

Amend the sealing requirements of Category 3 Devices in Section 2.16. Graduations, Indications, and Recorded 

Representations of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Checklist as follows: 

Category 3 Devices (Unlimited Remote Configuration Capability) 

All devices with remote communication that are manufactured after January 1, 1999, must meet the 

requirements outlined for Category 3. Access to change the configuration and calibration parameters 

may be unlimited, or controlled through a password, if the device meets the requirements for Category 3. 

• The device clearly indicates when it is in the remote configuration mode

 or does not operate while in this mode if manufactured after January 1, 2001 R Yes R No R NA
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-52 

 • The device is equipped with an event logger. R Yes R No R NA 

• The event logger automatically retains the identification of the parameter changed, 

the date and time of the change, and the new value of the parameter. R Yes R No R NA

Amend Section 2. of the General Requirements for Metrological Audit Trails in Appendix A Minimum Requirements for 

Audit Trails for Category 2 Devices of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Checklist as follows: 

For Category 2 and Category 3 devices: When a remotely configurable device is in the remote 

configuration mode, that is, capable of receiving changes to sealable parameters, the device shall either: 

a. not indicate or record (if equipped with a printer) ; or 

b. provide a clear and continuous indication that it is in remote configuration mode. Any printed 

ticket or receipt shall include a message with each ticket or receipt that the device is in the 

calibration mode. 

The modified criteria shown above will appear in the next edition of Publication 14. 

[Editorial Note: As per the dates specified in Table S.2.2., all references to Category 2 will be removed from the LiquidMeasuring Devices Checklist in Publication 14 as of 2005.] 

Discussion: The Sector discussed ways to establish criteria that clearly reflect the intent of NCWM changes to Handbook 

44. The Sector considered including in Publication 14 specific methods for devices to indicate when they are in the 

remote configuration mode. Several Sector members were concerned that if Publication 14 criteria are too vague the 

laboratories might incorrectly require devices other than the primary indicating device to indicate when the system is in 

the remote configuration mode. The Sector agreed that this requirement was added to Handbook 44 to alert the device 

users when the device is in the remote configuration mode. Consequently, the Sector thought that in many applications it 

should not be necessary for backroom controllers to indicate when a device is in the remote configuration mode. 

Furthermore, devices should not enter the remote configuration mode during a transaction because this facilitates fraud. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that the proposed language shown above adequately summarizes the latest audit trail 

requirements. The Sector also notes that the requirements apply to all primary indicating devices, which includes dumb 

indicators, that is, indicators with no intelligence. 

C) T.2.1.X. Tolerances for Devices Delivering Less than One Gallon 

The following changes to Handbook 44 are provided for the Sector’s information and to alert the NTEP Laboratories and 

manufacturers of changes to the tolerances. Tolerances are not generally listed in the Publication 14 Checklists; therefore, 

no changes to Publication 14 are necessary. 

Handbook 44 Changes:

At its 1999 Annual Meeting, the NCWM adopted the following new paragraph T.2.1.4. Tolerances for Devices Designed 

to Primarily Deliver Less than One Gallon to the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code in Handbook 44: 

T.2.1.4. Tolerances for Devices Designed to Primarily Deliver Less than One Gallon. - Maintenance 

tolerances and acceptance tolerances shall be as shown in Table 2. Tolerances for Slow-Flow Meters.

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the new tolerances for devices designed to primarily deliver less than one gallon of 

product. The Sector did not comment on the new tolerances. 

D) Measurement of Asphalt 

The following changes to Handbook 44 are provided for the Sector’s information and to alert the NTEP Laboratories and 

manufacturers of changes to the tolerances. Tolerances are not generally listed in the Publication 14 Checklists; therefore, 

no changes to Publication 14 are necessary. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-53 

Handbook 44 Changes: 

At its 1999 Annual Meeting, the NCWM adopted the following new paragraph T.2.3.2. Measurement of Asphalt to 

Section 3.30 of the Liquid–Measuring Devices Code and renumbered existing paragraphs T.2.3.2. through T.2.3.4. 

accordingly.

T.2.3.2. Measurement of Asphalt. – Maintenance tolerances and acceptance tolerances shall be: 

 Acceptance Maintenance

Asphalt below 50 qC 0.2 % 0.3 %

Asphalt above 50 qC 0.3 % 0.3 %

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the new tolerances for meters used to measure asphalt. The Sector did not comment on 

the newly adopted tolerances. 

E) S.3.3. Vapor Elimination, Accuracy Classes for Mass Flow Meter Applications, and Testing Procedures 

The following changes to Handbook 44 are provided for the Sector’s information and to alert the NTEP Laboratories and 

manufacturers of changes to the tolerances. Tolerances are not generally listed in the Publication 14 Checklists; therefore, 

no changes to Publication 14 are necessary. 

[Editorial Note: A note similar to that found under the Field Evaluations and Permanence Tests for Vehicle Tank Meters 

will be added to the corresponding Publication 14 Section for Mass Flow Meters to reflect the new paragraph N.] 

Handbook 44 Changes: At its 1999 Annual Meeting, the NCWM adopted modifications to paragraph S.3.3. Vapor 

Elimination and Table T.2. Accuracy Classes for Mass Flow Meter Applications, and added a new paragraph N.6. Testing 

Procedures to the Mass Flow Meters Code as follows: (Note: Changes shown in Table T.2. below also include changes 

described in Sector Agenda Item 1(F)) 

S.3.3. Vapor Elimination. - A liquid-measuring instrument or measuring system shall be 

equipped with an effective vapor or air eliminator gas extractor or other effective means, 

automatic in operation, to prevent the measurement of vapor and air that result in errors 

greater than the tolerance for the minimum measured quantity (see N.1.). Vent lines from 

the air or vapor eliminator shall be made of metal tubing or some other suitable rigid 

material.

Table T.2. Accuracy Classes for Mass Flow Meter Applications 

Accuracy Class Application or Commodity Being 

Measured

Acceptance 

Tolerance

Maintenance

Tolerance

Special Test 

Tolerance

0.3 Loading rack meters, vehicle-tank 

meters, home heating oil, heated 

products (except asphalt above 50 qC ) 

asphalt below 50 qC, milk and other food 

products, large capacity motor-fuel 

dispensers (maximum discharge flow 

rates greater than 100 L or 25 gal per 

minute), all other liquid applications not 

shown in the table where the minimum 

delivery is at least 700 kg (1500 lb) 

0.2% 0.3% 0.5 %

0.3A Asphalt above 50 qC 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.5 %

0.5 Small capacity (retail) motor-fuel 

dispensers, agri-chemical liquids, all 

other liquid applications not shown in the 

table 

0.3% 0.5% 0.5 %

1.0 Anhydrous ammonia, LP Gas (including 

vehicle tank meters) 

0.6 % 1.0 % 1.0 %

2.0 Compressed natural gas as a motor fuel 1.5% 2.0% 2.0 %

2.5 Cryogenic liquid meters, liquefied 

compressed gases other than LP Gas 1.5% 2.5% 2.5 %
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-54 

N.6. Testing Procedures.

N.6.1. Normal Tests. - The normal test of a meter shall be made at the maximum discharge rate 

developed by the installation. Any additional tests conducted at flow rates down to and including the 

rated minimum discharge flow rate shall be considered normal tests.

N.6.2. Special Tests. - Special tests to develop the operating characteristics of a meter and any special 

elements and accessories attached to or associated with the device, shall be made as circumstances require. 

Any test except as set forth in N.6.1. shall be considered a special test. Special test of a measuring system shall 

be made to develop operating characteristics of the measuring systems during a split compartment delivery. 

(See Table T.2.)

Corresponding Changes to Publication 14: 

Add new paragraphs 37.1. and 37.2. Vapor Elimination as follows and renumber existing paragraphs 37.1. through 

37.11.: 

37. Measuring Element 

Code Reference: S.3.3. Vapor Elimination

37.1. A mass flow metering system shall be equipped with a vapor or air eliminator or other 

automatic means to prevent the passage of vapor and air through the meter.

37.2. Vent lines from the air or vapor eliminator (if present) shall be made of metal tubing or other 

rigid material to prevent the lines from being pinched closed and re-opened without being 

detected.

Add a note to Section M. Permanence Tests for Mass Flow Meters to reflect new Handbook 44 paragraph N.6. Testing 

Procedures. 

Note: The normal test of a mass flow metering system shall be made at the maximum discharge rate 

developed under the conditions of the 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 test. (Code reference N.6.)

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the modifications to Handbook 44 Mass Flow Meters Code paragraph S.3.3. Vapor 

Elimination, Table T.2. Accuracy Classes for Mass Flow Meter Applications, and N.6. Testing Procedures, and other 

application tolerances. The Sector did not comment on the newly adopted applications and corresponding tolerances. 

F) Heated Products Metered with Mass Flow Meters 

The following changes to Handbook 44 are provided for the Sector’s information and to alert the NTEP Laboratories and 

manufacturers of changes to the tolerances. Tolerances are not generally listed in the Publication 14 Checklists; therefore, 

no changes to Publication 14 are necessary. 

Handbook 44 Changes: At its 1999 Annual Meeting, the NCMW adopted the following changes to paragraphs T.1. and 

T.2. and to Table T.2. to recognize mass flow meter applications dispensing heated products. (Note: Changes shown in 

Table T.2. below also include changes described in Sector Agenda Item 1(E)) 

T.1. 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 qC to 50 qC, inclusive, measured 

at any flow rate within the rated measuring range of the meter. 

T.2. Tolerances. - The tolerances for mass flow meters for specific liquids, gases, and applications are 

listed in Table T.2. 

(Amended 1994 and 1999)
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-55 

Table T.2. Accuracy Classes for Mass Flow Meter Applications 

Accuracy Class Application or Commodity Being 

Measured

Acceptance 

Tolerance

Maintenance

Tolerance

Special Test 

Tolerance

0.3 Loading rack meters, vehicle-tank 

meters, home heating oil, heated 

products (except asphalt above 50 qC ) 

asphalt below 50 qC, milk and other food 

products, large capacity motor-fuel 

dispensers (maximum discharge flow 

rates greater than 100 L or 25 gal per 

minute), all other liquid applications not 

shown in the table where the minimum 

delivery is at least 700 kg (1500 lb) 

0.2% 0.3% 0.5 %

0.3A Asphalt above 50 qC 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.5 %

0.5 Small capacity (retail) motor-fuel 

dispensers, agri-chemical liquids, all 

other liquid applications not shown in the 

table 

0.3% 0.5% 0.5 %

1.0 Anhydrous ammonia, LP Gas (including 

vehicle tank meters) 

0.6 % 1.0 % 1.0 %

2.0 Compressed natural gas as a motor fuel 1.5% 2.0% 2.0 %

2.5 Cryogenic liquid meters, liquefied 

compressed gases other than LP Gas 1.5% 2.5% 2.5 %

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the new tolerances for mass flow meters used to measure asphalt and other heated 

products. The Sector did not comment on the newly adopted tolerances. 

2. Identification of Model Number 

Source: NCWM Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee 

Background: At the 1999 NCWM Annual Meeting, the S&T Committee considered amending G-S.1. (b) to include the 

word “model” to clearly identify the model designation on a device. Based on industry comments, the S&T Committee 

acknowledged that there are many terms used internationally, such as “type,” “pattern,” “design,” and “style," to denote 

“model.” These alternate terms are also often used in conjunction with the term “number.” The NCWM S&T Committee 

recognized that, if no change was made to the current wording in Handbook 44, some manufacturers will not label the 

model number with a prefix that positively identifies it as the model number. If the model number is not clearly 

identified, it is difficult for weights and measures field officials and NTEP laboratory staff to locate the model number on 

the device and subsequently the corresponding NTEP Certificate of Conformance. The S&T Committee asked the 

NTETC Sectors and the NTEP Participating Laboratories to review the alternate terms to determine if the proposed 

modifications to paragraph G-S.1. are acceptable to both weight and measures officials and industry representatives. 

The Sector reviewed the following proposal to modify Handbook 44 paragraph G-S.1.(b) to require a term that positively 

identifies the device model number to read as follows: 

G-S.1. (b) a model designation that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device; and is prefaced 

by the term “model.”

[Nonretroactive January 1, 200X]

Discussion: The Sector agreed that current G-S.1. (b) wording is very vague and lends itself to a broad interpretation of 

what markings positively identity the model number on a device. One Sector member noted that, while G.S.1. (b) 

currently requires that the manufacturer list the model number somewhere on the device, it does not require that the 

model number be printed on the identification plate. The Sector considered the feasibility of requiring the model number 

to be prefaced by words such as "model," "type," "pattern," "style," and "series" on the identification plate. The Sector 

decided that only "pattern" and "model" are appropriate terminology to identify the unique model number. Some Sector 

members believed that printing the Certificate of Conformance Number on the identification badge would eliminate many 

of the problems that weights and measures inspectors experience when the model number is not adequately identified. 

However, several manufacturers responded that it would be impractical for them to print the certificate number on their 

devices. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-56 

Conclusion: The Sector recommends that the NCWM S&T Committee consider modifying G-S.1. (b) as follows: 

G-S.1. (b) a model designation that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device; and is prefaced 

by the term “model” or “pattern .”

[Nonretroactive January 1, 200X]

The Sector recommends that this requirement be non-retroactive to provide enough time for manufacturers to modify 

their identification badges. 

3. Duplicate Receipts 

Source: NCWM Specifications and Tolerances Committee 

Background: The NCWM adopted a requirement to identify duplicate receipts generated by taximeters based on 

concerns that duplicate receipts could be used fraudulently. In 1999, the NCWM also considered the Specifications and 

Tolerances (S&T) Committee proposal to add a new paragraph to the Handbook 44 General Code to require that all 

duplicate receipts be clearly labeled with the words “duplicate” or “copy.” 

During the 1999 NCWM Annual Meeting, a retail motor-fuel dispenser manufacturer indicated that Publication 14 

already addresses duplicate receipts printed by retail motor-fuel dispensing systems. Following that meeting, the S&T 

Committee asked for input on whether the proposed requirement should apply to all device types (and, thus, be included 

in the General Code) or should apply only to specific device types such as taximeters (and thus, be included only in 

specific device codes). The S&T Committee also agreed that it might be appropriate to develop design requirements, in 

addition to General Code paragraph G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud, as a basis for Publication 14 criteria which prohibit 

fraudulent use of duplicate receipts. 

The S&T Committee noted that the latest generation of electronics already enable liquid-measuring device ticket printers 

to generate duplicate receipts such as those seen on vehicle tank metering systems; therefore, the Committee agreed that it 

is important to establish requirements as quickly as possible to address such features. The S&T Committee noted that it 

might be inappropriate to dictate the same requirements for printed and handwritten receipts. Some NCWM members 

questioned the capability of mechanical and non-intelligent printers to provide duplicate receipt information. The S&T 

Committee asked the regional associations for input about problems officials encounter when systems have the capability 

to issue duplicate receipts. 

The Sector reviewed the following proposal to add new paragraph G-S.5.6.2. Duplicate Receipts to Handbook 44 General 

Code which is being considered by the S&T Committee: 

G-S.5.6.2. Duplicate Receipts. - A recording element may produce a duplicate receipt for the previous 

transaction provided the information printed is identical to the original with the exception of time issued. The 

duplicate receipt must include the words “duplicate” or “copy.”

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

Discussion: The Sector considered several examples of situations where it is appropriate to issue a "duplicate" 

receipt, such as when a ticket is irretrievably jammed in the device, or a power outage. The Sector concluded that if a 

receipt is printed at a retail motor-fuel dispenser and at the console, both receipts might be considered original 

receipts. Several Sector members favored printing a sequential transaction number on the receipt which would be the 

same on original and duplicate receipts; however, one regulatory official was concerned about enforcing a 

requirement for sequential numbering of receipts. The Sector did not believe that this would prevent fraud because 

the customer would not understand the significance of the transaction number. 

Conclusion: The Sector recommends that the NCWM S&T Committee consider adding specific requirements to 

each of the appropriate code sections in Handbook 44 to address duplicate receipts rather than adding a requirement 

to the General Code. The Sector had no recommendations for additions to specific device codes. 

4. Width of Index and Graduations 

Source: 1998 National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Measuring Sector Meeting 

Background: At the 1998 Sector meeting, the Sector recommended amending paragraph S.1.5.3.(a) Width; Indicator 

Index of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code to read as follows: 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-57 

S.1.5.3. Width. 

(a) The index of an indicator shall not be wider than the width of the widest narrowest graduation*. 

(b) If the index of an indicator extends over the entire length of a graduation, it shall be of uniform width 

throughout the portion that coincides with the graduation. 

[*Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X.]

The NCWM Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee included this recommendation on its 1999 Agenda. At the 

1999 Annual Meeting, the S&T Committee considered comments that paragraph S.1.5.3. is currently correct because a 

wider index design facilitates reading of the graduation. In contrast, when the index design is narrower than the narrowest 

graduation, reading the indication to the nearest graduation can be difficult. The S&T Committee acknowledged that the 

position favoring current paragraph S.1.5.3. is valid; however, the uncertainties associated with reading indices when the 

graduations are obscured cause other concerns. 

The S&T Committee heard comments that many analog indicators are still being used; however, the proposal only applies 

to new devices. Measurement Canada re-stated that it believes that the proposal is a more appropriate design requirement 

for indices than what is presently included in Handbook 44. The NCWM S&T Committee agreed that the proposal is 

more appropriate. Unless the S&T Committee receives more data to support the existing Handbook 44 language, the 

S&T Committee will return the proposal to voting status at the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

Discussion: The Sector recognized that devices that meet the more stringent requirement in proposed paragraph S.1.5.3. 

also meet the current Handbook 44 requirements. If Handbook 44 is not modified, the NTEP Laboratories will continue 

to require the more stringent requirements for mutual recognition tests. 

Conclusion: The Sector recommends that the NCWM S&T Committee collect more feedback about the proposed change 

to paragraph S.1.5.3. before the NCWM votes on this issue. 

5. Test Method for Card-Activated Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

Source: Gordon Johnson (Gilbarco, Incorporated) 

Background: During an initial evaluation of a single hose dispenser used to meter propane, NTEP laboratory 

representatives noticed that Sections 17.2.4. and 17.2.5. of NCWM Publication 14 specified different requirements for 

single and multiple hose dispensers. Section 17 of the Checklist for Liquid-Measuring Devices outlined one set of 

requirements for single-hose dispensers (17.2.4.) and a different set of requirements for multi-hose (17.2.5.) dispensers. 

The NTEP laboratories met in May 1999 and agreed to recommend that the Sector remove paragraph 17.2.4. and require 

all dispensers comply with 17.2.5. 

Discussion: The Sector agreed that the wording in paragraph 17.2.5. is appropriate for all types of dispensers. One 

NTEP laboratory pointed out that having the dispenser remain "authorized" for 15 seconds allows customers to change 

their minds about which grade of fuel to purchase. The Sector believes that this is appropriate because it would take more 

than 15 seconds for the next customer to pull up to a dispenser and begin dispensing fuel. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to modify Publication 14 by removing paragraph 17.2.4. and the wording "For multihose dispensers;” renumbering existing paragraphs 17.2.5. through 17.2.8.; and adding a new note to explain the term 

"handle" as follows. 

17.2.4. Turn the dispenser “handle” on and use a card to authorize the dispenser.

Turn the handle off, then on. Try to deliver product: the dispenser must not dispense.

For multi-hose dispensers:

17.2.54. Turn the dispenser “handle” on and use a card to authorize the dispenser. 

Turn the “handle” off. After a period of 15 seconds, turn the “handle” on. 

Try to deliver product; the dispenser must not dispense. 

Note: The term "handle" generically refers to the handle, flapper, button, on/off switch, or other 

mechanism used to activate or deactivate the dispenser.
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-58 

6. Sealable Parameters for Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser Systems 

Source: California Division of Measurement Standards 

Background: A field inspector contacted the California Division of Measurement Standards (DMS) after discovering a 

retail motor-fuel dispenser (RMFD) with the capability to adjust RMFD blend ratio settings through a remote console. In 

reviewing the system, the DMS determined that the fixed blend valves in the dispenser were replaced with adjustable 

electronic blend valves. Information from the manufacturer indicated that the dispenser had an event counter for the 

blend ratio; however, the Certificates of Conformance for that dispenser and console did not cover an audit trail as the 

means for sealing electronic blend valves. 

During the 1999 meeting of the NTEP Laboratories, the laboratories agreed that the Certificates of Conformance (CC) 

should state the category of the device under the sealing section. 

Discussion: The manufacturers acknowledged that there are problems with sealed parameters that were never type 

evaluated. The Sector agreed that it is important for the laboratories to have uniform interpretations about the amount of 

effort that is necessary to access the audit trail. Uniform guidelines ensure that laboratories approve devices that allow 

any weights and measures inspector to view the audit trail. Most of the Sector members agreed that, ideally, no more than 

two keystrokes should be required to view the audit trail, although many devices currently require more than two 

keystrokes. 

Conclusion: By the 2000 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Gasoline Pump Manufacturer's Association and Meter 

Manufacturer's Association agreed to develop reasonable test criteria for evaluating the “ease of access” to an audit trail. 

The RMFD and console controller manufacturers will review their Certificates of Conformance to determine if the 

“Sealing” section adequately addresses the category of sealing and how to access and exit the audit trail for their devices. 

If necessary, the manufacturers will supply NTEP with additional information about the audit trail. 

Certificates of Conformance will list the sealing feature and the category of sealing in the Standard Features and Options 

Section of the Certificate of Conformance. The NTEP Laboratories will also list the procedure for accessing and exiting 

the security for sealable parameters under the CC “Sealing” section. 

7. Stationary Cryogenic Cylinder Filling 

Source: California Division of Measurement Standards 

Background: The California NTEP Laboratory reported problems with cryogenic products vaporizing during the type 

evaluation of a stationary cylinder-filling device. Filling smaller cylinders with a dry hose resulted in significant errors, 

thus making the dry hose configuration unsuitable for this application. California asked the Sector to determine if it is 

appropriate to ask the NCWM to consider amending Handbook 44 Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices Code 

paragraphs S.3.2. Discharge Hose and/or UR.2.4. Drainage of Discharge Line to address operations designed for filling 

small portable containers. In addition, the California laboratory asked the Sector to consider if dry-hose deliveries should 

be prohibited for small volume deliveries. The NTEP Measuring Laboratories discussed this issue at their May 1999 

meeting. California Division of Measurement Standards (DMS) agreed to provide information about possible applications 

where dry hose applications might be appropriate. 

Discussion: Charlie Nelson (California NTEP Laboratory/DMS) and Jeff Kelly (Hoffer Flow Controls) explained the 

process for measuring cryogenic liquids to the Sector. They explained that keeping the product in a liquid state and 

preventing flashing of the product requires cooling the hose to the temperature of the product. This is generally 

accomplished by circulating product back through the supply tank in a jacketed coaxial supply line; however, some of the 

product evaporates during this process of cooling the supply line. The customer is not charged for the product that 

evaporates. At the end of the each delivery, some product is left in the line. The customer is charged for the product that 

remains in the hose because the overfill valve prevents additional product from entering the customer’s tank. For safety 

reasons, product cannot remain in the hose for very long and generally is drained to the atmosphere through an open cock 

valve at the end of the hose. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that this issue needs further development. Charlie Nelson and the cryogenic measuring 

device manufacturers agreed to develop requirements for cryogenic measuring devices that meter liquid into cylinders. 

After developing proposed changes for Handbook 44, the group will come back to the Sector before forwarding a 

proposal on behalf of the Sector to the NCWM Specifications and Tolerances Committee. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-59 

8. Discount Fueling Using a Point-of-Sale (POS) System 

Source: California Division of Measurement Standards 

Background: Gilbarco, Inc., and Convenient Fuel Group developed a retail motor-fuel dispensing point-of sale (POS) 

system which gives discounts on gasoline and other purchases. The system operates by tracking purchases through POS 

systems, similar to discount plans given at supermarkets. By tracking trends in consumer purchases, the system can 

promote sales on selected items. 

The NTEP Measuring Laboratories agreed that a dispenser must be capable of indicating and computing all sales prices 

when the unit prices are discounted. The NTEP laboratories also reviewed the definition of price contract sales. 

Discussion: Several NTEP laboratories provided examples of problems they discovered when testing POS systems that 

calculate discount pricing based upon purchases. The laboratories pointed out that many of these POS systems exhibit 

rounding errors when the price per unit changes based upon the number of purchases. One laboratory explained how the 

rounding errors occur using an example of a weighing application where the price per pound of a weighed commodity is 

adjusted based upon the previous quantities purchased. If the POS system has to “back-calculate” the net weight of the 

product purchased based upon the unit price and total price of the item, the following formulas are typically used: 

original unit price

(total price @ originalunit price) ( "back  calculated"net weight) 

and then 

“back-calculated” net weight * (adjusted unit price) = total price @ adjusted unit price 

Calculating the total sale at the adjusted price in this manner sometimes results in a difference of several cents in the total

prices than if the adjusted price is calculated by weighing the product on a scale and multiplying the weight times an 

adjusted unit price. This example could also apply to products sold by volume. 

The Sector was also concerned that in some instances the adjusted price applies only to an exact quantity of product (e.g., 

10 gallons of motor fuel). The Sector questioned how the dispenser/console controller would display the unit price and 

calculate the total price, if the customer decided to purchase more product at the non-discounted price. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that no action is currently required by the Sector. The Sector agreed that, regardless of 

the method used to calculate the discount, the calculations must be mathematically correct. 

9. Permanence of Labeling on Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

Source: Gordon Johnson (Gilbarco, Incorporated) 

Background: The NIST Office of Weights and Measures received an inquiry from Gordon Johnson about the 

specifications for the identification plate on a retail motor-fuel dispenser. Mr. Johnson requested an interpretation on the 

philosophy of "permanence" and how that philosophy relates to the location of the label. He was concerned about the 

criteria in Publication 14 (scales vs. meters) and the requirement for the labeling information to remain with the device. 

He also questioned whether or not a label should last for 100 years when the life expectancy of the device is 12 years. 

Mr. Johnson indicated that there are numerous complaints from weights and measures officials who must chip ice away 

from the bottom of dispensers to read labels affixed to the most permanent part of the dispenser cabinet. Inspectors have 

found similar situations when the bottom of the dispenser is impossible to access, such as when several inches of concrete 

is inadvertently poured around the base of a dispenser. 

Gilbarco was developing new labels for its next generation of devices. According to Gilbarco, Underwriters Laboratories, 

Inc., had no problem with the new labels. The labels are laser printed on "tamper evident" plastic tags that include 

supplemental bar coding. 

The NTEP laboratories felt that Handbook 44 should address the intent of permanence. The laboratories also agreed that 

tamper evident identification tags are appropriate. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-60 

Discussion: Sector members had several different interpretations of the permanence requirements for identification 

plates. Several manufacturers thought that they were required to manufacture their identification plate from metal 

although Publication 14 states the following: 

"The information may be on a metal or plastic plate attached that is attached with pop rivets, adhesive, or 

other means, but removable bolts or screws are not permitted. A foil or vinyl badge may be used provided 

that it is able to survive wear and tear, remains legible, and is difficult to remove. The printing on a foil 

badge must be easily readable and not easily obliterated by rubbing with a relatively soft object (e.g., the 

wood of a pencil)." 

The Sector agreed that the intent of the permanence requirement for identification badges is to allow the marking 

information to remain legible for a reasonable period of time and ensure that the information cannot easily be 

transferred to another device. Several state weights and measures representatives pointed out that they seldom find 

problems with identification badges being switched on devices. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that tamper evident labels satisfy the permanence criteria specified by Handbook 44 

paragraph G-S.1. The Sector also agreed that Publication 14 adequately defines the permanence requirements for 

marking information. Therefore, the Sector does not favor modifying the existing text in Publication 14. 

10. Printed Receipts for Prepaid Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser Deliveries 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory 

Background: The Maryland NTEP Laboratory asked the Sector to determine if there are any conflicts in the various 

Publication 14 checklist criteria for printed receipts issued for prepaid retail motor-fuel dispenser sales. The Maryland 

Laboratory questioned if additional information is required on receipts if the total value of the sale is less than the prepaid

amount. Questions were asked about the type of receipt and specific transaction information required in the examples of 

prepaid transactions below. 

Examples: 

(1) A customer pays $20.00 for gas, dispenses $20.00 of gas, and asks the attendant for a receipt. 

(2) A customer pays $20.00 for gas, dispenses $15.50 of gas, and asks the attendant for a receipt. 

The NTEP Measuring Laboratories agreed that the same information that appears on a post-pay receipt, as required by 

Handbook 44 paragraph S.1.6.7. Recorded Representations, is appropriate for receipts issued in a prepay application. 

Paragraph S.1.6.7. requires the receipt to specify the total volume of the sale, the unit price, the total computed price, and 

the product identity by name, symbol, abbreviation, or code number. 

Discussion: Several manufacturers were concerned that their existing equipment is not designed to provide the same 

information for both prepay and postpay transactions. After reviewing paragraphs G-S.5.1. Indicating and Recording 

Elements; General and S.1.6.7. Recorded Representations, the Sector agreed that it is appropriate to change Publication 

14 to reflect the intent of paragraph S.1.6.7. 

Conclusion: The Sector voted 16 in favor, 1 opposed, and 1 abstention for modifying paragraph one of Section 3. 

Recorded Representations, Point-of-Sale System of the ECRs/Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers checklist as follows: 

3. Recorded Representations, Point-of-Sale Systems

A sales receipt showing the quantity, unit price, total price, and product identity for each fuel delivery 

in a transaction is required for point-of-sale systems. A printed receipt must be always available to the 

customer upon request, but is not required for a prepaid transaction completed to the prescribed 

amount.

11. Number of Tests of Meters Used in Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory 

Background: Will Wotthlie (Maryland) asked the Sector to consider revising the initial examination criteria for meters 

used in retail motor-fuel dispensers. Paragraph two of Section A in the Field Evaluation and Permanence Test Procedures 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-61 

for Meters on page 10-87 of the May 1998 edition of Publication 14 required two meters to undergo at least two tests at 

the fast flow rate and two tests at the slow flow rate. Mr. Wotthlie indicated that at a minimum, a test at a mid-flow rate 

should also be evaluated. 

The NTEP Laboratories discussed this item at the May 1999 meeting and agreed that testing at a mid-flow rate is 

appropriate. The laboratories also felt that the type of test specified for the fast and slow flow rates should be more 

consistent with other meter types and concluded that, at a minimum, the NTEP laboratory should conduct five normal, 

two mid-range, and five slow flow rate tests. 

Discussion: Some of the manufacturers felt that retail motor-fuel dispenser meters should undergo the same amount of 

testing as other types of meters. After discussing the difference for testing performed on different types of meters, the 

Sector voted in favor of expanding the number of tests required for retail motor-fuel dispensers. While discussing this 

issue, the Sector noted that none of the laboratories use the statistical test procedures for newly designed meters 

referenced in Section C of the Field Evaluation and Permanence Test Procedures for Meters on page 10-88. 

Consequently, the Sector agreed to remove this paragraph from the checklist. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed with the NTEP Laboratories’ recommendation to modify the number of tests for newly 

designed meters in retail motor-fuel dispensers in the Field Evaluation and Permanence Test for Meters as follows: 

Initial Examination 

At least one meter will be chosen for throughput testing on each of two major products (e.g., unleaded 

gasoline and diesel fuel). At least two five tests at both the fast and slow flow rates and two midrange flow 

rate tests will be run on each of these two meters. Only one test at each flow rate needs be run on any 

remaining meters. If both products are not available for the type evaluation, the test may be performed 

using one product and a Provisional Certificate of Conformance may be issued for the one product. The 

test using the other product may be performed later to result in a full Certificate of Conformance. 

Subsequent Examination 

3. TwoFive tests at both fast and slow flow rates, and two midrange flow rate tests will be made on the 

throughput meters. Only one test at each flow rate need be run on any remaining meters. 

The Sector also agreed to delete Paragraph C Draft for Study – Permanence Test of Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers Using 

New Design Meters on page 10-88 of the checklist. 

The above changes will appear in the next edition of Publication 14. 

12. Considerations When Testing Liquefied Petroleum Gas (LPG) Meters 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory 

Background: Will Wotthlie (Maryland) asked the Sector to review existing Publication 14 LPG test criteria to determine 

whether or not the laboratories should consider pressure and temperature, when they perform the repeatability test on an 

LPG meter. Publication 14 checklist repeatability test criteria only specify maintaining the approximate same flow rate. 

When the NTEP Measuring Laboratories discussed this item at the May 1999 meeting, they pointed out that minor 

changes in the flow rate significantly affect the results of the repeatability test. 

Discussion: The Sector discussed the influence that pressure and temperature have on the repeatability of test results on 

meters used to measure LPG. The Sector acknowledged that during the repeatability test factors such as temperature and 

pressure may significantly change. Ross Andersen (New York NTEP Laboratory) commented that a beach umbrella 

shields test equipment and product from the temperature effects of the sun. Representatives from Measurement Canada 

noted that they have incorporated guidelines for variances in their test procedures. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to add a note to Publication 14 paragraph I, Repeatability on LPG to NH3 Meters on page 

10-89, to alert the laboratories that variances in temperature and pressure affect repeatability test results on LPG meter as 

follows: 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-62 

I. Repeatability on LPG to NH3 Meters: 

When multiple tests are conducted at approximately the same flow rate, the range of the test results for 

the flow rate shall not exceed 40 percent of the absolute value of the maintenance tolerance and the 

results of each test shall be within acceptance tolerance. This tolerance does not apply to the test of the 

automatic temperature compensating system. 

Note: Stable temperature and pressure indications are necessary during the entire repeatability test to 

achieve good test results

The NTEP laboratories agreed to review the guideline compare it with Canada’s test procedures, and develop 

recommendations for the next Sector meeting. 

13. Software-Based Console Controllers 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory 

Background: Will Wotthlie (Maryland) asked the Sector to interpret the Software Working Group’s policy decision on 

evaluating software-based console controllers (that is, consoles consisting of software installed on generic computer 

hardware). In 1998, the Measuring Sector also discussed this issue in Albuquerque, NM. The Gasoline Pump 

Manufacturer Association (GPMA) also developed a position letter indicating that GPMA would not pursue bringing an 

end to type evaluation of software-based consoles. 

Discussion: The Sector acknowledged that NTEP has not evaluated a large number of software-based console controllers. 

Many weights and measures inspectors have difficulties testing consoles because the software identification information 

is not always readily available. Some jurisdictions proceed cautiously because of concerns over inadvertently shutting 

down the entire system or unfamiliarity with computer systems. Several jurisdictions have enacted policies prohibiting 

inspectors from searching through what may be several program levels to locate software identification and version 

information. 

The NTEP Laboratories indicated that software-based console controllers should provide easy access and should readily 

display software information. Steve Malone (Nebraska) pointed out that it is often easy to determine if the system does 

not meet the Handbook 44 specifications by looking at the receipt generated by the system. Canadian representatives told 

the Sector that Canada stopped evaluating console controllers about 10 years ago because Canada viewed this component 

as performing only basic calculations. However, the increase in the number of software-based systems may prompt 

Canada to begin testing of console controllers again. Several manufacturers emphasized that many console controllers 

perform very few metrological functions, such as stacked sales, and communicate configuration information to the 

dispensers. One NTEP Laboratory noted that consoles capable of stacking sales and remotely configuring dispensers 

warrant an evaluation. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that NTEP will continue to type evaluate console controllers. 

14. Testing of Single Compartment vs. Split Compartment Vehicle Tank Meters 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory 

Background: Will Wotthlie (Maryland) asked the Sector to determine if there are applications where it is appropriate to 

eliminate the split-compartment test (sometimes referred to as product depletion test) for vehicle tank meters. Will 

questioned whether or not vehicle-mounted mass flow meters must go through a split-compartment test if the 

manufacturer intends that the meter be used on vehicles with a single compartment. 

Discussion: The Sector agreed that all vehicle-mounted meters should pass a split-compartment test because even a 

single compartment can run dry and introduce air into the supply lines. One Coriolis mass flow meter manufacturer 

stated that Coriolis mass flow meters, unlike other device technologies, can track the density of the product in the meter. 

If the system is correctly configured, when air enters the meter the mass flow meter transmitter will recognize the density 

drop and send a signal to stop pumping and registering product. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that before vehicle-mounted applications are listed on an NTEP Certificate of 

Conformance, the meter must pass a split compartment test. The Sector agreed that specific procedures are needed; the 

NTEP laboratories will develop specific procedures. In the meantime, testing will be conducted using the same ad hoc 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-63 

procedures as used in past evaluations. The Sector agreed that this policy will apply to all meter technologies (e.g., 

Coriolis mass flow meters, turbine meters, positive displacement meters) even if the meter will never be installed on 

trucks with more than a single compartment. The permanence test still applies to include the throughput and with a 

duration of at least 20 days. The Sector agreed that, ideally, this test will be performed with a multiple-compartment 

vehicle; however, a single-compartment vehicle may be used to simulate the split-compartment test by running the tank 

empty if a multiple-compartment vehicle is unavailable. 

15. Adding Ethane to the Mass Flow Meter Family of Products Table 

Source: Andre Noel (Schlumberger Resource Management Services) 

Background: Schlumberger received a customer inquiry about the approval for metering ethane through a Schlumberger 

mass flow meter. Ethane is a compressed liquid with a specific gravity of 0.3. Schlumberger noted that ethane falls 

outside the parameters in the new Mass Flow Product Group Table since the lowest specific gravity covered by the table 

in the compressed liquid group is 0.5. The Table was designed to reflect all of the products that could be used with mass 

flow meter technology. Unfortunately, the Sector did not consider ethane when it developed the table in 1998. 

Schlumberger believes that ethane represents the compressed liquid with the lowest specific gravity which would justify 

modifying the table. The Sector was asked to consider Schlumberger’s proposal to modify the table: 

Direct Mass Flow Product Group Table 

Product Groups Typical Products Specific Gravity Minimum Test Requirements to 

Cover Entire Subgroup* 

Normal Liquids Water, Alcohols, Glycols, 

Water Mixes thereof, 

Agricultural Liquids, 

Fertilizers, Chemicals, 

Petroleum Solvents, 

Herbicides, and 

Suspensions 

0.7 to 2.5 Test with one liquid having a 

specific gravity of 0.7 

Test with one liquid having a 

specific gravity of 2.5 

Compressed Liquids Propane, Butane, Ethane, 

Freon 11, Freon 12, Freon 

22, NH3, etc. 

0.3 0.5 to 0.68 Test with one product having a 

specific gravity at any point 

within the range 0.3 0.5 to 0.68 

Compressed Gases CNG 0.6 to 0.8 Test with one product having a 

specific gravity at any point 

within the range 0.6 to 0.8 

Cryogenic Liquids 

(BP 152 °C) and 

Liquid Natural Gas 

Liquefied Oxygen, 

Nitrogen, etc. 0.07 to 1.4 

Test with one liquid having a 

specific gravity at any point 

within the range 0.07 to 1.4. 

Heated Products (above 

50 °C)** 

Bunker C, Asphalt, etc. 0.8 to 71.2 Test with one liquid having a 

specific gravity of 0.8 

Test with one liquid having a 

specific gravity of 1.2 

Discussion: Andre Noel explained that the physical properties of ethane are very similar to propane. One manufacturer 

pointed out that while the properties are similar, ethane represents a lower density product which is less likely to pass an 

NTEP evaluation. Canada commented that they would not expand a product group to include ethane without testing the 

performance of devices metering ethane. 

Conclusion: The Sector voted 12 in favor, 3 opposed, and 1 abstention to adding ethane to the family of products table 

for mass flow meters and positive displacement meter. The changes to the family of products table are shown above for 

mass flow meters and below for positive displacement meters. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-64 

C. Product Families for Positive Displacement Meters and Mass Flow Meters 

Product 

Family 

Product 

Subgroup 

Typical Products Viscosity 

(SSU1

)

Specific

Gravity2

%

Abrasive 

Solids 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

LPG3

Propane, Butane, 

Ethane, Freon 

11, Freon 12, 

Freon 22, etc. 

0.5 to 3 SSU 

0.1 to 

0.5 centipoise 

0.53 to 0.65 None 

Compressed 

Gases, Liquefied 

NH3

3 Anhydrous 

Ammonia 

0.5 SSU 

0.1 centipoise 0.56 to 0.68 None 

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

...

2

The specific gravity of each product family is determined as the ratio of the product mass (@ 15.6 qC (60 qF)

petroleum products and 20 qC (68 qF) all other products) to the mass of an equal volume of distilled water at 4 qC

(39 qF).

16. Multi-Product Testing of Mass Flow Meters 

Source: Andre Noel (Schlumberger Resource Management Services) 

Background: During the 1998 NTETC Measuring Sector meeting in Albuquerque, NM, the Sector developed the Direct 

Mass Flow Product Group Table. The Sector also developed test criteria for meters that measure several products with 

different specific gravities without any change to the meter calibration. The intent of this test was to verify the claim that

a meter is capable of measuring multiple products over a restricted range of specific gravities without recalibrating the 

meter, thereby covering a device for a multi-product application. 

After the 1998 meeting, several Sector members developed different interpretations of the test criteria for multi-product 

testing. Schlumberger’s interpretation is that after its metering devices pass the multi-product test, the manufacturer can 

use them in multi-product applications regardless of the specific gravity range the device originally demonstrated it could 

cover. 

The objective of the NTEP multi-product test is to verify that the mass flow meter meets the basic fundamental test 

criteria for products that are listed on the manufacturer’s Certificate of Conformance, namely, that the meter can be used 

for multiple products regardless of where they fall within the stated specific gravity range without any adjustment to the 

meter calibration or zero. Prior to sealing the device in a multi-product field application, the local weights and measures 

inspector conducts accuracy tests on the products that represent the extremes of the specific gravity range. 

Measurement Canada conducts multi-product approval tests on all mass flow meters with two products representing a 

specific gravity range of approximately 0.3. Canada requires empirical data to support expanding the application to 

products which fall outside of the 0.3 range or band. For example, consider a device which is approved for multiproducts with a specific gravity range of 0.7 to 1.0. Before the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) can cover 

products outside that 0.3 range, such as products with 0.6 or 1.1 specific gravity, data must be provided on those new 

applications. 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the following technical policy covering the multi-product test, which was based on 

decisions made at its 1998 meeting: 

S. Product Families for Mass Flow Meters 

Multi-product applications (that is, applications in which the meter will be used without a change to zero or 

calibration to dispense different products which vary in specific gravity by more than 0.1) must include a 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-65 

multi-product test. The multi-product test will be performed on the meter without a change to zero or 

calibration using multiple products having a difference in specific gravity of at least 0.2. For devices which 

will be used to dispense multiple products having a specific gravity range greater than 0.2, the multi-product 

testing must be performed over the anticipated range before multi-product applications will be included on the 

CC. For the multi-product testing, throughput testing will be performed on one or a combination of the 

products; testing for the subsequent test will be conducted on both products. Multi-product testing 

requirements do not apply to meters used to dispense a product such as propane in which the density varies in 

normal operation. 

The Sector agreed that the wording is correct. 

Conclusion: The Sector confirmed its 1998 decision. A multi-product test is conducted to demonstrate that a meter can 

accurately measure multiple products over a specified range of specific gravities without changing zero or calibration. 

The specific range of specific gravities tested and covered without changing the calibration for multiple product 

applications and the testing required are addressed in the policy shown above. The Sector recognized that the U.S. policy 

for multi-product testing differs from Canada’s policy. The U.S. allows multi-products covered to move across the range 

of specific gravities already approved in the product family. 

17. Compatibility of Electronic Components 

Source: Andre Noel (Schlumberger Resource Management Services) 

Background: Andre Noel asked the Sector to determine if it is appropriate for NTEP to cover the interface of approved 

components, where the compatibility of those components is later verified during the initial verification test by a weights 

and measures field official. 

It appears that NTEP tests are not administered equally across the different technologies. For example, NTEP evaluations 

for mechanical and electronic registers used in vehicle tank meter and bulk terminal applications have not been subjected 

to the same evaluation as comparable systems in mass flow meter applications. One NTEP Laboratory representative 

noted instances in which electronics approved for petroleum product applications were interfaced with devices used to 

dispense liquefied petroleum gas or cryogenic products; the resulting systems no longer met Handbook 44 and 

Publication 14 requirements. 

Schlumberger noted that liquid-measuring device manufacturers have made significant investments in testing equipment 

to attain NTEP approval. The device manufacturer also incurs extra costs to ensure that equipment is compatible with 

other NTEP approved devices operating at custody transfer sites in the marketplace. Schlumberger stated that it 

understands customer and industry requirements when its electronic equipment is interfaced with associated equipment. 

Schlumberger wants to provide its customers with the option to select the equipment that best suits their needs. 

Schlumberger views this approach as no different than the industry practice of interfacing equipment via pulse or serial 

communications. 

Schlumberger reiterated that approved devices should not undergo a separate NTEP evaluation to determine compatibility 

with other devices. Schlumberger believes that requiring a device to complete an additional 30-day permanence test 

where it must remain within acceptance tolerance is unreasonable because those electronic components already have 

NTEP CCs. Schlumberger verifies equipment compatibility prior to a sale or the State or local jurisdictions approving the 

installation. Schlumberger does not ask its customers to pursue state or local jurisdiction approval of a site application 

without guaranteeing that the devices are compatible. Therefore, Schlumberger recommends testing for compatibility 

should only be conducted during field level evaluations. 

Measurement Canada adheres to a policy of allowing the original equipment manufacturer to create a new system pending 

a compatibility evaluation by the field official at the installation site. Canada instituted this practice, in part, to alleviate 

some of the administrative procedure. Canada noted that their compatibility evaluation has many conditional 

requirements. 

Discussion: Several retail motor-fuel dispenser manufacturers cited examples of tests that they performed to approve the 

combination of separate components that were previously individually tested by NTEP. This prompted the Sector to 

discuss what the phrase "may be interfaced with approved and compatible equipment" means on an NTEP certificate. 

Several Sector members noted that most weighing and measuring devices are interfaced with an indicator that represents 

an equivalent type used during type evaluation. Mass flow meters type evaluated as stand-alone systems are not tested in 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-66 

combination with a separate indicating element because mass flow meter transmitters are generally capable of indicating 

all of the required metrological information. 

Conclusion: The Sector voted 2 in favor, 14 opposed, and 1 abstention for compatibility test of NTEP equipment during 

the initial field evaluation of a system. The Sector agreed that similar devices individually tested for a similar application

can be "mixed and matched" without additional testing if the system functions properly during the initial routine field test. 

For example, inspectors can determine the compatibility of an approved console interfaced with an approved retail motorfuel dispenser during a field evaluation when both components have previously been approved in like applications. If 

devices are to be used in dissimilar applications, then additional NTEP testing is required. 

18. Recorded Representation of Count Items on Electronic Cash Register (ECR) Systems 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory 

Background: Will Wotthlie (Maryland) reported finding ECR receipts with items by count expressed in a decimal 

format with as many as three digits to the right of the decimal point. At the May 1999 NTEP laboratory meeting, several 

NTEP Laboratories reported finding similar problems with receipts. Publication 14, ECRs/Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers 

Checklist paragraph 3.7 Recording Representations page 9-11 states that decimal expressions of count are acceptable 

provided that "fractions of a whole unit can not be expressed." It was not clear to the laboratories why it is necessary for 

any device to print trailing zeros after the decimal point for items sold by count. 

Discussion: The Sector considered deleting the following text from paragraph 3.7 of the ECRs/Retail Motor-Fuel 

Dispensers checklist as follows: 

3.7. The quantity representation of an item sold by count must be expressed in whole units. An 

expression of count with a decimal point and trailing zeros, (e.g., 2.00 items) is acceptable provided that 

fractions of a whole unit can not be expressed.

Weights and measures representatives noted several instances where they found devices that violated the existing 

paragraph 3.7. Industry representatives were not certain of the ramifications of prohibiting trailing zeros for items 

sold by count. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that it may be unnecessary to display the trailing zeros on a receipt for items that are 

sold by count. However, several manufacturers wanted to consult with their software division to determine the 

ramifications of prohibiting the trailing zeros. The NTETC Weighing Sector is also asked to discuss this issue. Both 

Sectors will be balloted the first week of November 1999 to determine if prohibiting the expression of items by count 

with a decimal point and trailing zeros is acceptable. The ballot will list the proposal to change paragraph 3.7. shown 

above.

19. Location of ID Information Required by G-S.1. Identification 

Source: Ohio NTEP Laboratory 

Background: Jim Truex (Ohio) received an inquiry from another NTEP laboratory about the location of marking 

information required by paragraph G-S.1. Identification on a point-of-sale system previously evaluated by the Ohio 

laboratory. During field evaluation of the same model officials complained that the required markings are located behind 

a door. The Certificate of Conformance (CC) for the device explains where the markings are located; however, field 

officials contend that, without knowing the model designation from the ID plate, they do not know which CC to try to 

locate. At the time of the evaluation, the Ohio laboratory determined that the markings met the requirements of 

Handbook 44 and Publication 14. NIST-OWM concurred with Ohio’s interpretation of G-S.1. The NCWM S&T 

Committee reviewed paragraph G-S.1. in 1985 because of similar questions relating to the location of required markings 

on weighing elements installed in checkout stands. The Committee determined that required markings could be located 

under a scale platter or behind a door if no tool was required to access the markings. The Sector was asked to review 

paragraphs G-S.1. and G-UR.2.1.1. Visibility of Identification to determine if NTEP’s previous interpretation of the 

requirement is correct. 

Discussion: The Sector supported Ohio's interpretation that it is acceptable to place marking information behind a door 

or under a cover. The Sector reviewed the marking requirement sections of the LMD Checklist and ECRs/Retail MotorFuel Dispensers Checklist and found that the ECRs checklist prohibits placing the marking information under a cover or 

behind a door. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-67 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to delete the word "not" from the note in section 1. Identification of the ECRs/Retail 

Motor-Fuel Dispensers Checklist on page 9-8 of Publication 14 to make the marking requirement consistent in both 

checklists as follows: 

1. Identification 

Note: A location under a cover or inside a panel door is not acceptable. Visibility may be achieved by 

placing a duplicate serial number badge on the front, side, or top of the ECR. This badge may contain only 

the serial number if the other information is visible elsewhere on the ECR. 

The above changes will appear in the next edition of Publication 14. 

The Technical Advisors will review Publication 14 to determine if other paragraphs need to be modified to make marking 

information criteria consistent and agree with Handbook 44. 

20. Temperature Compensation of Vehicle-Tank Meters 

Source: Oregon/California Weights and Measures 

Background: Several weights and measures jurisdictions have found vehicle-tank meters installed with a temperature 

compensation feature. Handbook 44 and Publication 14 do not address how to test vehicle-tank meters that are equipped 

with temperature compensation, nor does either document include specifications or tolerances for these components. 

NTEP has issued several Certificates of Conformance (CC) for vehicle-tank meters that appear to cover systems with 

temperature compensation. This confusion occurred because this equipment may be used in various applications and the 

CC text describing the temperature compensation feature does not distinguish which application is covered for the 

temperature compensation feature. Additional text may be necessary on the CCs to clarify which applications were type 

evaluated in the uncompensated mode. 

The Oregon Department of Agriculture asked the Sector if it is appropriate to equip vehicle-tank meters to operate with a 

temperature compensation feature and, if so, how to test temperature-compensated vehicle-tank meters. 

Discussion: The Sector recalled that the NCWM Specifications and Tolerances Committee addressed this issue several 

times in the past. However, improvements in electronic automatic temperature compensating equipment make automatic 

temperature compensation (ATC) installation easier and less costly, and the new net/gross equipment does not require 

deactivation during test since both gross and net indications can be viewed. 

Canada advised the Sector that the ATC program is voluntary in Canada. The Canadian House of Commons is currently 

reconsidering its support of ATC, based on the political climate. Several Sector members felt that, as weights and 

measures jurisdictions decide to permit ATC, it is only equitable if ATC is required on all vehicle-tank meters year-round 

or not at all. The Sector agreed that both the inspectors and consumers would benefit from an educational program on 

temperature-compensating systems. Tina Butcher (NIST) noted that the Office of Weights and Measures is concerned 

that education must be provided to both consumers and businesses to cover issues such as value comparison and the 

importance of compensation on a year-round basis. OWM believes that further work must be done to modify Handbooks 

44 and 130 to address the new method of sale and to add specifications, tolerances, and test procedures to address the 

equipment. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that ATC is the most equitable method to meter products. The Sector recognized the 

need for specifications, tolerances, and test procedures. However, if the NCWM Specifications and Tolerances 

Committee decides to address this issue, it should consider the challenges that Canada has encountered since 1972, when 

it established a voluntary ATC program. 

21. Meeting Location for 2000 NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting 

Background: Prior to 1997, the Measuring Sector met in conjunction with the Southern Weights and Measures 

Association (SWMA). In 1997, the Measuring Sector was invited to meet in conjunction with the Western Weights and 

Measures Association (WWMA) Annual Meeting. The Sector agreed that moving the meeting would allow the Western 

States that recently adopted NTEP requirements to participate in the NTEP process. At the 1997 and 1998 meetings, the 

Sector decided to hold its upcoming meetings with the WWMA again. During the 1999 NCWM Annual Meeting, 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-68 

members of the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) met in the regional meeting session and adopted a 

motion to request the Measuring Sector meet in conjunction with the SWMA in 2000. 

Discussion: The Technical Advisor provided the Sector with information about the tentative 2000 meeting sites. The 

WWMA meeting will be held in San Francisco, CA, and the SWMA takes place in Austin, TX. The primary difference 

between the locations is hotel costs; lodging costs in Austin are $95 per night, and in San Francisco are $147 per night. 

The Sector noted that the accessibility to the meeting site and length of the meeting are important considerations. A 

Sector member proposed that the Measuring Sector consider meeting in conjunction with the Weighing Sector because 

many of the issues appear on both agendas. The Sector did not support the option of a joint sector meeting. 

Conclusion: The Sector voted 10 in favor, 3 opposed, and 1 abstention to hold the 2000 NTETC Measuring Sector 

meeting in conjunction with the SWMA Annual Meeting in Austin, TX. 

22. New Agenda Discussions - The Next Edition of Publication 14 

Discussion: Several Sector members expressed concern about the delay in publishing the 1999 edition of Publication 14. 

One Sector member noted that the laboratories have no working document. Tina Butcher (NIST), NTEP Manager, 

advised the group that the Sector Meeting Summaries were distributed to all members and are a written reference for the 

latest changes to Publication 14. Laboratory representatives also participate in Sector meetings and are apprised of Sector 

decisions at those meetings. 

Mrs. Butcher explained that the technical sections were on schedule; however, the NTEP reorganization discussions 

resulted in delays in updates to other portions of the document. In July, the NCWM agreed that the technical sections 

could be published; however, that decision coincided closely with the NCWM Annual Meeting and several other 

publication deadlines. Since several Sector meetings were planned shortly after the NCWM Annual Meeting, NISTOWM suggested a new target date of 2000, which would permit sufficient time to include all of the Sectors’ 1999 

decisions in the latest edition of Publication 14. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-69 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Measuring Sector 

 Meeting Participants 

September 24-25, 1999 

 Olympia, Washington 

Name Organization Phone Fax E-Mail 

Thomas Ahrens NIST-OWM (301) 975-4013 (301) 926-0647 tahrens@nist.gov 

Ross Andersen State of New York (518) 457-3146 (518) 457-5693 agmweigh@nysnet.net 

Mike Belue Belue Associates (615) 867-1010 (615) 867-0609 bassoc@aol.com 

Tina Butcher NIST-OWM (301) 975-2196 (301) 926-0647 tbutcher@nist.gov 

Randy Byrtus Measurement Canada (613) 952-0631 (613) 952-1754 byrtus.randy@ic.gc.ca 

Steve Cook State of California (916) 229-3043 (916) 229-3026 scook@cdfa.ca.gov 

Clark Cooney Oregon Department of 

Agriculture 

(503) 986-4677 (503)986-4677 ccooney@oda.state.or.us 

Rodney Cooper Schlumberger (864) 942-2226 (864) 223-0341 Rcooper@greenwood.rms.slb.com 

Wes Diggs Virginia Products and 

Industry Standards 

(804) 786-2476 (804) 786-1571 gdiggs@vdacs.state.va.us

Keith Dutchess Micro Motion (360) 896-0189 (360) 896-0455 kethd@micromotion.com

Steve Hadder State of Florida (850) 656-4674 (850) 922-6655 hadders@fdac.st.us 

Norman Ingram State of California (916) 229-3016 (916) 229-3015 ningram@cdfa.ca.gov 

Gordon Johnson Gilbarco Inc. (336) 547-5375 (336) 547-5516 gordon_johnson@gilbarco.com 

Debbie Joines Dresser Wayne (410) 548-6913 (410) 546-6699 debbie.joines@wayne.sby.com 

Jeffrey Kelly Hoffer Flow Controls (252) 331-1997 (252) 331-2886 jkelly@hofferflow.com 

Ted Kingsbury Measurement Canada (613) 941-8919 (613) 952-1736 kingsbury.ted.ic.gc.ca 

Steve Malone State of Nebraska (402) 471-4292 (402) 471-3252 stevenam@agr.state.ne.us 

Ron Murdock State of North Carolina (919) 733-3313 (919) 715-0524 ron.murdock@ncmail.net 

Charlie Nelson State of California (916) 229-3052 (916) 229-3015 cnelson@cdfa.ca.gov 

Andre Noel Schlumberger (334) 283-7298 (334) 283-7299 anoel@tallassee.rms.slb.com 

Johnny Parrish Daniel (912) 489-0303 (912) 489-0410 

Keith Ridenour Endress and Hauser (317) 535-1468 (317) 535-1498 keith.ridenour@endress.us.com 

Lou Straub Maryland Weights and 

Measures

(410) 841-2765 (410) 841-2765 strauble@mda.state.md.us 

Kevin D. Struthers Universel Dispenser (610) 321-0800 (610) 321-0408 kstruthers@envproduct.com 

Bob Traettino Liquid Controls (847) 283-8300 (847) 295-1057 btraettino@lcmeter.com 

Richard Tucker Tokheim Corporation (219) 470-4610 (219) 420-4720 rtucker@tokheim.com 

Walter Viereck Fisher Rosemont (425) 402-4532 (425) 488-8208 walter.viereck@frco.com 

William D. West State of Ohio (614) 728-6290 (614) 728-6424 west@odant.argi.state.oh.us 

Juana Williams NIST-OWM (301) 975-3989 (301) 926-0647 juana.williams@nist.gov 

Richard Wotthlie State of Maryland (410) 841-5790 (410) 841-2765 wotthlrw@mda.state.md.us 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-71 

Appendix F 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Weighing Sector 

October 4-6, 1999, Ottawa, Canada 

Meeting Summary 

 

Agenda Items

1. Double-Wide and Narrow Decks 71

2. Combination Vehicle/Railway Track Scales Minimum Test Load 72 

3. Weighing Elements and Indicators Not Permanently Attached Definition 73 

4. Marking of Concentrated Load Capacity (CLC) on Indicators Not Permanently Attached 74 

5. Point-of-Sale System (POS) Receipt Format 74 

6. Calibration Period for Test Weights Used for NTEP Evaluations 75 

7. Modular Scale Section Connection Points 75 

8. Load Cell Placement in Modular Scales 76 

9. Models to be Submitted for Testing When a Digital Option is Added to a Certificate of Conformance 

 (CC) for Cells Evaluated as an Analog Design 76 

10. Marking of Enter and Zero Keys on Weighing System Key Pads 76 

11. Ranges Covered on the CC for a Railway Track Scale Based on the Device Evaluated 77 

12. Application of Modular Criteria to Combination Vehicle/Railway Track Scales 77 

13. CLC on Livestock Scales 77

14. Minimum Height for Weight Indication on Video Display Screens Used as Indicators 78 

15. Scales to be Submitted for Evaluation When the Range of Capacities is Narrow 79 

16. Marking Requirements for Hardware of Software Based Systems 80 

17. Standard Features and Options to be Listed on a CC 81 

18. (a). Re-evaluation of Test Data to Cover Smaller “d” and Larger “n” 82 

18. (b)Re-evaluation of Test Data for Load Cells to Cover Smaller “vmin” or Larger “n” 83 

19. Review of AWS Issues by This Sector 84 

20. Sealable Parameters for AWS Systems 84 

21. Procedure for Determining Belt Speed for an AWS System 85 

22. Test Criteria for Semi-automatic Zero 87 

23. Indicators with Option for Multiple Load Receiving Elements 87 

24. Recorded Representation of Count Items on ECR Systems 88 

25. Location of ID Information Required by H44, G-S.1. Identification 88 

26. Screen Saver on Customer Information Displays 88 

27. Manual Gross Weight Entries on Vehicle Scales 89 

28. Shift Test Pattern for Scales Based on the Number of Load Cells 90 

29. AAR Requirements for Railway Track Scales 91 

30. Permanence Test Requirements for Class I Scales 91 

Carry-Over Items 

1. Double-Wide and Narrow Decks 

Background: This item was first discussed briefly at the 1997 Sector meeting during the discussion of multiple 

weighing elements interfaced with a single indicator. An NTEP Laboratory asked if an existing vehicle scale 

certificate applies to an installation in which two scales are placed side by side to create a “double-wide” scale. 

The Sector asked the SMA Technical Committee to review the issue and develop test procedures for “doublewide” scales. At its 1998 meeting, the Weighing Sector reviewed a proposed test procedure from the SMA 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-72

Technical Committee and agreed that the laboratories should use it on an ad hoc basis. The Sector asked the 

laboratories to review the procedure, try the procedure if possible, and recommend changes if appropriate. The 

Ohio laboratory conducted an evaluation and recommended modifying the procedure. Dave Quinn (Fairbanks 

Scales) also expressed a desire to provide input. The Sector was asked to discuss the proposed changes at its 1999 

meeting. (See Appendix A-1, 2, & 3)

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the recommendations and the proposed procedures. Dave Quinn (Fairbanks 

Scales) stated that applying a Concentrated Load Capacity (CLC) rating for a “double-wide” scale is not 

appropriate. He feels the Handbook 44 definition for CLC is based on a 4 ft long and 5 ft wide loading pattern, 

which is the loading pattern for the tandem axle of a typical highway vehicle. Mr. Quinn also noted that assigning 

a CLC to a “double-wide” scale that is twice the value of that for a single platform is not appropriate and testing in 

a pattern that is four feet in length and the width of two normal scale platforms is also not appropriate. The Sector 

generally agreed that the present Handbook 44 definition for CLC does not apply to “double-wide” scales. 

Conclusion: The Sector asked the SMA Technical Committee to review the present Handbook 44 definition of 

CLC and, if necessary, submit a proposal that addresses the loading patterns on “double-wide” scales. The 

Technical Committee was also asked to propose appropriate NTEP test procedures for the loading patterns on 

“double-wide” scales. The Sector agreed to continue using ad hoc procedures for any applications received for an 

NTEP evaluation of a “double-wide” scale until the recommendations of the SMA Technical Committee are 

developed, reviewed and accepted by the Sector. Based on the recommendation of the SMA Technical Committee 

the Sector may determine that changes to Publications 14 are appropriate. Recommendations for changes to 

Handbook 44 must be submitted to the NCWM S&T Committee for adoption by the Conference. 

2. Combination Vehicle/Railway Track Scales Minimum Test Load 

Background: At its 1998 meeting, the Weighing Sector agreed to submit a proposal to the Specifications & 

Tolerances (S&T) Committee to add a note 20 to Handbook 44 Table S.6.3.a. The note requires that a 

combination vehicle/railway track scale be marked with both CLC and Section Capacity. The Sector noted that the 

minimum test load requirements in Publication 14 raise questions concerning the requirement for a combination 

vehicle/railway track scale. During an NTEP evaluation, vehicle scales are required to be tested to a minimum of 

90 percent of CLC with known test weights. A strain load test is conducted to a minimum of 80 percent of nominal 

capacity. The minimum test load requirement in Publication 14 for railway track scales is 100 000 lb. If a vehicle 

scale submitted for NTEP evaluation has a nominal capacity of 200 000 lb with a CLC of 100 000 lb, the 

minimum load requirement would be 90 000 lb of known test weight. The strain load test requires a test load of at 

least 160 000 lb. If a railway track scale is submitted for NTEP evaluation with a nominal capacity of 400 000 lb 

and a section capacity of 200 000 lb, a minimum of 100 000 lb of known test weight is acceptable. The minimum 

strain load requirement is to place one end of the empty United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Grain 

Inspection Service Packers and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) test car on the scale and add 100 000 lb of 

known weight. 

The Sector asked the Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) to review the minimum amount of known test 

standards required in Publication 14 for the NTEP evaluation of a railway track scale. SMA submitted the 

following recommendation. The Sector was asked to discuss SMA’s recommendations at its October 1999 

meeting. 

SMA Recommendation: 

The Committee adopted a recommendation to require 90 000 lb minimum of known test weights as shown in 

Publication 14, Digital Electronic Scales, Sections 66 and 67. The intent is to allow using a GIPSA test car to 

satisfy both railway and vehicle scale test requirements. The 5-ft wheel spacing of the GIPSA test car weight 

mover may need to suffice for the 4-ft test pattern and dual axle spacing for the vehicle scale CLC test. The 

90 000 lb minimum test weight requirement would allow evaluating vehicle scales with CLC's up to 100 000 lb. 

The 80 000 lb test weight would also meet the requirement in Section 1.5.3 of the AAR scale handbook for 

railway track scales. The GIPSA test car weight movers are capable of applying up to 100 000 lb of test weight 

on the rails in 10 000-lb increments. Ninety thousand pounds of these test weights are in the form of 

rectangular blocks of 10 000 lb each. The remaining 10 000 lb is the powered test weight mover. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-73 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the SMA Technical Committee’s proposal. The Sector generally agreed with 

the recommendation for testing the vehicle CLC on combination vehicle/railway track scales with a minimum test 

load of 90 000 lb. The Technical Committee’s proposal did not address a change to the minimum test load 

requirement for railway track scales. The Sector generally agreed that a test load of 90 000 lb was not an 

appropriate minimum for all railway track scales, such as one submitted for NTEP evaluation with a capacity of 

400 000 lb. Lou Cerny, representing the Association of American Railroads (AAR), indicated a concern that any 

change to the present requirement would require a change to the GIPSA test equipment. At present, it is not 

possible to add more test weights to the GIPSA test cart. Some railway track scales submitted for NTEP 

evaluation, are not long enough to allow strain load testing using the GIPSA test cart and a loaded rail car. A 

change to the GIPSA test equipment might depend on GIPSA’s receiving additional funding. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to adopt the 90 000-lb minimum test weight load for the evaluating CLC’s on 

combination vehicle/railway track scales. Lou Cerny agreed to develop a recommendation for a minimum strain 

load requirement. He will contact AAR members, railroad track scale manufactures, and GIPSA for assistance 

and input. The Sector requested a report by April 1, 2000. 

3. Weighing Elements and Indicators Not Permanently Attached Definition 

Background: At its 1997 meeting, the Weighing Sector decided that a proposal should be submitted to the S&T 

Committee to change the headings of the 3rd and 4th columns of Table S.6.3.a. to read "Indicators with CC" and 

"Weighing and Load-Receiving Element with CC," respectively. At the 1998 NCWM Interim Meeting, the S&T 

Committee rejected the proposed language and suggested that the Weighing Sector make an alternative proposal. 

The S&T Committee was concerned that the proposed changes would eliminate marking requirements for nonpermanently attached indicators in non-NTEP States. Moreover, the proposed change still did not address the 

concern over inconsistency in applying the requirement during NTEP evaluations. At its 1998 meeting, the 

Weighing Sector discussed marking requirements for elements that are not permanently attached. The Sector 

recognized a need to clarify or define elements that are to be “not permanently attached.” The Sector asked the 

SMA Technical Committee and the laboratories to develop a recommendation for this meeting. SMA submitted 

the following proposal. The NTEP Laboratories met on October 3, 1999, and offered an alternative proposal 

requiring that all indicators be either permanently wired or have connecting plugs sealed. The Sector was asked to 

review the recommendations. 

SMA Recommendation: 

Clarify meaning of "Indicating elements not permanently attached to the weighing element." 

The Committee adopted the position to recommend that "Indicating elements not permanently attached to the 

weighing element," defines those which have their own Certificates of Conformance. Rationale: This 

indicating element marking situation is very similar to that of load cells with their own Certificates of 

Conformance. Load cells with CCs are already listed in Handbook 44 Table S.6.3.a for the purpose of 

specifying marking requirements. 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the recommendations of the SMA Technical Committee and the NTEP 

Laboratories and agreed that “permanently attached” is difficult to define. Examples of questionable devices 

include indicators mounted on a pedestal attached to the load receiving element or indicators bolted directly to the 

load receiver. The Sector also discussed indicators and load-receiving elements that have electronic identification 

that allows the indicator to communicate with the load-receiving element only if the two elements were calibrated 

together. The Sector also discussed the concern of non-NTEP states. The number of non-NTEP states has 

decreased since the Sector’s last meeting, however the Sector agreed the concern is still valid. The Sector agreed 

that manufacturers can determine the status of their devices at the time of evaluation and the NTEP Laboratory can 

test accordingly. Restrictions may be listed on the CC based on the device submitted for NTEP certification. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to forward the following proposal to the S&T Committee to consider: 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-74

Proposal: Modify Handbook 44 Scales Code Table S.6.3.a. as follows: 

4. Marking of CLC on Indicators Not Permanently Attached 

Background: At its 1998 meeting, the Weighing Sector discussed marking requirements for Electronic Cash 

Registers (ECR) interfaced with scales. The Sector heard comments indicating that the requirement for marking 

the CLC on an indicator that is not permanently attached should be eliminated. The Sector referred the item to the 

SMA Technical Committee for study and recommendations. The committee submitted the following 

recommendation for review. The Sector was asked to review the SMA recommendations. 

SMA Recommendation: 

The Committee adopted a recommendation to retain the current requirement to mark the CLC on indicators not 

permanently attached to the weighing element. 

Discussion/ Conclusion: The SMA recommendation recognized that for some systems, such as vehicle scales, the 

marking of CLC on the indicator is appropriate and necessary. At the time of manufacture the final application for 

the indicator may not be known. Marking of CLC on the indicator may be accomplished at the time of 

installation. The Sector discussed the SMA Technical Committee’s recommendation not to change the present 

Handbook 44 Table S.6.3.a. requirement for the marking of CLC on an indicating element not permanently 

attached to a weighing and load receiving element. 

The Sector agreed with the SMA Technical Committee recommendation. No further action is required. 

5. Point-Of-Sale (POS) Receipt Format 

Background: At its 1998 meeting, the Weighing Sector briefly discussed the format for POS receipts. The 

Sector reviewed the format of several examples of supermarket receipts. That review resulted in the opinion that 

Publication 14 should contain some guidelines for formatting ECR receipts to ensure consistent interpretation 

among the laboratories. The Sector agreed to review the checklist to determine what, if any, changes are needed in 

Publication 14 to give the laboratories and manufacturers clear requirements for printed receipts. If needed, the 

Sector agreed to add examples to the checklist. Dennis Krueger (NCR) agreed to use the Food Marketing Institute 

(FMI) for assistance in developing criteria for receipts. Mr. Krueger thought that the FMI might form a work 

group to develop a recommendation. Mr. Krueger was asked to update the group on progress made to date. 

Discussion: Dennis Krueger informed the Sector that he has been unable to work on this issue, but he has 

recently contacted FMI. FMI is interested in working with the Sector to develop recommendations for a receipt 

Table S.6.3.a.

Marking Requirements

 Weighing

 Equipment

To be

Marked With

Weighing, loadreceiving , and

indicating

element in same

 housing

Indicating element

not in same housing

or not permanently

attached to weighing

and load receiving

Element1 

Weighing and loadreceiving element

not in same housing

or not permanently

attached to

indicating element1

Load cell

 with CC

 (11)

 Other

equipment

 Or device

 (10)

Section

Capacity

(14)(20)

 X X

1 “permanently attached” may be hard wired or secured together with a physical or elctronic seal.
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-75 

format for POS systems. Some members of the Sector expressed an opinion that this issue belongs with the L&R 

Committee. Most format issues are related to providing information to the consumer that is clear, complete, and 

does not facilitate fraud. It was pointed out that even if some of the issues are the L&R Committee’s 

responsibility, this Sector and the S&T Committee should discuss and resolve any device related issues. 

Conclusion: Dennis Krueger volunteered to continue to work on this issue. He agreed to provide a proposal by 

April 1, 2000, for the entire Sector to consider. The Sector also agreed it is appropriate for the technical advisor to 

inform the L&R technical advisor of the discussions and provide input to the L&R Committee on technical issues 

if the L&R Committee begins to develop a proposal for a receipt format. 

6. Calibration Period for Test Weights Used for NTEP Evaluations 

Background: The required calibration period for "Certified Test Weights" differs among the various States. The 

NTEP Laboratories are sometimes uncertain if the test weights available for NTEP field evaluations have a 

"calibration certificate" that is consistent with local requirements or if calibration is overdue. There are also 

questions concerning an acceptable time period between calibrations. At its 1998 meeting, the Sector asked the 

NTEP Laboratories to develop a proposal for calibration requirements for test weights used during an NTEP 

evaluation. Dick Suiter (NIST), Technical Advisor, will update the Sector on the status of the proposal. 

Discussion: Dick Suiter updated the group on work that Georgia Harris (NIST) is doing with the state metrology 

laboratories to develop standards for calibration periods. Some jurisdictions use an annual calibration 

requirement. Some jurisdictions require 2- and 3-year intervals. At least two jurisdictions set calibration intervals 

for each standard based on a history developed for that standard. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that consistent requirements are needed for use during NTEP evaluations. The 

Sector also agreed that until a calibration interval recommendation is presented by Georgia Harris and the State 

metrology laboratories, the NTEP Laboratories should continue to apply the requirements of the jurisdiction where 

an evaluation is being conducted. 

New Items 

7. Modular Scale Section Connection Points 

Source: NIST/OWM 

Background: NTEP was asked if there is a metrological or structural difference between devices with modules 

that are welded together and modules that are bolted together. Specifically, NTEP was asked, “If a device was 

evaluated with welded joints and received a CC, could the same device with bolted joints be covered by the same 

CC?” 

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to discuss the issue and recommend a policy to be added to Publication 

14 to cover future evaluations. 

Discussion: The Sector discussed the issue with varying opinions whether or not the type of connection is 

metrologically significant. The Sector agreed that a bigger question is what constitutes a modular design. The 

Sector also discussed the location of load cells in modular designs as presented in Agenda Item 8. The Sector 

agreed that manufacturers are responsible for reporting design changes from their original submission for 

evaluation; however, no clear decision was made concerning the metrological significance of the connection or the 

placement of load cells. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that the SMA Technical Committee should be asked to review this item and 

propose a definition for “modular designs.” The Technical Committee is also asked to provide guidance about the 

metrological significance of the types of connections. The Sector will consider the SMA recommendation at its 

next meeting. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-76

8. Load Cell Placement in Modular Scales 

Source: NIST/OWM 

Background: NTEP was asked if the placement of load cells under the connection point for modules is 

metrologically or structurally significant. Some designs place the cells directly under the joint. Other designs 

have displace the cells to one side of the joint. 

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to consider the issue and address the following questions: Should the 

location of the cells be noted on the CC? Should the test procedures be modified to consider cell placement? 

Discussion: This item was discussed along with item 7 above. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to ask the SMA Technical Committee to address this item along with item 7 

dealing with the metrological significance of different types of connections (welded vs bolted) for modular scales. 

The Technical Committee was also asked to consider if the position of the load cells relative to the module 

connection point is metrologically significant. The Sector will consider the SMA recommendation at its next 

meeting. 

9. Models to be Submitted for Testing When a Digital Option is Added to a CC for Cells Evaluated as an 

Analog Design 

Source: NIST/OWM 

Background: NTEP received an application to add the option of digital output to a CC for a family of load cells 

that were previously evaluated with analog output. NETP, in consultation with the NIST Force Group, made an ad 

hoc decision to consider this as the relocation of the A/D conversion. NTEP and the NIST Force Group also 

determined which cells the manufacturer needed to submit for test based on previous test data and input from 

technical experts. 

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to consider this item for future applications and provide guidance 

concerning the appropriate level of testing. 

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector discussed the appropriateness of adding a digital option to a family of load 

cells covered by a single CC with a limited number of additional cells submitted for testing. The Sector generally 

agreed that if the A/D conversion was located in an add-on black box, located externally from the load cell, the 

black box would require full NTEP evaluation and a separate CC. If the A/D conversion is an internal component 

of the load cell, the option could be added to an existing certificate with a limited number of additional cells 

submitted for testing. 

The Sector agreed that the addition of a digital option for a family of load cells covered by a CC is acceptable.

The Sector also agreed that the testing of only one cell is appropriate if the A/D conversion board is the same and 

is located in the same way for all cells in the family. The Sector also agreed that if the digital load cell submitted 

for testing performed better than the analog load cells tested for original CC, the manufacturer could not request to 

have the vmin lowered or the nmax increased without full testing. The Sector also agreed that additional language 

should be added to Section D, 3, page 5-13 to clarify this position for future applications. 

10. Marking of Enter and Zero Keys on Weighing System Key Pads 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory 

Background: During the evaluation of a computing scale, the zero key for the scale was marked with the letter 

“Z” and the enter key was marked with the “  ” symbol. 

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to provide input concerning the acceptability of these markings. 

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector generally agreed that the “  ” symbol is commonly used for the enter key 

and should be accepted. The use of “Z” alone to designate the zero key is not clear unless it is defined elsewhere 

on the device. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-77 

The Sector agreed that the “  ” symbol is acceptable and should be added to the list of acceptable markings in 

Publication 14. A notation should be added to Publication 14 stating that using the letter “Z” to designate the zero 

key is acceptable only if the term is defined on the device.

11. Ranges Covered on the CC for a Railway Track Scale Based on the Device Evaluated 

Source: NIST/OWM 

Background: Section B.5., Digital Electronic Scales, of Publication 14 gives a range of parameters which can be 

covered on a CC for weighing elements greater than 30 000 lb capacity based on the model evaluated. If a vehicle 

scale with a nominal capacity of 160 000 lb is evaluated, the manufacturer may request the CC include capacities 

up to 216 000 lb. In the case of railway track scales, 135 percent of the capacity evaluated may be a substantial 

change. For example, a scale submitted with a capacity of 400 000 lb could be used to cover devices with a 

capacity up to 540 000 lb. 

Recommendation: The Sector should consider whether or not applying this criterion to railway track scales, or 

placing a limit on the allowable amount of increase, is appropriate. 

Discussion/ Conclusion: Some members of the Sector suggested that the 135 percent criterion is as appropriate 

for railway track scale as it is for vehicle scales. Railway track scales are designed for heavier loads than vehicle 

scales. A suggestion was made and the Sector agreed to re-address this issue once the minimum strain load 

requirement for a railway track scale evaluation is established. 

The Sector agreed to re-address this issue when the minimum strain load requirement for NTEP evaluation of a 

railway track scale is resolved. 

12. Application of Modular Criteria to Combination Vehicle/Railway Track Scales 

Source: NIST/OWM 

Background: Section B.6., Digital Electronic Scales, of Publication 14 gives range parameters for modular loadcell vehicle scales. Manufacturers of combination vehicle/railway track scales submitted for NTEP evaluation 

have requested that the CC cover the same range of parameters. If those manufacturers verify that the device 

submitted is a modular design, and the subsequent NTEP evaluation included the test criteria for modular designs, 

it seems appropriate to apply the same criteria to [modular] combination vehicle/railway track scales and railway 

track scales. 

Recommendation: Remove the word “vehicle” from the title and change all references to “CLC” to “CLC or 

Section Capacity,” thus making the paragraphs applicable to all modular scales. 

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector discussed the appropriateness of applying modular criteria to railway track 

scales. The Sector generally agreed that the definition of modular designs (as outlined in Agenda Items 7 & 8) 

should be resolved before this item is decided. 

The Sector agreed to revisit this item at its next meeting after the SMA Technical Committee submits a proposal to 

clarify the definition of a modular scale. 

13. CLC on Livestock Scales 

Source: NIST/OWM 

Background: Handbook 44 requires that livestock scales be marked with a CLC. It may be appropriate to test a 

livestock scale to see how it performs with a load concentrated on the platform. It also seems appropriate to 

require a marking which limits concentrated loads. 

The Handbook 44 definition for CLC only explains how the term CLC applies to a vehicle scale. Handbook 44 

does not give any guidance about how the term CLC applies to a livestock scales. When the CLC definition was 

developed many livestock scales were derived from a vehicle scale design. Now some NTEP applications are 

exclusively for the weighing of livestock, such as livestock ring scales, animal scales, or portable livestock scales. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-78

In use, the loads on a livestock scale are randomly distributed depending on the number of animals being weighed. 

A full load will generally be distributed over the entire platform. If only a small number of animals are being 

weighed, the animals may crowd into one corner. When a vehicle scale is in use, the loads typically follow a wheel 

spread of eight feet wide and depend more on the vehicle’s footprint. 

The basis for CLC on a vehicle scale was derived from the highway bridge formula which allows a tandem axle to 

be loaded to a maximum of 34 000 lb. For a livestock scale, the USDA Packers and Stockyards Administration 

requires that the maximum load that can be placed on the platform be based on 110 lb per square foot of platform 

area.

Recommendation: The Sector should consider if the requirement for marking CLC on a livestock scale is 

appropriate, or if CLC should be redefined when applied to livestock scales. 

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector generally agreed that the CLC test criteria currently in Publication 14 should 

apply to livestock scales. However, the Sector recognized that the discussions during the development of the CLC 

definition centered primarily on vehicle scales. The Sector agreed that Handbook 44 and Publication 14 should be 

changed to eliminate the requirement for marking and testing of CLC on livestock scales. The Sector did not 

develop a specific proposal at this meeting. The Sector agreed that will develop a proposal, with input from 

GIPSA, to replace the Handbook 44 requirements for marking CLC on livestock scales with concentrated load 

marking and test criteria based on the P&S loading formula of platform area times 110 lb per square foot. It will 

also develop a proposal, with input from GIPSA, for test criteria to be added to Publication 14 for livestock scales 

based on the proposed changes to Handbook 44. 

The Sector agreed to revisit this item at its next meeting. 

14. Minimum Height for Weight Indication on Video Display Screens Used as Indicators 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory 

Background: The Maryland NTEP Laboratory evaluated a software-based ECR in which the primary weight 

display was incorporated into a corner of the Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) display screen. The laboratory was 

concerned about the height of the characters. The total display area was approximately 12 mm high. The character 

size of the weight indication was approximately 4 mm high. The laboratory felt that the height of the letters did 

not provide clear and legible indication of the weight display. While Handbook 44 and Publication 14 have 

general requirements about the visibility and legibility of indications, neither has specific requirements for the 

character size for indications for scales. OIML R76-1 Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments has a minimum height 

requirement for display characters of 10 mm  0.5 mm. 

At its last meeting, the NTEP Laboratories agreed to submit a proposal for a minimum height requirement of 

10 mm  0.5 mm. The laboratories believe that requiring a specific minimum height (as is currently done in the 

Grain Moisture Code of Handbook 44) will help to ensure consistent application of the requirements. Andrea Buie 

(Maryland) and Steve Cook (California) agreed to draft a proposal to present to the Weighing Sector. That 

proposal is included in the following recommendation. 

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to consider the following proposal for addition to NIST Handbook 44. 

If the Sector agrees with the proposal, it will be forwarded to the S&T Committee. 

S.1.1.1. Digital Indicating Elements. – 

(a) A digital zero indication shall represent a balance conditions that is within 1/2 the value of the scale 

division.

(b) A digital indicating device shall either automatically maintain a “center-of-zero” condition to 1/4 scale 

division or less, or have an auxiliary or supplemental “center-of-zero” indicator that defines a zerobalance condition to 1/4 of a scale division or less. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1993.] (Amended 

1992) 

Primary weight indications on both the operator and customer side shall be clear, of the same 

dimension, and at least 10 mm in height. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-79 

Discussion: Several members stated that a minimum height requirement should apply only to devices used in 

direct sales and only on the customer side. Other members indicated any proposal should be compatible with 

OIML requirements. It was noted that the OIML minimum size requirement of “10 mm  0.5 mm” may change 

to “9.5 mm on the customer side.” It was also generally agreed that all information displayed by ECR’s other 

than measuring units should be exempt from minimum size requirements. When an ECR is used the customer is 

provided a receipt. The Sector agreed that a General Code requirement would be more appropriate than a specific 

code requirement. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that the following proposal should be forwarded to the S&T Committee for 

additional language to be added to Handbook 44, General Code, Paragraph G-S.5.2.3. 

 Modify G-S.5.2.3. as follows: 

G-S.5.2.3. Size and Character

(a) In any series of graduation, indications, or recorded representations, corresponding 

graduations and units shall be uniform in size and character. Graduations, indications, or 

recorded representations that are subordinate to or of a lesser value than others with 

which they are associated shall be appropriately portrayed or designated. 

[ Made retroactive as of January 1, 1975.] 

(b) Except for ECR’s on direct sale digital devices that display primary indications the

 numerical figures of the primary indications on the customer side must be at least 9.5mm

 in height. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X.]

(c) For ECR’s the display of the measurement units must be at least 9.5mm in height.

 [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X.]

15. Scales to be Submitted for Evaluation When the Range of Capacities is Narrow 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory 

Background: At its 1997 meeting, the Weighing Sector decided that the general policy of applying 4:1 from 

extremes of the family capacity and 10:1 overall ratios was acceptable for defining which device(s) must be 

submitted for evaluation in order to cover a family of scales with a capacity of less than 30 000 lb. At its 1998 

meeting, the Sector re-affirmed the 1997 decision and suggested the laboratories continue to monitor the issue.

The Maryland NTEP Laboratory is concerned with the policy of evaluating only a mid-range device when the 

range of capacities is narrow. They have found several instances where subsequent submissions at a higher or 

lower capacity have failed environmental testing. At the last NTEP Laboratory meeting, the Maryland laboratory 

agreed to supply data supporting their concern. The Sector is asked to review that data and decide if the current 

policy should be changed. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-80

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the above data from the Maryland Laboratory as well as additional information 

from other NTEP Laboratories. The laboratories found problems when testing only a mid-range device for a range 

of capacities meeting the over-all range of 10:1 and a range of 4:1 from either extreme. The Sector agreed that the 

range of capacities to be covered by the evaluation of a mid-range device should be reduced. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to modify the footnote on page 1-9 of Publication 14, Digital Electronic Scales to 

stipulate that a narrow range must be less than 2:1, otherwise both the highest and lowest capacity must be tested. 

This criterion will also apply to subsets of the entire range of a family to be covered by one CC. 

Modify the footnote on page 1-9 of Publication 14 as follows:

1

If the range of capacities is quite narrow (e.g., 50 lb, 110 lb, and 200 lb) and is a ratio of 

less than 2:1, it may be that only a device near mid-range need be submitted. If the range 

of capacities is extremely wide (e.g., 10 lb to 10 000 lb), it may be necessary that a device 

near mid-range also be submitted. 

Example: For a family of scales with a range of capacities from 500 lb to 999 lb the manufacturer 

could submit one model with a capacity of 750 lb. If the 750-lb model successfully passed full 

evaluation, the entire family could be covered by the CC. If the range for a family included capacities 

from 10 lb to 100 lb, the manufacturer would be required to submit three devices. The devices 

required to be submitted for evaluation would include the highest and lowest capacity as well as one 

near mid-range. 

16. Marking Requirements for Hardware of Software Based Systems 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory & NIST 

Background: NIST/OWM and the NTEP Laboratories have been concerned about marking requirements for the 

hardware of software-based weighing systems. One of the NTEP Laboratories evaluated an ECR software 

program with a remote primary weight indicator feature. The feature allows any off-the-shelf monitor to be 

used as the primary weight display. The company marked the required identification information on tamper 

evident labels. These labels will be placed on the PC's monitor during software installation. If the monitor 

malfunctions and is replaced, the display is still the same, but its permanent markings are gone. If the user 

changes programs, the markings are permanent, but the display may function differently. The evaluator believes 

that the best way to mark these devices is on the CRT screen real time as part of the display. At the last NTEP 

meeting, the laboratories were asked to discuss the issue with the goal of presenting a proposal to the Weighing 

Sector. Steve Cook and Andrea Buie agreed to develop a proposal for submittal to the Sector. 

Series Tests (1992-1999)

If the current policy was utilized during the period of 1992 - 1999, 8 out of 12 NTEP Certificates of Conformance issued from this laboratory

would have contained a device that did not comply with NIST Handbook 44.

Evaluation

Number

Capacity Range Pass/ Fail(Tolerance) Comments

Low Mid High

1 15 to 30 lb P n/a F Device failed at 30 x 0.1 lb. Capacity reduced to 15 x 0.1

lb

2 1K to 10K F P P 1000 x 0.5, 2000 x 1, 4000 x 2, 10000 x 5

3 150 lb to 300 lb P n/a F Failed influence factors test

4 250 lb to 1000 lb F P P 250 x 0.1, 500 x 0.2, 1000 x 0.5

5 30 lb to 300 lb P n/a P 30 x 0.01, 60 x 0.02, 150 x 0.05, 300 x 0.1

6 150 lb to 200 lb n/a *P F *Multi-Interval and single range devices. Largest Capacity

and Smallest d tested

7 1K to 5K F n/a P 5000 d

8 1K to 10 K P n/a P

9 25 lb to 500 lb P P P

10 15K to 25K P n/a F Originally tested as 25K. Failed at 25K and 20K. Passed at

15K

11 15 lb to 30 lb F n/a P 15 x 0.01 and 30 x 0.01. 15 lb failed influence factors test.

12 20 lb to 40 lb P n/a P

Totals Failed 4 0 4

Passed 7 4 8

Eight of the twelve (67%) evaluations failed because devices on the low or high end of the capacity range failed to meet accuracy.
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-81 

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to consider the following proposal for addition to NIST Handbook 44. 

If the Sector agrees, the proposal will be forwarded to the S&T Committee. 

G-S.1. Identification. – All equipment, except weights and separate parts necessary to the measurement 

process but not having any metrological effect, and software-based weighing and measuring systems that 

are capable of operating on equipment not provided by the manufacturer or distributor shall be clearly 

and permanently marked for the purpose of identification with the following information: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor; 

(b) a model designation that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device; 

(c) except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts, a nonrepetitive serial number; 

and [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968] 

(d) the serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or symbol that clearly identifies the 

number as the required serial number. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986]

(e) Weighing and measuring systems that are capable of operating on equipment not provided by the 

manufacturer shall have the required identification continuously displayed on the primary indicating 

element during normal usage.

Discussion: The Sector discussed this item at length. Most members agreed that indicators must be marked with 

the information required in G-S.1. Problems arise when the indicator is a CRT or other type of Personal Computer 

(PC) monitor manufactured by a company other than the manufacturer holding the CC for the system. The 

questions that were discussed include: Which manufacturers name(s) should be on the monitor? Are the markings 

permanent? Who is responsible for the required markings if the monitor is changed? Is it acceptable to display 

the required markings on the monitor screen? If the markings are displayed on the screen, must they be available 

at all times? For systems that are software based, is a version number more meaningful than a serial number? 

Does this only apply to POS systems? Some members felt that marking the CC number on the indicator would 

solve the problem. Another member pointed out that two completely different versions may have the same 

certificate number. The hardware may look identical; however, the operation and features may not be the same. 

One member pointed out that a real-time screen display of marking information would eventually burn that portion 

of the screen. There was general agreement that many of the questions also apply to G-S.6. and S.6.3. 

Conclusion: The Sector did not reach consensus on this item. The Sector agreed that this is an S&T Committee 

issue. If it is added to the S&T Committee agenda, members should provide input and comments directly to the 

S&T Committee. 

17. Standard Features and Options to be Listed on a Certificate of Conformance (CC) 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory 

Background: The Maryland laboratory is concerned that some CCs list nonmetrological features and options that 

have not been evaluated by an NTEP Laboratory. At the last NTEP Laboratory meeting, the laboratories generally 

agreed that if features and options were not evaluated they should not be listed as standard features and options. 

Andrea Buie agreed to draft a proposal for the Weighing Sector. 

Proposal: Add the following language to Publication 14, NTEP Technical Policy for Scales, Section A. & B. 

A. Models to be Submitted for Evaluation

A type is a model or models of the same design, as defined in the NTEP Policy and Procedures. A complete list 

and description of all models of a type to be included on the CC shall be submitted with the request for type 

evaluation. All options and features to be included on the CC must be submitted for evaluation. If the CC is to 

include more than one model of the same type, the submitter shall contact the evaluation agency to determine 

which model or models will be evaluated. A CC will be amended when new models of the same type meeting the 

specified criteria are added by the manufacturer. Nonmetrological features may be listed on a CC, but only if the 

feature has been tested and operates properly.
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-82

B. CC Parameters

The following guidelines apply: 

1. Indicating Element

A CC will apply to all models that have: 

a. equivalent hardware and software; 

b. the same or smaller number of scale divisions; and 

c. subsets of standard options and features of the equipment evaluated. 

Metrological features not recognized by Handbook 44, but capable of being used as the basis for commercial 

transactions, shall be capable of being disabled before the device can receive an NTEP CC. 

The following units of measure are not recognized in Handbook 44: tael, tical, & momme. Listing these units on 

a CC would appear to indicate that they meet the applicable requirements of Handbook 44 and are acceptable for 

use in commercial applications.

Discussion: The Sector generally agreed that the standard features and options listed on page one of a CC should 

be metrological functions that were evaluated. Listing additional units of measure that are not used in the United 

States can benefit the manufacturer of the device. Some devices submitted for NTEP are also sold in other 

countries. In some of those countries, the NTEP CC may help allow the manufacturer to distribute the device. 

During NTEP evaluation units of measure which are not recognized in Handbook 44 may not be subjected to full 

evaluation. However, the evaluation laboratory may check at several points for proper conversion from the units 

of measure being evaluated to other units of measure to be listed on the CC. There may also be exceptions for noncommercial features. An example would be an NTEP scale with a non-commercial counting feature that may be 

listed on the certificate. Some members were also concerned about devices other than scales, such as grain 

analyzers that will perform non-commercial measurements for starch and oil content. Some members thought that 

features that had not been evaluated should be listed on page two of the certificate. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to carry this item forward to its next meeting to allow for further development of 

the issue. There was concern that all types of devices should be considered. Other Sectors may need to provide 

input. 

18 (a). Re-evaluating Test Data to Cover Smaller “d” and Larger “n” 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory 

Background: At the last NTEP Laboratory meeting, the Maryland laboratory expressed concern with the practice 

of re-analyzing data from the evaluation of a scale when a manufacturer requests a smaller division size and a 

larger number of divisions on a CC than the original request. This practice is similar to the re-analyzing of load 

cell test data to allow the CC to list a lower vmin than stated on the application for a certificate. For some time 

NTEP has allowed load cell manufacturers to request the NIST Force Group to re-analyze load cell data. The 

laboratories agreed that criteria and procedures should be added to Publication 14 stipulating when and how this 

practice is acceptable for complete devices. 

Recommendation: The Sector should consider the following proposal. If the Sector agrees, the proposed 

language will be added to Section 58, Digital Scales of Publication 14. 

Proposed language for addition to Publication 14, Section 58, Digital Electronic Scales 

58.19 If the Device Under Test (DUT) fails to meet tolerance requirements while conducting steps 58.13 and 

58.17, the manufacturer may have the option to have the test data reanalyzed for a larger “emin” and 

smaller “nmax”. Re-analyzing data is only appropriate if the data was collected using error weights or 

expanded display resolution to a resolution of one tenth of the specified “emin”.

58.20 If the DUT fails to meet tolerance requirements while conducting steps 58.13 and 58.17, the manufacturer 

has the option of specifying a smaller temperature range. If the DUT failed at only the original specified 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-83 

minimum or maximum, only the new specified minimum or maximum must be tested, the DUT is not 

required to be re-tested over the entire new specified temperature range. 

58.21 Before manufacturers request a smaller “emin” and/or larger “nmax” based on the performance during an 

evaluation, they must submit documentation illustrating the changes made to the device or the 

manufacturing process to improve the metrological performance of the device. NTEP reserves the right to 

require the submission of additional devices for temperature testing. 

Discussion: Most Sector members agreed that device manufacturers should know how well their device will 

perform at the time they apply for an evaluation. If the device submitted for evaluation happens to perform better 

than anticipated, a manufacturer should not be allowed to request a lower vmin or higher nmax than on the original 

application. Canada would require manufacturers to submit another device if they wanted to increase “n” or lower 

the value of “e.” The majority of the Sector agreed with proposed paragraphs 58.19 and 58.20. The Sector agreed 

that the last sentence of 58.21 should require that additional devices be tested. 

Conclusion: The Sector approved the proposed sections 58.19 and 58.20 as written. The Sector approved 

paragraph 58.21 as follows. 

58.21 Before manufacturers requests a smaller “emin” and/or larger “nmax”, based on the performance during an 

evaluation, they must submit documentation illustrating the changes made to the device or the 

manufacturing process, to improve the meterological performance of the device. NTEP reserves the right 

to will require the submission of additional devices for temperature testing. 

18 (b). Re-evaluation of Test Data for Load Cells to Cover Smaller “vmin” or Larger “n” 

Source: NIST/OWM 

Background: When manufacturers submit a load cell for NTEP testing, they receive a copy of the test data. 

Sometimes, based on the test results, the manufacturer requests that the application be modified and the test data 

re-analyzed for a smaller “vmin” and a larger “nmax.”

Recommendation: The Sector should revisit this practice and consider the following proposal. If the Sector 

agrees, the proposed language will be added to Section K, Load Cells, of Publication 14. 

Proposal for addition to Publication 14, Section K, Load Cells. 

IV. Re-analyzing performance data 

When a load cell is submitted for NTEP evaluation, testing is conducted to determine performance over the range 

of temperature specified by the manufacturer. If the collected data indicates that the cell would meet the 

performance requirements for a smaller “vmin” and/or a larger “nmax” than that specified on the NTEP application, 

the manufacturer may request that a CC be issued using the smaller “vmin” and/or larger “nmax.” When requesting a 

smaller “vmin” and/or a larger “nmax”, documentation of changes made to the cell or the manufacturing process to 

improve the metrological performance must be submitted. NTEP reserves the right to require the submission of 

additional cells for testing. 

Discussion: The Sector agreed that load cells should be treated similarly to complete devices as discussed in the 

previous item. The same general reasons apply. The Sector agreed with the proposed Section IV, with the 

exception that additional testing of at least one additional cell will be required. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to add Section IV. as follows: 

IV. Re-analyzing performance data 

When a load cell is submitted for NTEP evaluation, testing is conducted to determine performance over the range 

of temperature specified by the manufacturer. If the collected data indicates that the cell would meet the 

performance requirements for a smaller “vmin” and/or a larger “nmax” than that specified on the NTEP application, 

the manufacturer may request that a CC be issued using the smaller “vmin” and/or larger “nmax.” When requesting a 

smaller “vmin” and/or a larger “nmax”; the manufacturer must submit documentation of changes made to the cell or 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-84

the manufacturing process to improve the metrological performance. NTEP will require the submission of at least 

one additional cell for testing. 

19. Review of AWS Issues by This Sector 

Source: NIST/OWM 

Background: The Automatic Weighing System (AWS) Work Group completed its assignment and will no longer 

meet. At its 1996 meeting the Weighing Sector agreed that it is the logical forum for reviewing any new or 

ongoing issues related to the AWS Checklist in Publication 14 or for technical assistance on issues related to the 

tentative AWS Code in Handbook 44. 

Conclusion: This item was presented as a reminder to the Weighing Sector that AWS issues are to be discussed 

by this group. No Sector action was required for this item. 

20. Sealable Parameters for AWS Systems 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory 

Background: The AWS Work Group did not address multiple belt speeds in its work to develop the AWS 

Tentative Code. Several multi-interval weigh-labelers with variable belt speeds have been evaluated by NTEP. 

The Maryland NTEP Laboratory evaluated a device with three weight ranges and three speeds. In this particular 

device, speed was programmed into the price look-up (PLU) code and could be changed through the user menu. 

If a package travels across the scale at a speed that does not allow the system to capture a weight, the device will 

not print a label. 

At the last NTEP Laboratory meeting, not all the laboratories agreed that belt speed should be sealed however, the 

laboratories agreed that a table of sealable parameters should be added to the AWS Checklist of Publication 14. 

The laboratories also agreed that the Weighing Sector should consider whether belt speed needed to be a sealable 

parameter. Andrea Buie (Maryland) and Bill Fishman (New York) agreed to draft a proposal for the Weighing 

Sector’s consideration. The Sector was asked to review that proposal for addition to Publication 14. 

Discussion: At the meeting, Andrea Buie presented the following proposal for discussion: 

Add the following to the Scales Checklist of Publication 14 

Sealable Parameters for AWS

Option 1: 

Add belt speed to sealable parameters for weigh-labelers. 

Option 2: 

12. Code Reference: G-S.5.1., G-S.5.2.2., and S.1.2. 

12.1 If the system is capable of operating above its rated capacity, it shall be equipped with a 

means to provide an audio or visual alarm when 

 12.1.1 The belt speed exceeds the rated scale belt speed. Yes a No a NA a

12.1.2 A package exceeds the weight range for the operating belt 

speed (applicable to variable belt speed systems). Yes a No a NA a

12.2 The alarm is located so it will be noticed during normal scale operation. 

Yes a No a NA a

12.3 Access to the parameters for setting the alarm limits shall be sealed. Yes a No a NA a

The scale belt speed alarm is: 

both audio and visual ______ audio_____ visual ______ 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-85 

12.4 If a package is weighed at a belt speed above the rated speed of its weight range, the system 

must: 

12.4.1 not issue a label , or Yes a No a NAa 

12.4.2 provide a clear indication on the printed label that the weight is invalid. 

 Yes a No a NA a

The Sector discussed the S&R laboratories’ proposal. One member indicated that only the maximum speed and 

maximum weight should be require for marking and evaluation. The Sector was generally opposed to Option 1. 

Belt speed should be selectable by the user similar to tare. On many systems, the user will adjust the belt speed 

relative to the size of the packages. During evaluation, NTEP should verify accuracy of the device at a maximum 

speed and weight. There may be multiple speed ranges on some devices related to the maximum weight capacity 

for that range. 

The Sector generally agreed with option 2. It was noted that “equipped with a means to provide an alarm” may 

not require an alarm to actually be installed. The Sector agreed that 12.1 should be changed from “shall be 

equipped with a means to provide” to “shall provide.” The Sector also agreed that a manufacturer should have the 

option of indicating invalid weights either on the printed label or on the device.

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that option 2 to should be modified and added to Publication 14. 

12. Code Reference: G-S.5.1., G-S.5.2.2., and S.1.2. 

12.1 If the system is capable of operating above its rated capacity, it shall provide an audio or 

visual alarm when 

 12.1.1 The belt speed exceeds the rated scale belt speed. Yes a No a NA a

12.1.2 A package exceeds the weight range for the operating belt 

speed (applicable to variable belt speed systems). Yes a No a NA a

12.2 The alarm is located so it will be noticed during normal scale operation.

 Yes a No a NA a

12.3 Access to the parameters for setting the alarm limits shall be sealed. Yes a No a NA a

The scale belt speed alarm is: 

both audio and visual ______ audio only_____ visual only ______ 

12.4 If a package is weighed at a belt speed above the rated speed of its weight range, the system 

must: 

12.4.1 not issue a label, or Yes a No a NA a

 

12.4.2 provide a clear indication on the device or on the printed label that the weight is invalid.

Yes a No a NA a

21. Procedure for Determining Belt Speed for an AWS System 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory 

Background: At the last NTEP Laboratory meeting, the laboratories agreed that a procedure to determine belt 

speed should be added to the AWS Checklist of Publication 14. Andrea Buie and Bill Fishman agreed to draft a 

proposal for the Weighing Sector’s consideration. The Sector was asked to consider adding the following 

procedure to Publication 14. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-86

Proposed Changes to Publication 14: 

Methods for Determining AWS Belt Speed 

Laboratory Procedures 

1. Optical Tachometer Method: 

(To be developed by the laboratories at a later date.) 

2. Stopwatch and Tape Measure Method: 

Determine the length (one full revolution) of the scale belt in meters. Mark the edge of the belt 

and determine the time (to within one 100th second) for a minimum of 20 revolutions of the scale 

belt. 

The scale belt speed = (L x R)/T, 

where L = length of the scale belt (one full revolution) 

 R = the number of revolutions (from the first full revolution) 

 T = the total elapsed time 

Belt speed shall be determined in the laboratory to the nearest 0.001 m/s. 

The maximum allowable error using this method, under laboratory conditions, is +/- 2%. 

2.1 The belt speed, determined in the laboratory, equals or exceeds the marked belt speed +/- 2 

%? 

Yes a No a N/A a

Discussion: Several members indicated that an optical tachometer is probably more accurate than a stopwatch 

even if the tachometer does not have a certificate of traceability. One member stated that belt speed should be 

measured only when the system reaches optimum speed. This could require as many as 50 revolutions on a long 

belt. One member noted that the uncertainty in the method used to determine belt speed is not critical. A speed 

measurement accuracy within 10 percent of actual speed may be acceptable. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that the proposed stopwatch and tape procedure should be added to Publication 14 

as follows. The NTEP Laboratories should continue to develop the optical tachometer method and submit a 

proposal to the Sector for consideration. 

Methods for Determining AWS Belt Speed 

Laboratory Procedures 

1. Optical Tachometer method. (This section is under development.) 

2. Stopwatch and Tape Measure Method:

Determine the length (one full revolution) of the scale belt in meters. Mark the edge of the belt 

and determine the time (to within one 100th second) for a minimum of 20 revolutions of the scale 

belt. 

The scale belt speed = (L x R)/T, 

where L = length of the scale belt (one full revolution) 

 R = the number of revolutions (from the first full revolution) 

 T = the total elapsed time 

Belt speed shall be determined in the laboratory to the nearest 0.001 m/s (0.01 m/min). 

The maximum allowable error using this method, under laboratory conditions, is +/- 2%. 

2.1 The belt speed, determined in the laboratory, equals or exceeds the marked belt speed +/- 2%? 

 Yes a No a N/A a
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-87 

22. Test Criteria for Semi-automatic Zero 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory 

Background: At the last NTEP Laboratory meeting, the Maryland S&R Laboratory requested a review of the 

Measurement Canada Test Method 1-3 for LG-15.03. Canada Test Method 1-3 for LG-15.03 allows a scale to zero 

up to 4% of scale capacity without reducing the total capacity of the device. OIML R76 limits the effect of zerosetting and zero-tracking mechanisms to 4% of scale capacity. After that review, the laboratories agreed to 

recommend that the Weighing Sector forward a proposal to the S&T Committee to update Handbook 44 to bring it 

into harmony with OIML and Measurement Canada requirements. 

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to review the following proposal and consider forwarding it to the S&T 

Committee: 

Add the following paragraph to NIST Handbook 44, 2.20 Scales, S.2.1. Zero-Load Adjustment: 

S.2.1.X. Range of Zero-Setting Mechanisms 

The overall range of a semiautomatic zero-setting mechanism and an automatic zero-tracking 

mechanism shall not exceed 4 percent of the maximum device capacity, unless the maximum 

gross load that can be weighed is decreased by an amount equal to or greater than the amount in 

excess of 4 percent of the maximum capacity adjusted by either mechanism. 

Discussion: One member recalled that when the mutual recognition program was being established with Canada, 

this specific requirement could not be harmonized. There were comments that the proposed change might limit 

the usable capacity of some longer vehicle scales. 

Conclusion: The Sector was divided on forwarding this item to the S&T committee or carrying it over to the next 

meeting to allow for additional study. The Sector voted to carry the item over by a vote of 8 to 4 and asked the 

SMA Technical Committee to provide feedback on the item prior to the next Sector meeting. 

23. Indicators with Option for Multiple Load Receiving Elements 

Source: NIST/OWM 

Background: During several recent NTEP evaluations, manufacturers have installed a single load receiving 

element with an indicator that has the capability of displaying the weight values from more than one load receiving 

element; this results in a system that can indicate with more than one range that have different values for “d.” 

There is some concern that a vehicle scale could be installed in the field with this configuration. At the last NTEP 

Laboratory meeting, the laboratories agreed that if an indicator that is capable of displaying the weight value for 

more than one load receiving element is installed with a single load receiving element, the system should be 

equipped with a sealable means to prevent the use of this option in a fraudulent manner. The laboratories agreed 

that the option of displaying multiple load receiving elements should be added to the list of sealable features in 

publication 14. They also agreed to develop a proposal for changes to publication 14 and/or Handbook 44 to 

present to the Weighing Sector. 

Recommendation: The laboratories proposed to the Sector that the option for multiple load receiving elements be 

added to the list of sealable parameters on page 31 of Publication 14, Digital Electronic Scales. 

Discussion: It was pointed out that, during the initial indicator setup, each platform selection would require 

calibration and the selection of the value of “d” for the platform. Calibration and value of “d” are both sealable 

parameters, so by default, multiple weighing elements may be a sealable function now without specifically being 

added to the list. One member stated that this could be handled through training weights and measures field 

inspectors. If this is to be added to Publication 14, the Sector members would like to see specific language. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed to carry over this item and asked that the laboratories to develop specific wording 

for any Handbook 44 changes to be submitted to the S&T committee. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-88

24. Recorded Representation of Count Items on ECR Systems 

Source: Maryland W&M 

Background: Maryland W&M reported finding instances of ECR receipts with items by count expressed in a 

decimal format with as many as three places to the right of the decimal. At the last NTEP Laboratory meeting, 

other laboratories indicated finding similar receipts. Paragraph 3.7 on page 9-11 of Publication 14, ECRs/Retail 

Motor-Fuel Dispensers, states that decimal expressions of count are acceptable. The Checklist for ECRs 

Interfaced with Scales does not refer to using a digital format for items by count on the receipt. The laboratories 

agreed that language should be added to Publication 14 to indicate that a decimal expression of count on the 

receipt from an ECR interfaced with a scale is not appropriate. Andrea Buie (MD) agreed to draft language for 

Sector consideration. The Sector should consider if the proposed changes to Publication 14 are appropriate. The 

Measuring Sector will also be asked to consider this issue at its next meeting. 

Discussion: The Sector Technical Advisor, Dick Suiter (NIST), showed an example of 3.000 @ 3/1.00 for 

items being sold by count. Tom Ahrens (NIST), technical advisor to the Measuring Sector, stated that the 

Measuring Sector reviewed this issue at its meeting on September 24-25, 1999. The manufacturers present at 

the Measuring Sector meeting did not think that eliminating the trailing zeros would cause a problem. Dennis 

Krueger (NCR) stated that the problem began with ECR’s in service stations. The software was written to print 

to a resolution of 0.001 gallon. When the system applications expanded into deli operations, the same software 

routines were continued. It would not be a problem for NCR; however, Mr. Krueger indicated he could not 

speak for other manufacturers. Other members agreed that it would not be a problem for their companies. 

Before the Sector proposes a change to Publication 14, Sector members agreed that other potentially affected 

parties should be made aware of the proposed change.

Conclusion: The Sector decided that the technical advisor, Dick Suiter, should develop specific language for 

changes to Publication 14 and a proposal for the S&T committee for changes to Handbook 44. It was agreed that a 

ballot should be sent to members of the Weighing and the Measuring Sectors once the language is developed.

25. Location of ID Information Required by Handbook 44, G-S.1. Identification 

Source: Ohio NTEP Laboratory, NIST 

Background: Jim Truex (Ohio) reported that another NTEP Laboratory asked where the marking information 

required by G-S.1. was found during the evaluation of a point-of-sale system that had been evaluated by the Ohio 

laboratory. During field evaluation of the same model officials complained that the required markings are located 

behind a door. The CC for the device explains where the markings are located; however, field officials contend 

that, without knowing the model designation from the ID plate, they don’t know which CC to try to locate. At the 

time of the evaluation, the Ohio laboratory determined that the markings met the requirements of Handbook 44 

and Publication 14. NIST/OWM concurred with this interpretation. The NCWM S&T Committee reviewed 

Paragraph G-S.1. in 1985 due to similar questions relating to the location of required markings on weighing 

elements installed in check-out stands. The Committee determined that required markings could be located under 

a scale platter or behind a door if no tool is required to access the markings. The Sector is asked to review 

paragraphs G-S.1. and G-UR.2.1.1. to determine if NTEP’s previous interpretation of the requirement is correct. 

Discussion: The Sector generally agreed that the interpretation was correct. One member suggested that a good 

alternative would be a simple label indicating where the marking requirements can be found. 

Conclusion: The Sector supports the interpretation. The Sector also agreed to add a note to Publication 14 that, 

if required markings are behind a door or panel, the manufacturer is encouraged to put a label on the outside of the 

device that explains where the ID information is located. Such a marking is not required, nor does it have to meet 

permanence requirements. 

26. Screen Saver on Customer Information Displays 

Source: California NTEP Laboratory 

Background: The manufacturer of a point-of-sale system contacted Steve Cook to find out “if California has a 

requirement that the scale live/gross weight must ‘always’ be displayed.” Steve responded that California does not 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-89 

have any special requirements for screen savers. In the past, California has requested that the display be active any 

time an operator is logged on. If the register is inactive long enough to activate a screen saver, it must also 

automatically log off the operator. The Sector should consider whether requirements similar to those applied to 

“sleep modes” should be added to Handbook 44 and/or Publication 14 to address screen savers on point-of-sale 

systems and other indicators. 

Recommendation: The Sector was asked to review the following proposal for addition to NIST Handbook 44 

and consider forwarding the proposal to the S&T Committee. 

Modify Handbook 44, 2.20 Scales, S.1.1. (c) as follows: 

(c) A zero- balance condition may be indicated by other than a continuous digital zero indication, 

provided that an effective automatic means is provided to inhibit a weighing operation or to return 

to a continuous digital indication when the scale is in an out-of-balance condition. (Added 1987) 

Examples of indications other than a continuous digital zero may include a scale ready enunciator, 

a sleep mode, or a screen saver.

Discussion: The Sector discussed the similarities between screen savers and a sleep mode. Dennis Krueger 

(NCR) stated that for some POS systems, the screen saver may function independently from the scale. The screen 

saver is generally in place to save the CRT. In those systems, weighing is inhibited if the scale is not on zero. 

Based on G-S.6., Publication 14 specifies that a sleep mode option must include a legend adjacent to the display 

that states that the sleep mode indicates the device is on zero. A concern was indicated that if a device inhibits 

weighing when the device is not on zero, a legend stating that sleep mode indicates the device is on zero might be 

in conflict. It was generally agreed that if a screen save mode is treated the same as a sleep mode, no changes 

would be required to Handbook 44. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that it is appropriate to treat a screen saver mode identically to a sleep mode and 

no change to Handbook 44 is needed. The same requirements and safeguards apply. Wording should be added to 

Publication 14 to recognize a screen saver mode as an alternative to the continuous digital display of zero. The 

Sector asked the laboratories to review marking requirements for a sleep mode and to determine whether a conflict 

exists with the alternative to inhibit weighing if the device is not on zero. 

27. Manual Gross Weight Entries on Vehicle Scales 

Source: NIST/OWM 

Background: Wes Diggs (Virginia) and Will Wotthlie (Maryland) both reported finding recent installations of 

vehicle scales with the ability to enter manual gross weight entries. Handbook 44 lists four instances for scales 

where manual gross weight entries are allowed. Vehicle scales are not included in that list. Several manufacturers 

of indicators have certificates with the option of manual gross weight entries. The Sector was asked to consider a 

proposal to add the option of manual gross weight entries to the list of sealable parameters. The Sector was also 

asked to consider if Section 2.20, Paragraph UR.3.9. should be modified to clearly state that vehicle scales are not 

allowed to have manual gross weight entries. 

Recommendation: Add the option for manual gross weight entries on Class III/IIIL indicators to the list of 

sealable parameters on page 31of Publication 14, Digital Electronic Scales and forward the following proposal to 

the S&T Committee to consider. 

Modify Handbook 44, 2.20 Scales, UR.3.9. as Follows: 

UR.3.9. Use of Manual Gross Weight Entries. – 

Manual gross weight entries are permitted for use in the following applications only: (1) in point-of-sale 

systems interfaced with scales when credit is being given for a weighed item; (2) when a device or 

system is generating labels for standard weight packages; (3) when postal scales or weight classifiers are 

generating manifests for packages to be picked up at a later time; and (4) on livestock scale systems that 

generate weight tickets to correct erroneous tickets. (Added 1992) 

[Note: Vehicle scales do not meet any of the above criteria for manual gross weight entries.]
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-90

Discussion/Conclusion: The Sector Technical Advisor, Dick Suiter (NIST), provided background on UR.3.9. 

outlining the four instances when manual gross weight entries are allowed on weighing systems. Vehicle scales 

were clearly not intended to be included for allowance of manual gross weight entries. Several Sector members 

gave examples of applications where manual gross weight entries on vehicle scale systems are appropriate for 

correcting erroneous weight tickets similar to the allowance for livestock scales. The majority of the Sector agreed 

that Handbook 44 should be changed to allow for manual gross weight entries on vehicle scales. The Sector 

considered two options for changing Handbook 44 as follows: Option 1 would remove the word livestock from 

UR.3.9. (4) and Option 2 would add “and vehicle scale systems” after “livestock” in UR.3.9. (4). The Sector 

voted on both options. The vote on option (1) was 10 in favor, 4 opposed, 1 abstained. The vote on option (2) was 

10 in favor, 1 opposed, 3 abstained. 

The Sector agreed to forward both options for changing Handbook 44, UR.3.9., including the vote on the options. 

The Sector favors adding vehicle scales to the applications allowed to use manual gross weight entries. 

Option 1: 

UR.3.9. Use of Manual Gross Weight Entries. - Manual gross weight entries are permitted for 

use in the following applications only: (1) in point-of-sale systems interfaced with scales when 

credit is being given for a weighed item; (2) when a device or system is generating labels for 

standard weight packages; (3) when postal scales or weight classifiers are generating manifests for 

packages to be picked up at a later time; and (4) on livestock scale systems that generate weight 

tickets to correct erroneous tickets. 

(Added 1992) 

Option 2: 

UR.3.9. Use of Manual Gross Weight Entries. - Manual gross weight entries are permitted for 

use in the following applications only: (1) in point-of-sale systems interfaced with scales when 

credit is being given for a weighed item; (2) when a device or system is generating labels for 

standard weight packages; (3) when postal scales or weight classifiers are generating manifests for 

packages to be picked up at a later time; and (4) on livestock and vehicle scale systems that 

generate weight tickets to correct erroneous tickets. 

(Added 1992) 

28. Shift Test Pattern for Scales Based on the Number of Load Cells 

Source: Darrell Flocken (Mettler-Toledo) 

Background: During a recent evaluation of a Mettler-Toledo scale, a question arose regarding the appropriate 

pattern for conducting a shift test. The question was resolved for that evaluation, but Darrell Flocken thought that 

Publication 14 should be changed to clarify the appropriate test pattern to be used for various devices when 

conducting a shift test. Darrell recommends that Section 55 of Publication 14 be removed and replaced with the 

current wording of Part 1 – General Information, Section 14 of the Measurement Canada Laboratory Manual, 

January 1997 edition. The Sector should consider this proposal and decide if it concurs. (A copy of the General 

Information, Section 14 of the Measurement Canada Laboratory Manual is available by contacting the Sector 

Technical Advisor, Dick Suiter [NIST].) 

Discussion: The Sector Technical Advisor, Dick Suiter (NIST), showed examples of current shift test patterns. 

Various members of the Sector provided opinions related to the appropriate shift testing of single load cell and 

four load cell designs. One member was concerned that the Measurement Canada Laboratory Manual provides for 

a shift test on hopper and tank scales; however, Publication 14 does not require a shift test on hopper and tank 

scales.

Conclusion: The Sector decided to readdress this issue at its next meeting. The Sector also asked the SMA 

technical committee to review the current shift test patterns and provide feedback to the Sector prior to the next 

Sector meeting as to what is appropriate. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-91 

29. AAR Requirements for Railway Track Scales 

Source: NIST/OWM 

Background: When the USDA Grain Inspection Packers and Stockyards Administration completes an evaluation 

of a railway track scale, it submits the report to NIST/OWM to draft the CC. The report indicates whether or not 

the device was evaluated for compliance with the Association of American Railroads (AAR) Scale Handbook as 

well as an indication that the device meets the requirements of the FGIS Weighing Handbook and NIST Handbook 

44. The Sector is asked to consider whether or not reference to these three documents should be listed in the test 

conditions on a CC. The Sector may also want to consider whether or not railway track scales submitted for NTEP 

evaluation should be required to meet AAR design requirement. For example, a Cooper E80 rating on the 

weighbridge of a device submitted for NTEP evaluation might be required before a CC will be issued. 

Discussion: Several Sector members expressed opinions that NTEP should not be concerned with the 

requirements of other agencies. NTEP should evaluate only for compliance with Handbook 44. Other members 

felt that additional requirements and information on a CC would benefit weights and measures officials and 

potential purchasers of equipment. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that no additional statements should be added to NTEP Certificates of 

Conformance relative to requirements other than Handbook 44. 

30. Permanence Test Requirements for Class I Scales 

Source: Ohio NTEP Laboratory 

Background: Canada requires a permanence test for class I scales. A list of devices and elements that may not 

require permanence testing is located on page 1-77 of Publication 14. Class I scales are included on this list. 

When this list was developed, some of the NTEP Laboratories did not have the ability to do an automated 

permanence test on class I scales. 

Conclusion: NTEP has designated the Ohio laboratory for testing all class I scales. Ohio now has the capability 

to perform the automated permanence test. Consequently, the Sector agreed that the reference to class I scales be 

removed from the list of devices and elements that may not be subject to permanence testing. 

Location of Next Meeting: 

The Sector agreed to tentatively schedule the next meeting for September or October 2000 in Columbus, OH. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-92

1999 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting 

 Ottawa, Ontario, Canada 

Attendance List

Name Company Phone Fax e-mail

Thomas Ahrens NIST-OWM (301) 975-4013 (301) 926-0647 tahrens@nist.gov 

Bill Bates GIPSA (202) 720-0262 (202) 720-0262 bbates@gipsadc.usda.gov 

Tina Butcher NIST-OWM (301) 975-2196 (301) 926-0647 tbutcher@nist.gov 

Andrea Buie Maryland Weights and 

Measures

(410) 841-5790 (410) 841-2765 buieap@mda.state.md.us 

Gary Castro California Division of 

Measurement Standards 

(916) 229-3018 (916) 229-3015 gcastro@cdfa.ca.gov 

Lou Cerny AAR (representative) (301) 947-0208 (301) 947-1296 lcerny@erols.com 

Terry Davis Kansas Department of 

Agriculture

(785) 862-2415 (785) 862-2460 

Wes Diggs Virginia Weights and 

Measures

(804) 786-2476 (804) 786-1571 gdiggs@vdacs.state.va.us 

John D. Edmond GIPSA (202) 720-5841 (202) 690-3207 johnd.edmond@usda.gov 

John Elengo Consultant (203) 272-3430 (203) 272-3430 j.elen@worldnet.att.net

Mark Erickson Rice Lake Weighing 

Systems 

(715) 234-9171 (715) 234-6967 mareri@rlws.com 

Bill Fishman New York State (518) 457-3452 (518) 457-2552 campus@nysnet.net 

Darrell Flocken Mettler-Toledo, Inc. (614) 438-4393 (614) 438-4355 darrell.flocken@mt.com 

Karen Glover Pennsylvania Scale (717) 656-2653 (717) 656-3216 klg@redrose.net 

Bill Goodpaster Cardinal Scales (916) 441-0178 (916) 441-5606 

David Hawkins Thurman Scale (614) 221-9077 (614) 221-8879 dave.hawkins@fancor.com 

Mark Knowles HBM Inc. (508) 624-4500 (508) 485-7480 mknowles@hbminc.com 

Dennis A. Krueger NCR Corporation (770) 623-7743 (770) 623-7827 dennis.krueger@atlantaga.ncr.com

Ken Lake California Division of 

Measurement Standards 

(916) 229-3050 (916) 229-3026 klake@cdfa.ca.gov 

Gary Lameris Hobart Corporation (937) 332-3053 (937) 332-3007 lamergj@pmifeg.com 

Ed Luthy Brechbrueler Scales (330) 453-2426 (330) 453-5322 brechbuhler@ezo.net 

Michel Maranda Measurement Canada (613) 952-0612 (613) 952-1754 maranda.michel@ic.gc.ca 

Nigel Mills Hobart Corporation (973) 332-3205 (973) 332-3007 millsng@pmifeg.com 

Don Onwiler Nebraska Dept of 

Agriculture

(402) 471-4292 (402) 471-3252 donlo@agr.state.ne.us 

Dave Quinn Fairbanks (910) 453-2426 (910) 253-1426 dave.w.quinn@fancor.com 

Debbie Ripley NIST (301) 975-4859 (301) 926-1559 dripley@nist.gov 

George Shefcheck Oregon-MSD (503) 986-4668 (503) 986-4784 gshefche@oda.state.or.us 

Milton Smith Measurement Canada (613) 952-0656 (613) 952-1754 smith.milton@ic.gc.ca 

Richard Suiter NIST-OWM (301) 975-4406 (301) 926-0647 rsuiter@nist.gov 

Jeff Watters Measurement Canada (450) 434-7434 (450) 434-9735 watters.jeffrey@ic.gc.ca 

William West Ohio Weights & 

Measures

(614) 728-6290 (614) 728-6420 west@odant.agri.state.oh.us 

Juana Williams NIST-OWM (301) 975-3989 (301) 926-0647 juana.williams@nist.gov 

Russ Wyckoff Oregon-MSD (503) 986-4767 (503) 986-4784 rwyckoff@oda.state.or.us 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-93 

Appendix A-1 to 

October 1999 Weighing Sector Meeting Summary 

64 Performance and Permanence Tests for Vehicle Scales and Permanently Installed Axle-Load Scale 

Weighing Elements

Note: Please refer to device application for vehicle scale checklist 

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. 

64.1. Tests For Single-Wide Vehicle Scales and Permanently Installed Axle-Load Scale Weighing Elements 

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. 

64.1.1. Indicator Tests 

 Beam Scales 

 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. 

64.1.2. Shift Tests 

64.1.3. An example of the four-section scale: 

4' 4' 4' 4' 4'

Section

1

 Midway 

between

sections

1& 2 

 Section 

2

 Midway 

between

sections

2 & 3 

 Section 

3

 64.1.3.1. 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 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-94

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. 

 64.1.3.2. At least one complete set of shift tests to at least 90 percent of the CLC shall be 

conducted at mid-span between sections. 

 64.1.3.3. 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 of the 

module, then on the other side of the connection line. 

 64.1.3.4. The results of shift tests are required to agree within the absolute value of the 

applicable maintenance tolerances and must be within acceptance tolerances. 

 64.1.4. Strain Load Test 

 64.1.4.1. 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. 

 64.1.4.2. Load the scale with a vehicle or vehicles so the addition of test weights will provide a 

gross load of 80 percent 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. 

 64.1.4.3 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 for any temperature 

changes that may have occurred during this last test cycle. 

 64.1.4.4. 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 to zero; the tare mechanism 

may be used to tare out the strain load. The gross load zero value is needed to 

conduct a decreasing load test as the strain load is removed in the next test. 

64.1.4.5. Repeat the strain load test on the other end of the scale. After reaching the maximum 

test load for the strain load test, remove the strain load but leave the known test 

weights on the scale. The weight indication for the decreasing load test must be 

within tolerance for the known test load. Continue the decreasing load test by 

removing the known test weights. Take several readings as the weights are being 

removed. When all the weights are removed, record the return to zero. The scale must 

return to zero within one-half of a scale division. When analyzing the return to zero, 

consideration must be given for the length of time the load was on the scale and for 

possible temperature changes that may have occurred during the test. 

64.1.4.6. Acceptance tolerances are applied only to the known test load in the strain load test. 

 64.1.5. Subsequent Type Evaluation (Field) Permanence Tests 

64.1.5.1. A minimum of 40 000 lb of known test weights are needed, or 50 percent of the CLC, 

whichever is greater. 

64.1.5.2. At least one complete set of section tests shall be conducted over each section and at 

mid-span between each section using the known test weights. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-95 

64.1.5.3. At least one strain load test shall be conducted at each end of the scale. The 

maximum applied load shall be in the range of 65 percent to 100 percent of scale 

capacity.

64.1.5.4. The time between the initial field performance test and the subsequent field test will 

be 20 to 30 days. Performance during both tests must be within acceptance 

tolerances. 

64.1.5.5. If a device fails subsequent permanence tests, the entire permanence test must be 

repeated. 

 64.1.6. 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 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. 

 64.1.7. Permanence Test Use Requirement for Vehicle Scales 

64.1.7.1. A minimum of 300 weighing operations are required during the test period. The 

manufacturer is to log the date, time, and weight. Each entry is to be initialled by the 

person conducting the weighing. 

64.1.7.2. Only loads which have been applied using a method representative of the scales 

intended use can be counted. 

64.1.7.3. For vehicle scales with a nominal capacity over 75 000 lb: 

64.1.7.3.1. 50 percent of the loads must be above 50 000 lb or 80 percent of the CLC, 

whichever is greater; and 

64.1.7.3.2. 100 percent of the loads must be above 20 000 lb or 50 percent of the CLC, 

whichever is greater. 

64.1.7.4. For all other scales: 

64.1.7.4.1. 50 percent of the loads must be above 50 percent of the scale capacity; and 

64.1.7.4.2. 100 percent of the loads must be above 20 percent of the scale capacity. 

 64.1.7.5 The minimum number of days that a device is required to be in use is 20. The 

committee did not specify that certain number of weighing operations needed to be 

conducted each day for the test period, but recommended that use of the scale be 

representative of normal in service use. 

64.1.7.6. The device will be tested to the CLC on the second test. 

64.2. Tests For Double-Wide Vehicle Scales Weighing Elements

In addition to the testing listed above, tests should be conducted using equipment that closely replicates the actual 

intended use of the scale. For instance, if the scale is intended to weigh heavy off-road vehicles, several 

weighments of a loaded off-road vehicle should be conducted in several positions and in both directions on the 

scale system to establish repeatability.

Multiple pattern loading should be considered in a manner consistent with the intended use.
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-96

Examples of Double-Wide or Side-by-Side Vehicle Scales

 Example 1: Side-by-side installation with a dead section located between the two live sections

Each side of the scale system is a complete and independent scale weighing element. If installed with the dead 

section level with the weighing element this section must be identified as such. It may be a raised curb and/or be 

equipped with reflectors or painted a noticeable color to call attention to the center part of the scale. 

 

Live Platform 

 

 Not a live part of scale 

 

Live Platform 

 

 Example 2: The same as example 1 except that there is no divider between the scale platforms.

The two (or more) platforms act as a single platform and are tested as one scale.

 

 

Live Platform 

 (may be physically connected) 

 

Live Platform 

 

 64.2.1. Indicator Tests 

 Beam Scales 

 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. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-97 

64.2.2. Shift Tests 

64.2.3. An example of the four-section scale: 

4' 4' 4' 4' 4'

Section

1

 Midway 

between

sections

1& 2 

 Section 

2

 Midway 

between

sections

2 & 3 

 Section 

3

 64.2.3.1. At least two complete sets of shift tests shall be conducted over each section on each 

individual platform to at least 90 percent of the concentrated load capacity (CLC) of 

the combined scales. When loading the scales do not exceed the CLC capacity for the 

individual platforms. 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 more than one weight cart is 

used, they should travel along the paths the wheels of a vehicle would take when 

moving across the scales. 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. The 

load is to be distributed across the section. 

 64.2.3.2. At least one complete set of shift tests to at least 90 percent of the CLC of the 

combined scales shall be conducted at mid-span between sections. When loading the 

scales do not exceed the CLC capacity for the individual platforms.

 64.2.3.3. 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 placed first on one side of the connection line of the 

module, then on the other side of the connection line. 

 64.2.3.4. The results of shift tests are required to agree within the absolute value of the 

applicable maintenance tolerances and must be within acceptance tolerances. 

 64.2.4. Strain Load Test 

 64.2.4.1. At least one strain load test shall be conducted at each end of the scales. The 

maximum load applied during the strain load shall be in the range of 80 percent to 

100 percent of scale capacity. The load is to be distributed over each of the individual 

load receiving elements. 

 64.2.4.2. Load the scale with a vehicle or vehicles so the addition of test weights will provide a 

gross load of 80 percent 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 scales without exceeding the CLC of each individual platform.

 64.2.4.3 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 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-98

a scale division with consideration given for the creep and for any temperature 

changes that may have occurred during this last test cycle. 

 64.2.4.4. 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 to zero; the tare mechanism 

may be used to tare out the strain load. The gross load zero value is needed to 

conduct a decreasing load test as the strain load is removed in the next test. 

64.2.4.5. Repeat the strain load test on the other end of the scale. After reaching the maximum 

test load for the strain load test, remove the strain load but leave the known test 

weights on the scale. The weight indication for the decreasing load test must be 

within tolerance for the known test load. Continue the decreasing load test by 

removing the known test weights. Take several readings as the weights are being 

removed. When all the weights are removed, record the return to zero. The scale must 

return to zero within one half of a scale division. When analyzing the return to zero, 

consideration must be given for the length of time the load was on the scale and for 

possible temperature changes that may have occurred during the test. 

64.2.4.6. Acceptance tolerances are applied only to the known test load in the strain load test. 

 64.2.5. Subsequent Type Evaluation (Field) Permanence Tests 

 This criteria applies if:

 1) The pattern or model has never been evaluated.

 2) The performance indicates that further evaluation is necessary.

3) The design is such that the application of loads near the center of the individual weighing elements 

affects the weighing operation.

 The Subsequent Type Evaluation (Field) Permanence tests may not apply if:

1) The pattern or model has been evaluated previously and it can be demonstrated that the weighing 

performance is not affected by the different loading pattern.

 Test Procedure:

64.2.5.1. A minimum of 40 000 lb of known test weights are needed, or 50 percent of the CLC, 

whichever is greater. 

64.2.5.2. At least one complete set of section tests shall be conducted over each section and at 

mid-span between each section using the known test weights. 

64.2.5.3. At least one strain load test shall be conducted at each end of the scale. The 

maximum applied load shall be in the range of 65 percent to 100 percent of scale 

capacity.

64.2.5.4. The time between the initial field performance test and the subsequent field test will 

be 20 to 30 days. Performance during both tests must be within acceptance 

tolerances. 

64.2.5.5. If a device fails subsequent permanence tests, the entire permanence test must be 

repeated. 

 64.2.6. 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 area of the weight cart in contact with the deck 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-99 

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. 

 64.2.7. Permanence Test Use Requirement For Vehicle Scales 

64.2.7.1. Minimum weighment requirement:

 1) For scales which operate only in double-wide use a minimum of 300 weighing 

operations are required during the test period.

 2) For scales that can operate in both a single and double-wide use one individual 

scale must meet the 300 weighments requirement; and, there shall be a minimum of 

100 weighments in the double-wide use.

 The manufacturer is to log the date, time, and weight. Each entry is to be initialled 

by the person conducting the weighing. 

64.2.7.2. Only loads which have been applied using a method representative of the scales 

intended use can be counted. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-100

Appendix A-2 to 

October 1999 Weighing Sector Meeting Summary 

TO: Weighing Sector 

FROM: Dave Quinn, Fairbanks Scales 

DATE: 9/9/99 

SUBJECT: Application of CLC Rating 

On behalf of Fancor companies, Fairbanks Scale and Thurman Scale, I request the NTEP Weighing Sector review 

the present test procedures for evaluating the Concentrated Load Capacity (CLC) of a vehicle scale. It would 

appear that the present procedures used in NTEP evaluation are a misapplication of the CLC definition. 

The definition of CLC adopted by NCWM is capacity rating of a vehicle scale, specified by the manufacturer, 

defining the maximum axle load concentration on a group of two axles with a centerline spaced 4 feet apart and an 

axle width of 8 feet for which the weighbridge is designed. This definition is consistent with load concentration 

used by the Federal Highway Administration in the design of bridge spans to accommodate the axle load 

configurations of legal highway vehicles, therefore has sound technical basis. 

TEST PATTERNS 

When NCWM discussions opened on the subject of CLC in about 1987 a method of verifying the manufacturers 

specified design load was a necessary part of the discussion. It ultimately was decided to use a strain load test 

pattern defined as a minimum of 4 feet by the width of the scale. This made sense at the time because the normal 

vehicle scale offered in the market place was 10 feet to 11 feet wide. With the maximum vehicle width of 8.5 feet 

allowable on U.S. highways there was no reason to believe scales would get wider. This has turned out to be a bad 

assumption for there are farm vehicles that are as wide as 13 feet and are used in commercial applications. While 

this application is limited, wider scales were required and were submitted for NTEP approval. At first, these wider 

vehicle scales were submitted with the same CLC designation as the 10 feet to 11 feet versions because the design 

load for two axles on 4-foot centers did not change. However the NTEP evaluation did change, instead of applying 

a test load pattern that was 10 feet to 11 feet wide the pattern was spread out over the 14-foot width of the scale 

resulting in less concentration of load. This in itself was not a problem because the manufacturers CLC 

designation was the same. 

The problem began when manufacturers decided to take advantage of the test pattern and submit wider scales and 

claiming high CLC. These manufacturers defined CLC as the maximum weight concentration, designated by the 

manufacturer, that could be place in a test pattern 4 feet by the width of the scale for NTEP evaluation. In most 

cases this was clearly not the manufacturers specified design load for two axles on 4-foot centers 8 feet wide. 

Manufacturer “A” recently received a C of C for a line of vehicle scales 14 feet wide with a CLC rating of 90,000 

pounds. The marketing material issued with the product release states the following: 

 

“It is important to understand that the manufacturers set the amount of weights to be used in NTEP testing for their 

scales, and the total is directly related to the CLC assigned to the scale. The CLC rating resulting from an NTEP 

test is only a measurement of how well the load cells (and load cell suspensions) react to large loads placed on a 

scale deck in a 4-foot by 14-foot area. When a CLC load is applied to the weighbridge during an NTEP test, the 

NTEP tester records the displayed weight If the scale falls within acceptance testing tolerance, the scale has that 

CLC weight value recorded as the CLC on the CC.” This manufacturer was issued a private brand certificate to 

manufacture scales covered under a C of C issued to manufacturer “B” making exactly the same claims. 

Manufacturer “C” is a spin off of manufacturer “B” and predictably uses exactly the same comments in their 

release except they raise the ante to a CLC of 100,000 pounds. 

Manufacturer “D” states in their product promotion “CLC is defined as a pattern 4 feet wide across the width of a 

scale deck. Our models (sic) are available in both 70 000 lb and 110 000 lb Concentrated Load Capacity. CLC is 

defined as a pattern 4 feet wide across the width of a scale deck. Their (sic) literature states “Each module is 

designed for minimal deflection while loaded by a 65 000 lb tandem axle with a 48-inch spread. Their (sic) price 

pages state “80 000 lb tandem axle capacity,” and a larger “120 000 lb tandem axle capacity.” Using sources to 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-101 

determine what these comments meant it was determined that “NTEP allowed claiming a CLC that was 5 tons 

above that approved during test of a specific scale.” 

It could be assumed that these manufacturers are not well informed on NCWM/NTEP definitions except that the 

technical support data defines the load carrying capacity of a dual axle as different that two axles on 4-foot centers 

8-feet wide. Manufacturers “A” and “B” specify that the design load for their scale is based on “ 45 000 pounds 

per axle based on the axle pattern of a Euclid R-50.” As shown on the attached material, a Euclid R-50 has two 

axles on 12-foot 3-inch centers with a width of approximately the same dimension. One can use the Handbook 44 

table UR.3.3.1 to calculate the true CLC from this data. If the design is for two axles on 12-foot 3-inch centers 

instead of the CLC defined 4-foot centers, it is required that the 12-foot 3-inch dimension be rounded to the next 

higher whole foot which is 13 feet. The table indicates an “r” factor of 1.265 for two axles in 13 feet. To determine 

the CLC based on 4-foot centers divide the 90 000-lb design load by the “r” factor and the result is 71 000 plus, 

not 90 000 as claimed on the CC. 

Manufacturer “C” raised the dual axle capacity by claiming 50 000 lb per axle based on the wheel base of a Euclid 

R-50. Using the same rationale divide 100 000 by 1.265 and the result is a true CLC of just below 80 000 lb. 

Side By Side Scales 

The most recent apparent misapplication of the CLC definition has to do with scales placed side by side for 

weighing wide “off highway vehicles” such as the Euclid R-50. In one case, a CC was issued to a company that 

submitted two scales with a previously approved CLC of 80 000 lb. The CC approval rated the resulting scale at 

double the 80 000 lb CLC or 160 000 lb CLC. This rating would imply that the resulting combination is designed 

for 160 000 lb on two axles with 4-foot centers on the same load receiver previously approved for only 80 000 lb 

on the two axles on 4-foot centers. 

Conclusions: 

Based on the above it would appear that NTEP evaluations of vehicle scales: 

 1. Are not evaluating based on existing definitions in Handbook 44. 

2. Lack the technical expertise to evaluate the true design criteria of a device based on the Handbook 44 

definition. 

Recommendations: 

1. Change the Shift Test Pattern to agree with the definition of CLC (4 feet by 8 feet). 

2. Require a manufacturer asking for NTEP to submit design calculations from a registered Professional 

Engineer (PE) substantiating the design load for two axles on 4-foot centers with an 8-foot width. 

If some action is not taken, CLC will become a marketing bullet instead of a useful suitability requirement as 

intended by NCWM. 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-102

Appendix A-3 to 

October 1999 Weighing Sector Meeting Summary 

Examples of “Double-Wide” Scales 

Example 1

DEAD SPACE BETWEEN SCALES 

(0 = load cell or lever load point) 

Each side of the scale is a complete weighing element. The center divider is not part of the weighing element. It 

must be marked, a raised curb, and or equipped with reflectors or painted to call attention to the area that is not 

part of the weighing elements. 

The scale can be tested in any manner that replicates the actual usage. For example: 

Combination highway and extra wide vehicle application would require the scale be tested as 

1) two individual scales, 

2) a “double-wide” scale using multiple pattern loading, and 

3) using two different test loads applied to each section and/or midsection that straddles the two 

weighing elements. This may require that the tare weight of a test vehicle be determined using the 

substitution method as the first weight, and test weights be added to the test vehicle as the second test 

load. 

 “Extra wide vehicles only” application would require the scale be tested as 

1) a “double-wide” scale using multiple pattern loading, and 

2) using two different test loads applied to each section and/or midsection that straddles the two 

weighing elements. This may require that the tare weight of a test vehicle be determined using the 

substitution method as the first weight, and test weights be added to the test vehicle as the second test 

load. 

O O O 

O O O 

O O O 

O O O 
NTEP Committee 

NTEP-103 

Example 2

The “double-wide” scale shares the same pit and cannot be used as two individual scales. 

O O O 

O O O 

O O O 

O O O 

The scale can be tested in any manner that replicates the actual usage. For example: 

Combination highway and extra-wide vehicle application would require the scale be tested as 

1) a “double-wide” scale using multiple pattern loading, 

2) using two different test loads applied to each section and/or midsection that straddles the two 

weighing elements. This may require that the tare weight of a test vehicle be determined using the 

substitution method as the first weight, and test weights be added to the test vehicle as the second test 

load, and 

3) using the test vehicle and test load, roll one side of the vehicle on top of seam between the two 

weighing elements. This will help confirm that there is no binding between the weighing elements. 

An “extra-wide vehicle” application would require the scale be tested as 

1) a “double-wide” scale using multiple pattern loading, and 

2) using two different test loads applied to each section and/or midsection that straddles the two 

weighing elements. This may require that the tare weight of a test vehicle be determined using the 

substitution method as the first weight, and test weights be added to the test vehicle as the second test 

load. 

Example 3

The previous procedures can be applied to modular scales in addition to applying a test load on the right or left 

side of any connection point or directly on top of a connection point. 

O O 

O O 

 

O O 

O O 

O O 

O O 

O O 

O O 

O O 

O O 

O O 

O O 
Acknowledgements 

Ack-1

Acknowledgements

The Resolutions Committee did not meet at the 85th NCWM Annual Meeting because only one member of the Committee was 

present; consequently, there is no Resolutions Committee Report for 2000. However, during the NCWM, Inc., Annual 

Business Session, Chairman Wes Diggs thanked the following individuals and groups who contributed their time and talents to 

ensure the success of the 85th Annual Meeting: 

(1) J. Carlton Courter, III, Commissioner of the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services, Commonwealth of 

Virginia, for his welcome to the participants and guests of the NCWM; 

(2) Sergeants-at-Arms Vernon Lee Massey, Shelby County Weights and Measures, Memphis, TN, and Randell Musser, 

Virginia Product and Industry Standards, for their assistance during Conference sessions; 

(3) Rich Kayser, Director of Technology Services at the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), for his 

remarks to the membership; 

(4) Committee members for their efforts throughout the past year preparing and presenting their reports; the 

subcommittees and work groups for their discerning and appropriate recommendations; 

(5) Regulatory officials of State and local jurisdictions for the advice, interest, and support of weights and measures 

administration in the United States; 

(6) Representatives of business and industry for their cooperation and assistance in committee and Conference work; 

particularly thanks to Frances P. Holland for arranging this year’s Bowl-A-Rama; 

 (7) NCWM Headquarters staff for their dedicated assistance in planning and conducting the work and program of this 

Annual Meeting, especially to Beth Palys, CAE; Beverly Levy, CAE; Amy Omang; and Lynn DiTizio; and 

(8) NIST Office of Weights and Measures Technical Advisors, other OWM staff members, and Henry Oppermann, 

OWM Chief and NCWM Executive Secretary, for their participation in the meeting and continued support of the 

work of the NCWM and its constituency. 
Nominating Committee 

Report of the Nominating Committee 

Aves D. Thompson, Chairman 

Director, Alaska Division of Measurement StandarWCVE 

Reference 

Key No. 

800 

The Nominating Committee met prior to the Interim Meeting at the Hyatt Regency Hotel, Bethesda, MD, at which time the 

Committee nominated the following persons to be officers of the 86th National Conference on Weights and Measures. In 

selecting nominees from the Active membership, the Committee considered professional experience, individuals’ 

qualifications, Conference attendance and participation, and other factors considered to be important. 

The Nominating Committee unanimously voted to select the following slate of officers: 

CHAIRMAN-ELECT: * Ronald Murdock 

North Carolina Department of Agriculture 

BOARD OF DIRECTORS 

CENTRAL REGION Danyl Brown 

State of Iowa 

TREASURER Thomas F. Geiler 

Town of Bamstable, MA 

*Chairman-Elect Richard D. Greek, County of San Luis Obispo, CA, resigned due to an employment opportunity outside 

of the weights and measures community. The Nominating Committee reconvened and nominated Ron Murdock of North 

Carolina as Chairman-Elect. 

A. Thompson, AK, Chairman 

8. Bloch, CA 

S. Colbrook, IL 

C. Gardncr, Suffolk County, NY 

T. Geiler, Bamstable, MA 

N. D. Smith, NC 

J. Truex, OH 

Nominating Committee 

Nom-I 
List of Participants 

Bruce Adam 

MN Dept of Public Service 

Roseville, MN 55113 

(651) 628-6852, FAX: (651) 639-4014 

Email: badams@dpsv.state.mn.us 

2277 nv 36 

Cary Ainsworth 

USDA GIPSA 

100 Alabama St SW. Ste 5R10 

AtlanmGA 30303 

(404)562-5840, FAX. (404)562-5848 

Email: LCAinsworth@usda.gov 

William Baker 

APA - ’Ihc Engind Wood Association 

PO Box 117oO 

Tacoma, WA 98411-0700 

(253)565-6600, FAX: (253)565-7265 

Email: bill.baker@apawood.org 

Ron Bake 

MI Lkpt of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895 

(517)655-8202, FAX: (517)655-8303 

Email: balazer@state.mi.us 

Andres Alvnrez Jennifer Bsnb 

VA Dept of Agriculture & Consumer Services National Air Transportation Association 

PO Box 1163 4226 King Street 

Richmond, VA 23218 Alexandria, VA 22302 

(804)786-2476. FAX: (804)786-1571 (703)845-9000. FAX: (703)845-8176 

Email: aalvarez@vdacs.state.va.us Email: jbanksanata-online.org 

Ross J. Andersen Mal Barrett, Jr. 

NY Bmu of Wghts & Meas Tsnksat 

1 Winners Cile 432 Westridge Drive 

Albany.NY 12235 Pmwtt,AZ 86301 

(518)457-3146. FAX. (518)457-5693 FAX: 

Email: agmweigh@nysnet.net hail: 

Chris Bagley James R Bass 

Rice Lake Wei&ing System 

PO Box 906 

Hiurah,OK 73045 Franklin. VA 23851 

(405)454-3290, FAX: (405)454-6092 

Email: chrbag@rlws.com Email: 

VA Products & Industry Stds 

1100 Armory Dr Apt 120 

(757)562-6637. FAX: (757)562-6104 

John A. Baker 

Pier 1 Imports 

301 Commerce Suite 600 

Fort Worth, TX 76102 

(817)252-8306. FAX: (817)252-6220 

Email: vjlwker@pierl.com Email: jbnm@vdacs.state.va.us 

John L. Bates 

VA Products & Industry Stds 

234 W Shirley Ave 

Wamnton. VA 20186 

(804)786-0479, FAX: (540)347-6384 

F. Michael Belue 

Belue Associates 

1319 Knight Drive 

Murfrcesboro.TN 37128 

(615)867-1010. FAX: (615)867-0609 

Email: Bassoc@aol.eom 

Celeste Bennett 

MI Dept of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston. MI 48895 

Email: bcnnettc9@state.mi.us 

(517)655-8202, FAX: (517)655-8303 

Wesley Berry 

Memphis Weights & Measures 

590 Washington Street 

Memphis, TN 38105 

(901)528-2904, FAX: (901)523-2948 

Email: 

Donald Blankenship 

VA Dept of Agriculture & Consumer 

PO Box 1163 

Richmond, VA 23218 

(804)786-2476, FAX: (804)786-1571 

Email: blankenship@vdacs.statc.va.us 

Herman Blanton 

Mctlkr Toledo Inc. 

1900 Polaris Parkway 

Columbus, OH 43240-2020 

614-438-4829. FAX: 800-582-3362 

Email: human.blantonfi4mt.com 

Hamld D. Bradsbnw 

Clark Co Wghts & Meas 

City County Bldg Room 314 

Jeffersonville. IN 471 30-4087 

(812)285-6289. FAX: 

Email: 

P- 1 
List of Participants 

2000 Annual Meeting Attendees 

William D. Brasher 

Southem Company Services 

PO Box 2641 Mail Bin: 14N 8163 

Birmingham, AL 35291 

Email: william.d.brasher@scsnet.com 

(205)257-7653, FAX: (205)257-5765 

William A. Braun 

Rc(ircd-P&G 

5743 Jeffrey Place 

Fairfield, OH 45014-3524 

(513) 829-2106, FAX: (513) 829-9892 

Email: bbraun1947@aoi.com 

Darryl Brown 

HA Wallace Building 

Dcs Moines, IA 50319 

(515) 281-5716, FAX: (515) 281-6800 

Email: Danyl.Brown@idals.statc.ia.us 

JA Dcpt of Agriculture 

Rodger C. Brown 

TX Dept of Agriculture 

119 Cumberland Rd 

Austin.TX 78704 

(512)462-1441, FAX: 

Email: rbrown@agr.statc.tx.us 

Norman R. Backer 

Recision Measurement Srandards. Inc. 

1665 135th Strect West 

Roscmont, MN 55068 

(651)423-3241. FAX: (651)322-7938 

Email: 

Charles M. Bruckner 

PA Dept of Agriculture 

2301 N Cameron St 

Harrisburg. PA 17110-9408 

(717)787-9089, FAX: (717)783-4158 

Email: 

Robert T. Bambaugh 

Systrms Aspociates Inc 

1932 Induskid Dr 

(847)367-6650, FAX: (847)367-6960 

Email: rtbmmbaugh@systcmvlssoc.com 

Libertyville, IL 60048 

Phillip Brysou 

NIST 

100 Burcau Drive MIS 2350 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2350 

(301)975-4004, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: phillip.bryson@nist.gov 

Mark Buccelli 

MN Dept Public ServiCJwBiM Div 

2277 Highway 36 

Roseville, MN 55113 

(651)628-6850. FAX: (651)639-4014 

Email: mbuecelli@dpsv.statc.mn.us 

Gerald A. Buendel 

WA Dept of Agriculture 

PO Box 42560 

Olympia, WA 98504-2560 

(360)902-1856, FAX: (360)902-2086 

Email: jbucndel@agr.wagov 

Charles A. Bums, Jr. 

Birmingham Wgbts & Meas 

City Hall Rm 207 710 N 20th St 

Birmingham.AL 35203 

(205)254-2246, FAX: (205)254-2925 

Email: 

Ken Butcher 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive M/S 2350 

Gaithersburg. MD 20899-2350 

(301)975-4834. FAX: (301)975-5414 

Email: kbutchr@nist.gov 

Tina G. Butcher 

NIST 

Bldg 820 Rm 223 

Gaitkrsburg. MD 20899 

(301)975-2196. FAX: (301)926-0647 

Emaii: tinabutcher@nist.gov 

Donald W. Butts, DVM 

VA Dept of Agriculture &Consumer 

PO Box 1163 

Richmond. VA 23218 

(804)786-2476. FAX: (804)7861571 

Email: 

Richard Calkins 

Rice Lake Weighing Systems 

230 West Coleman St 

Rice Lake, WI 54868 

(715)234-9171 ~5113. FAX: (7151234 

Email: riccal@rlws.com 

Paul Calvanelli 

Burcau &Ride & Measurement Standa 

2301 N. Cameron Strect 

Harrisburg, PA 17110 

(717)787-9089, FAX: (717)783-4158 

Email: 

Loretta Carey 

pood and hug Administration 

200 c stnet, sw 

Washington.DC 2W 

(202)205-5099, FAX: (202)205-4594 

Email: 

G. Edward Carpenter 

Pennsylvania Standards Lab 

Harrisburg, PA 17125 

(717)787-6426. FAX: (717)705-0882 

Email: ECarpcntcr@excc.gsinc.statc.p 

2221 FO~S~C~ St Rm G-44A 
List of Participants 

2000 Annual Meeting Attendees 

John S. Carr 

Columbus Weights and Measures 

440 3rd shect 

Columbus, IN 47201 

(8 13379- 1507, FAX: (8 13379- 1765 

Email: 

Charles H. Carroll 

MA Division of Standards 

One Ashburton Place, Room1 1 I5 

Boston, MA 02108 

(617) 727-3480, FAX: (617) 727-5705 

Email: Qlarles.Carroll@state.ma.us 

Charles D. Carter 

OK Dept of Agriculture 

Po Box 528804 

Oklahoma City, OK 73152-8804 

(405) 522-5968, FAX: (405) 522-4584 

Email: charlesc@oda.state.ok.us 

James P. Cassidy, Jr. 

Cambridge Weights & Measures 

831 Massachusetts Ave 

Cambridge, MA 02139 

(617)349-6133. FAX: (617)349-6134 

Email jcassidy @CI.Cambridge.MA.US 

Stephen Casto 

WV Division of Labor Weights & Measures 

P.O. Box 8743 

South Charleston, WV 25303 

(304)722-0602. FAX: (304)722-0605 

Email scasto@labor-state.wv.us 

Carlos Cayedo 

SIC 

Bogota, Colombia 

, FAX: 

Email: delproto@sic.gov.co 

Louis T. Cerny 

Consultant 

310 Summit Hall Rd 

Gaithersburg, MD 20877 

(301)947-0208. FAX. (301)947- 1296 

Email: ltcerny @erols.com 

Samuel E. Chappell 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive MIS 2350 

Gaithersburg. MD 20899-2350 

(301)975-4024, FAX: (301)975-5414 

Email: 

Raymond P. Cioffi 

VT Weights &Measures 

103 South Main Street 

Waterbury, VT 05671-0101 

Email: rayciofi@yahoo.com 

(802)244-4510, FAX: (802)241-3008 

Buddy Clark 

Hamilton Co Weights & Measures 

101 Monticello Court 

Noblesville, IN 46060-5442 

(317)773-4713, FAX: (317)776-8454 

Email: 

J.G. Clark 

Wal-Mart Inc. 

702 SW 8th Smt 

Bentonville. AR 72716 

(501)277-0521, FAX: (501)273-1911 

Email: 

Richard Claussen 

Porter County 

155 Indiana Avenue 

Valparaiso, IN 46383 

USA 

(219)465-3585, FAX: (219(465-3592 

hail: 

Mike Cleary 

CA Div. of Measurement Standards 

8500 Fruitridge Road 

Sacramento, CA 95826 

(916)229-3ooO. FAX: (916)229-3026 

Email: mclcary @cdfa.ca.gov 

Fred P. Clem 

Columbus Weights & Measures 

240 Greenlawn Avenue 

Columbus, OH 43223 

(614)645-7397. FAX: (614)645-3994 

Email: fpclem@c"etro.net 

William Cobb 

WV Weights L Measures 

570 Mdonkle Ave. West 

Saint Albans. WV 25177 

(304)722-0602, FAX: (304)722-0605 

Email: wcobb@labor.state.wv.us 

Sidney A. Colbrook 

IL Dcpt of Agriculture 

PO Box 19281 801 E Sangamon Ave 

Springfield, IL. 62794-9281 

(217)785-8301, FAX: (217)524-7801 

Email: scolb~k@agr.slate.iI.us 

Billy Cole 

Precision Solutions 

2525 Tollgate. Road 

Quakertown. PA 18951-5306 

(215)536-4400. FAX: (215)536-1096 

Email: 

Thomas Coleman 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive MIS 2350 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2350 

(301)975-4868, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: t.coleman@nist.gov 

P-3 
List of Participants 

2000 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Steven E. Cook Mark P. Coyne 

CA Measurement Standa~Js Brockton Weights & Mcasures 

8MO Fruitridge Rd City Hall Rm BIZ 45 School St 

Sacramento, CA 95826 Brockton. MA 02301-9927 

(916) 229-3043, FAX. (916) 229-3026 (508)580-7120, FAX. (M8)58&7173 

Email: SCook@cdfa.ca.gov Email: Mcasures@aol.com 

Clark Cooney Lenord J. Craft 

OR Dept of Agriculture 

635 Capitol Street NE 

Salem, OR 97301-2532 

(503) 986-4677, FAX: (503)986-4784 

Tulare Co Dept Agr Comm/Sealer 

2500 W Bum1 Avenue 

Visalia, CA 93291-4584 

(559)733-6391. FAX: (559)733-6568 

Email: ccooney@oda.state.ous Email: l&@co.lularc.~us 

Rodney Cooper Donald 0. Cripe 

Schlumbcrgcr Industries 

1310Emdd 3800 Cornucopia Way #B 

Orrenwood,SC 29646 Modesto, CA 95358-9492 

(864) 942-2226, FAX. (864) 223-0341 

Email: Email: AGCOM5O@THEVlSlON.NET 

Stanislaus Co Dept AgrN&M 

(209)525-4730. FAX: (209)525-4790 

William J. Corey, Jr. 

AmehcanFmzenFoodp NISTMetric Program 

355 Benton Strect 

Seatfwd, CF 06615-7300 Gaithersburg.MD 20899 

Email: billwrcy9snetnct Email: linda.crown9nist.gov 

Linda Crown 

100 Bureau Drive Stop ZOO0 

(203) 378-7900 X3405, FAX: (203) 386-8683 (301)975-3998, FAX: (301)948-1416 

Constantine V. Cotsoradls Will Cnnningham 

KS Dcpt ofA& W & M Div Burlington Northan Santa PC 

Po Box 19282 Forbes Blvd. Bldg. 282 107 N Gilletle Avenue 

Topcka,KS 66619-0282 Gilletre. WY 82716 

(785)862-2415. FAX: (785)86%2460 , FAX: 

Empil: ccocsota9kdastate.ks.us Email: 

J. Cnrlton Carter 1II 

VA Dept of Agriculture & Consumer Services 

PO Box 1163 

Richmond, VA 23218 

(804)786-2476. FAX: (804)786-1571 

Email: Email: dcrricop@srnQ.lps.stacc.nj.us 

Pasquale D'Errico 

NJ Weights & Mcasurcs 

1261 US Route 1 & 9 South 

Avenel. NJ 07001 

(732) 815-4842, FAX: (732) 382-5298 

Pedro Da Ros 

Toledo do Brasil Industria de Balansas 

R do Manifesto, 11 83 

Sao Paulo, 

Bd 

, FAX: 

Email: 

James Daggon 

Digi Americas 

80 oak strect 

Nowood. NJ 07648 

(201)784-3400. FAX: (201)784-3770 

Email: jdaggon@digimatcx.com 

Larry Dalton 

GA Dept of Agriculture 

19 MLK Drive 

Atlanta,GA 30334 

(404)656-3605. FAX: (404)656-9648 

Email: 

A. Raymond Daniels 

184 Frtyn Dr 

Dayton, OH 45458-2235 

hail: ardanicls9juno.com 

(937) 433-8435. FAX: 

Richard L. Dah 

Fat James Corp 

1915 Marathon Ave PO Box 899 

NeenahWI 54956-0899 

Email: richard.davisOfottj~tnail.cc 

(920)729-8174, FAX: (920)729-8089 

R.F. Demory 

VA Roduct & Industry Stda 

234 W Shirley Ave 

Wamnton, VA 20186 

(540)347-6383. FAX: (540)347-6413 

Emaik 

P-4 
List of Participants 

2000 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Dave B. DeVallance 

TECO Corporation 

2402 Daniels Street 

Madison, WI 53718 

(608)221-3361, FAX: (608)226-0885 

Email: davedev@pfs-teco.com 

John Dewald 

Tiffin Loader Croane Company 

1775 South County Road 1 

Tiffin, OH 44883 

(419)448-8156, FAX: (419)448-9558 

Email: 

G.W. (Wes) Diggs 

VA Products & Industry Stds 

Po Box 1163 Room 402 

Richmood. VA 23218 

(804)786-2476. FAX: (804)786-1571 

Email: gdiggs@vdacs.state.va.us 

Xiaoping Du 

Chinese Society for Measurement 

PO Box 1413 No.18 Beisanhuan Donglu 

Beijing, 100013 

China 

, FAX: 

Email: 

Clyde L. Duncan 

DekaScaleInc 

1144 Expressway Dr South 

Toledo, OH 43608 

(419)727-9731, FAX. (419)727-9735 

Email: clyde.duncan@deksscaIc.com 

William Eagan 

Ramsey Technology, Inc. 

501 90th Avenue NW Minneapolis. MN 55433 

(612)783-2671. FAX: (612)780-1537 

Email: 

L.F. Eason 

NC Dept of Agriculture 

4040 District Dr 

Raleigh, NC 27607 

(919)733-4411, FAX: (919)733-8804 

Email: LF.Eason@ncmail.net 

John D. Edmond, Jr. 

USDA GIPSA 

Room 3412 SOAGB 14 & Indepedence Ave. 

sw 

Washington, DC 20250 

(202) 720-5841, FAX: (202) 690-3207 

Email: john-d.edmond9usdagov 

Dennis Ebrhart 

AZ Dept of Weights & Measures 

4425 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 134 

Glendale, AZ 85302 

(623)463-9937, FAX: (aoZ)255- 1950 

Email: dehrhart@wm.state.az.us 

Chuck Ehrlich 

NET 

100 Burcau Drive, Room 251, Stop 2150 

Gaithersburg. MD u)899-2150 

(301)975-4834. FAX: (301)975-5414 

Email: charles.ehrlich@nist.gov 

James Etter 

City of Hammond 

649 conkey Smet 

Hammond, IN 46324 

(219)853-6377, FAX: (219)853-6403 

Email: 

Robert K. Feezor 

Norfolk Southem Corp 

35 Stonington Place 

Marietta, GA 30068 

(404)527-2537. FAX: (404)527-2589 

Email: rkfeezor@nscorp.com 

Horacio Ferrandu 

Secretaria de Industria, Comercio y MI 

Buenos Aires, Argentina 

, FAX: 

Email: hoferrQmecon.gov.ar 

Cat0 R. Fibdal 

CA Ag. Comm. & Sealers Assn. 

12300 Lower Azusa Road 

Arcadia, CA 91006-5872 

(626)575-545 1, FAX: (626)350-3423 

Email: cato9acwm.co.laca.w 

Jerry Flanders 

GA Dept of Agriculture 

Agr Bldg 19 MLK Drive Room 321 

Adanta, GA 30334 

(404)656-3605. FAX: (404)656-9648 

Email: jflandcr@agr.state.ga.us 

Darrell E. Flocken 

Mettler-Toledo Inc 

1150 Dcarbom Drive 

Worthington, OH 43085 

(614)438-4393. FAX: (614)438-4355 

Email: darreU.flccken@mt.com 

Kurt Floren 

San Diego Co Weights & Measures 

5555 Ovcrland Avenue. Building 3 

San Diego, CA 92123 

(858)694-2193. FAX: (858)505-6184 

Email: Moren@co.snndiego.caus 

Sybil Foley-Kalail 

Summit Co Weights & Measures 

1030 E Tallmadge Ave 

Akron, OH 44310-3516 

(330)630-7225, FAX: (330)630-7240 

Email: 

P-5 
List of participants 

2000 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Patrick Forester 

Tx Dept of AgriCulNn 

119cumberlandRd 

Austin,TX 78704 

(512)462-1441. FAX: (512)475-1642 

Email: pFonrte@agr.st.tc.tx.us 

Maurice J. Fwkert 

Tuthill TRnsfa systems 

8825 Aviation Drive 

Fat Wayne. IN 46809 

(219)747-7529, FAX: (219)747-7064 

Email MforlrcrtQtuthillmm 

Sherry R. Fowlken 

Fort Wayne Wghts & Mus 

1903 St M.ry's Ave 

paawape.IN 46808 

(219)427-1157, FAX: (217)427-5789 

Email: sherry.fowUrcs9ci.ft-wayne.in.us 

David Frieden 

SM FMci City and County 

501 Ccur Chaw% ClO9A 

sm RMci, CA 94124 

(415)8246100. FAX: (415)285-8776 

Email: &veJrkh@ci.sf.uus 

Cary P. Fryc 

InmMtidDniryMh 

1250H St NW Ste 900PO Box 549 

wuhingtoa,Dc2Mw)5 

(202)137-4332. FAX: (wz) 331-7820 

Ermil: CfryeQidtrag 

Bob Fnehne 

Ralston Purina Co 

StLouis.MO 63164 

(314) 982-2916. FAX. (314)-9824240 

Enuil: rfuehne9raL5ton.com 

~~square-4RN 

Card P. Wmer 

SC Dcpt of Agricultun 

PO Box 11280 

Columb*, sc 29211 

(803)737-9690. FAX: (803)737-9703 

Email: cfulmerQscdastarc.sc.us 

Mike Gdlo 

Wayne Div-Dmsu Mushies 

Salisbuy. MD 21802-1859 

(410)546-6859. FAX: (410)548-6913 

Email: drj@mpe.com 

124 w cokp A= Po BOX 1859 

Chark. A. Gardncr 

Suffolk CO Wghts &Mus 

P.O. Box 6100 

H.upprye. NY 11788 

(516)853-4621. FAX: (516)853-4578 

Emril: chatlcs.gardncxQeo.6uffolkny.u 

Joseph F. Gciucr 

Ria Lake Weighing Systems 

3GcnopSt 

N Rovidence, RI 02904 

(401) 7260470, FAX: (401) 728-2720 

Enuil: japi9rlws.wm 

Steve P. Gill 

MO DepL of Agiculturc 

PO Box 630 

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0630 

(573)751-5639, FAX: (573)751-U281 

Email: 

Thomas Gills 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive MIS 2350 

Gaithersburg. MD 2M99-2350 

(301)9754005. FAX: (301)9260647 

Email: 

Gary R. Gist 

Hod Co Wghts &Mus 

100 S Union-City Hall Floor I 

Kokomo. IN 46901 

(765)456-7466. FAX: 

Email: 

Joe Gwa 

NMDcptofAgIidalrc 

MSC 3170. Po BOX 30005 

La%cNces,NM 88003-8005 

(505)646-1616, FAX: (505)646-2361 

Email: jgomuQNnd.-bubbn.ed~ 

Don Gondie 

stowe Rcrclrch Intemrtiolul 

loo0 Business Cab% Cile. Suite 20 

(805)498-5450. FAX: (805)449-3640 

lbourando.~s.c~ 91320 

Ermil:dgoldkQstormrcaarchcom 

G=Y G-P 

Hsrdwood Plywood &VauerApsoc. 

1825 Michael Faraday Drive I PO Box 

Reston. VA 20195-0789 

(703) 435-2900. FAX. (703) 435-2537 

Email: grrmpQhpva.org 

P-6 
List of Participants 

2000 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Lwia Greenleaf 

NJ Weights & Measures 

1261 US Route I & 9 South 

Aveml. NJ 07001 

(732)815-4845, FAX: (732)382-5298 

Email: 

Michael F. Grenier 

NH Dept of Agr Markets & Food 

25 Capitol Saes PO Box 2042 

concord. NH 03302-2042 

(603)271-3709, FAX: (603)27l-1109 

Email: 

Michael Grimm 

Jefferson Co Wghts & Mcas 

PO Box 159 

Steubenville. OH 43952 

(740)283-8511. FAX: (740)283-8520 

hail: 

Andrew Gluy 

5299 Spring Grove Av Ivry Dale Tech 

Cincid.0H 45040 

(513)627-6016, FAX: (513)627-6086 

Email: guay.cb@pg.com 

Christopher B. Guay 

Roaer&cnmbeCo 

5299 Spring Grove Av Ivry Dale Tech 

Cincid.OH 45040 

(513)627-6016. FAX: (513)627-6086 

Email: guay.cb@pg.com 

Lh Guay 

5299 Spring Grove Av Ivry Dale Tech 

Cincinnati. OH 45040 

(513)627-6016. FAX: (513)627-6086 

Email: guay.cb@pg.com 

Brett Gnrney 

UT Dcpl of mculturc & Food 

PO Box 146500 

Salt Lakc City, UT 841 14-6500 

(801)538-7158. FAX: (801)538-7126 

hail: 

Steve Hadder 

FL Dept of Agr & Cons Services 

3125 Conmr Blvd. Bldg 1, Room 14 

Tallahassee. FL. 32399-1650 

(850) 487-2634, FAX: (850) 922-6655 

Email: haddas@doms.state.fl.us 

Paul Hadyka 

USDA GIPSA 

1400 lndependena Avc SW 

Washington, DC 20250-3631 

202-720-0262, FAX: 202-720-1015 

Email: phadyka@gipsadc.usda.gov 

Sandra Hde 

NIST 

100 Burrau Drive, Stop 2100 

Gaithemburg, MD 20899-2100 

hail: sandra.halc@nistgov 

(301)975-3609, FAX: (301)975-4715 

Phllip G. Hannigan 

ScakMan-ASsn 

6724 Lone Oak Blvd 

Naples.FL 34109 

(941)514-3441, FAX: (941)514-3470 

Email: phil@scalcmanufsct.org 

Georgia Harris 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive MIS 2350 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2350 

(301)975-4014. FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: gharris@nist.gov 

Larry HaMeld 

KY Dcpt of Agriculture 

106 west 2nd street 

Frankfort,KY 40601 

(502)564-4870. FAX: (502)564-5669 

Email: Ihattield@mail.statc.ky.us 

Rondd G. Hayes 

MO Dcpt of Agriculture 

PO Box 630 

Jefferson City, MO 65 I02 

(573)751-2922, FAX: (573)751-8307 

Email: Ron-Hayes@mail.mdastate.m 

David K. Heck 

Chevron Products CO 

6001 Bollinger Canyon Rd Bldg L 

San Ramon, CA 94583-2348 

Emsil: dkhc@chevron.com 

(925)842-6033. FAX: (925)842-8710 

Bernard Hesake 

Jefferson Co Wghts & Meas 

PO Box 159 Counhouse 

Stcubcnvillc. OH 43952 

(740)283-8511, FAX: (740)283-8520 

hail: 

Mike Hile 

ARBurauofStandards 

4608 West 61st St 

LittleRockAR 72209 

(501)570-1159. FAX: (501)562-7605 

Email: mike.hilc9aspb.state.ar.us 

Joe Ajermstad 

SD Ofice of Weights & Measures 

118 West Capitol 

Piem, SD 57501-2080 

hail: joc.hjemstad@ststc.sd.us 

(605)773-3697. FAX: (605)773-663 I 

P-7 
List of Participants 

Herman R. Hochstetler 

Elkhaft Co. Wghts L Meas 

117 N 2nd Room 107 

Goshen. IN 46526-3231 

(219)535-6472, FAX: (219)535-6622 

Email: elwtmeas8npcc.net 

Frances P. Holland 

Southem Enterprises 

4148 Quaker Drive 

Suffolk, VA 23437 

(757)986-3442, FAX: (804)730-1313 

Email: fran-holland@yahoo.com 

Steadman L. Hollis 

AL. Dept of Agr & Industry 

PO Box 3336 

Montgomry. AL 36109-0336 

(334) 240-7133. FAX: (334)240-7175 

Email: 

Monty A. Hopper 

Kern Co Weights & Measures 

11 16 East California Avenue 

Bakersfield, CA 93307 

(661)861-2418, FAX: (661)324-0668 

Email: hoppcrm8co.kem.ca.us 

Emestine Horsham 

Jamaica Bureau of Standards 

6 Winckter Road 

Kingston, Jamaica 

, FAX: 

Email: jbs@cwjamaica.com 

Leonard J. Hubert 

OH Department of Agriculture Division 

Weights & Measures 

8995 East Main Street 

Reynoldsburg. OH 43068 

(614)728-6290. FAX: (614)728-6424 

Email: hubert8odant.agri.st.oh.us 

Alan Johnston 

MersurcmcntCanada 

Main Building No. 4. Tunney's Pastur 

Ottawa, Ontario KIA0 

Canada 

(613)952-0655, FAX: (613)957-1265 

Email: johnston.alan 8ic.gc.ca 

John Hunt 

Delaware County Weights L Measures 

100 West Main Street 

Muncie. IN 47305 

(765)747-7730. FAX: (765)747-7899 

Email: 

Jack Y. Jeffries Richard Jordan 

FL Dept of Agriculture & Cons Svs Se.raphin Test Measure Co. 

3125 Conner Blvd Field Ops Bldg 1, Room 14 PO Box 227f30 Indel Ave. 

Tallahassee. FL 32399-1650 Rancocas, NJ 08073-0227 

(850)487-2634, FAX: (850)922-6655 (609) 267-0922, FAX: (609) 261-254f 

Email: jeffrij8doacs.state.fl.us Email: rjordan8.waphinusa.mm 

Randy F. Jennings Jack Kane 

TN Dept of Agriculture 

PO Box 40627 Melme Station PO Box 200512 

Nashville, 'I" 37204 

(615)837-5147. FAX: (615)837-5335 

Email: rjennings38mail.state.tn.u~ Email: jkane8STATE.MT.US 

htT Bur of Weights L Measures 

Helena, MT 59620-0512 

(406)444-3934, FAX: (406)444-4305 

Mark R. Joelson 

Jockon Law ORice 

1776 K Street, Suite 300 

Washington.DC 20006 

(202)785-4155, FAX: 

Email: 

Rich Kayser 

NIST 

100 Bureau hive MIS 2350 

Gaithersburg. MD 20899-2350 

(301)975-4005. FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: r.kayser9Nst.gov 

Dennis Johanaes Michael J. Kellty 

CA Measurement Staadards 

8500 Fruihidge Rd 

Sa"ento, CA 95826 Boulder,CO 80301 

(916)229-3006, FAX: (916)229-3026 

Email: DJohannes@cdfaca.gov Email: mikek8mimmotion.com 

Micro Motion Inc 

7070 Winchester Cile 

(303) 530-8231, FAX: (303) 530-8455 

of Gordon W. Johnson Jeffrey A. Kelly 

Marconi c0"Crce Systems 

7300 West Friendly Avenue 

Greensboro. NC 27420 

(336)547-5375, FAX: (336)547-5516 

Email: GordonJohnson8Gilbarco.Com Email: jkelly8hofferflow.com 

Hoffer Flow Controls Inc 

107 Kitty Hawk Lane 

Elizabeth City, NC 27909 

(252) 331-1997. FAX: (252) 331-288f 
List of Participants 

2000 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Amy Kiernan 

Dept of Consumer Assurance, City of SF 

501 Cesar Chavez St. 1094 

San Francisco, CA 94124 

, FAX: 

Email: 

Ted Kingsbury 

Measurement Canada 

11 Holland Ave. X513 Tower A 

Ottawa, Ontario KIA OC9 

Canada 

(613)941-8919, FAX: (613) 952-1736 

Chip Kioos 

Colgate-Palmolive Company 

PO Box 1343 909 River Rd 

Piscataway, NJ 08855-1343 

(732)878-7101. FAX: (732)878-7844 

Email: Chip-Kloos@colpal.com 

Joan A. Koenig 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive MIS 2350 

Gaithersburg. MD 20899-2350 

(301)975-4007, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: jkocnig@nist.gov 

Michael J. Kramer 

VA Products & Industry Stds 

1 N 14th St Room 025 

Richmond, VA 23219 

(804)786-0479, FAX: (804)371-0351 

Email: "ner@vdacs.state.va.us 

Dennis A. Krueger 

NCR Corp 

2651 Satellite Boulevard 

Duluth.GA 30096 

(770)623-7743, FAX: (770)623-7827 

Email: dennis.kmeger@atlantaga.ncr.com 

William Lagemann 

DE Dept of Agriculture 

2320 S Dupont Hwy 

Dover.DE 19901 

Email: lagemann@dda.state.de.us 

(302)739-48 11 , FAX. (302)697-6287 

Gary Lameris 

Hobart Corp 

Executive offices 701 Ridge Avenue 

Troy, OH 45374 

(937)332-3053. FAX: (937) 332-3007 

Email: lamergj@pmifeg.com 

Leon Lammers 

Weigh-Tronix Inc 

lo00 Armstrong Dr Fairmont. MN 56031-1439 

Email: 

(800)533-0456. FAX. (507)238-8255 

Janet L. Land 

NIST/Office of Wghts L Meas 

100 Bureau Drive MIS 2350 

(301)975-5195. FAX. (301)926-0647 

Email: janet.land@Rist.gov 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2350 

Robert L. Land 

Anderson Weights &Measures 

Aderson City Bldg PO Box 2100 

Anderson. IN 46011-1592 

(765)646-6186, FAX: (317)646-9886 

Email: 

John M. Landis 

AK Div Measurement SWCVE 

12050 Industry Way; Bldg 0. Suite 6 

Anchorage, AK 99515 

Email: johnJandis@dot.state.ak.us 

(907)345-7846, FAX: (907)345-6835 

Stephen Langord 

Cardinal Scale Mfg Co 

203 East Daugherty PO Box 151 

Webb City, MO 64870 

Email: slangford@cardet.com 

(417)673-4631. FAX. (417)673-5001 

Kelleen K. Larson 

AZ De@ of Weights & Measures 

4425 W. Olive Avenue, Suite 134 

G1endale.M 85302 

(602)451-2972, FAX: (602)661-6688 

Email: klmon@wm.state.az.us 

G. Diane Lee 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive MIS 2350 

Gaithersburg. MD 20899-2350 

(301)975-4405. FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: diane.lee@nist.gov 

Craig Leisy 

Seattle Consumer Affairs Unit 

805 S Dearborn Stnet 

Seattle, WA 98134 

(206) 386-1296, FAX: (206) 386-1125 

Email: craig.leisy@ci.seattie.wa.us 

Maria Cristina Leiva 

servicio Nacional del Consumid01 

Santiago. Chile 

, FAX: 

Email: leiva2@latinmail.com 

Brian Lemon 

Industry canada-Gnn@tion Bureau 

400 St Mary Ave 4th Floor 

Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 4K5 

Canada 

(204)983-8911, FAX: (204)983-5511 

Email: 1emon.brianBic.gc.ca 

P-9 
List of Participants 

Anthony Lori 

Marid Co Wghts & Meas 

10 nwy Hills Rd 

Whippm~y,NJ 07981 

(973)887-0211, FAX: 

Email: 

Robert X. Louys 

MS DeptofAgr &Commerce 

121 N. Jeffersotl 

Jsclcson,MS 39201 

(601)359-1101, FAX: (601)354-6m 

Email: mbert8mdcastuc.ms.us 

2000 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Jeff K. Lovegrove 

Howard Co Weights & Masures 

100 South Union 

Kdromo.IN 46901 

(765)456-7466, FAX: (765)45&7571 

Email: 

L. Edwud hthy 

1424 sale St sw 

c.ntoll.OH 44706 

(330)458-2424, FAX: (330)453-5322 

Bmril: 

Jamw F. Lyia 

Retkd-VA Weights & Mensum 

7806 Lycuning Rd 

R~C~~OMLVA 23229-4227 

(804)285-0559. FAX: 

Email: jimlylcs@mls.com 

I 

Steven A. Mdone 

NE Div of Wghts & Mus 

Box 94757/301 Centennial Mall South 

Lincoln. NE 685094757 

(402)471-4292, FAX: (402)471-2759 

Email: stcvenam@agr.state.ne.us 

SheryI A. Marcouiller 

KrpttpoodsInc 

'IhrseLaLesDriveM.ilcodeNF363 

Nathfield, lL 60093-2753 

(847) 6464206. FAX: (847) 646-4432 

Emmail: sIMKoUiUerBlarftcnn 

Lam T. Marmuter 

M& Irdurtries, Inc. 

1OAlUlWDIiVC 

LYM Haven IT. 32444 

(850)271-7829, FAX: (850)265-9768 

Bmail: Inrs8"ick-inc.unn 

Patrick J Marsid 

Jefferson CO Wghts & Mus 

Po Box 159 

Stcubearilk. OH 43952 

(740)283-8512. FAX: (740)283-852Q 

Email: 

Stephen A. Martin 

NY Buresu of Wgh & Mur 

NY State Fairpuds, State Fair Blvd. 

Syww.NY 13209 

(315)487-2250. FAX: (315)487-2408 

Ermil: weighsyrBnysnct.net 

Vernon Lee 

Sbelby Co Weights & Musum 

157 Poplar suite 402 

Memphis.W 38103 

(901)545-3920, FAX: (901)545-3906 

Email: 

Michael Mathla 

E.J. Brooks Company 

3009 Village Court 

Morg~lon,NC 28655 

(828)438-3837. FAX: (973)597-2939 

Email: 

Terence McBride 

Memphis Weights & Measwa 

590 Washington St 

Munphis.TN 38105 

Email: tmcbridcBmcmphis.rmibox.ne 

(901)528-2905. FAX: (901)528-2948 

Thomu McCee 

PMP Corp 

Po BOX 422 25 security ~r 

Avw. (JT o6oo1-0422 

(860) 677-9656, FAX: (860) 67401% 

Email: tmcgeeBpLnpatp.com 

Richard McMurry 

Mom Co Wghtr & Meas 

119w7Ihst 

BIooakgton.IN 47401 

(812)349-2566. FAX: (812)339-6481 

Email: 

Patrick Mercer 

94OVentunLsne 

Williamstoll,MI 48895 

(517)655-8202. FAX: (517)655-8303 

MIDeptofAgricUlhm 

Email: mcronp9stuc.mi.w 

Nigel C. MUlr 

H0b.rt-P 

701 Ridge Aveclue 

~roy,on 453744001 

(937)332-3205. PAX: (937)332-3007 

Email: MillsngBpmifeg.com 

Peter Miiivan 

2221 ForcsmSt RmG44A 

Harrisburg.PA 17125 

(717)787-6426. FAX: (717)705-0882 

Email: PMillvanBstate.pa.us 

co"onwulth PAlDept Gm svcs 

P-10 
Bruce Mintborne 

VA PmducU & Industry Stds. 

Wanenton, VA 

, FAX: 

Email: 

John M. Moon 

AZ Dept of Weights & Measures 

4425 W. Olive Avenue. Suite 134 

Gkndak,AZ 85302 

(623)463-9939. FAX: (623)939-8586 

Eaail. jmoorc@wm.state.az.us 

List of Participants 

2000 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Joseph Moran 

T”ncr 

201 Wolf Drive 

”ofate. NJ 08086 

(8%)ss6-16@3. FAX: (8%)6861601 

Email: troemncr@troemncr.com 

Stephen F. Morrison 

Sao Luis Obispo Co Wghts Meas 

2156 Simn Way 

Sen Luis Obispo. CA 93401 

Email: sfmoriison@co.slo.ca.us 

(805)781-5910, FAX. (805)781-1035 

Ron Mueller 

CNnc Railrod 

600 Giimorc St 

Ccntrdh,lL 62801 

Email: mn.muellcr@cn.ca 

(618)533-3319. FAX: (615)533-3329 

Ronald D. Mutdock 

NC Dcpt of Agriculture 

Po Box 27647 Lkpt SD 2 W Edenton St 

Raleigh. NC 2761 1 

Email: mn.muniock@ncmail.net 

(9 19)733-33 13. FAX: (9 19)7 1-5-0524 

Robert Mumane, Jr. 

saaphin Test Measure 

PO Box 227 30 Indcl Avenue 

Rnncocar. NJ 08073-0227 

(609)267-0922. FAX: (609)261-2546 

Email mununwe@scraphinusa.com 

R.E. Musser 

VA Pmducts & Industry Stds 

220 Casscll Rd 

Wythcvillc. VA 24382 

(540)228-4127, FAX: (540)228-6579 

Email: musscr@naxs.com 

Nick Nair 

Stowe Rcscarch Intcmational 

IO00 Business Center Circle. Suite 207 

’bod Oaks, CA 91320 

(805)498-5450, FAX: (805)499-3640 

Email: nicknair8stowaesravch.com 

Allau M. Nelson 

NwAssoei 

UGardcnGatcRd 

Southington. CC 06489 

(860)620-0253, FAX: (203)374-1110 

Email: callnw@hotmail.com 

Danny Neacombe 

ME Quality Assunvnx & Regs 

333 Cony Rosd 

Augusta. ME 04330 

Email: danny.ncwwmbc@statcme.us 

(207)287-7587. FAX. (207)287-5576 

Neal J. Nover 

Win Wam SoRwarcMover Engelstcin. Inc. 

Atrium Executive Suites 3OOO Atrium Way, 

Suite 2203 

Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054-3910 

(856)273-6988. FAX: (856)751-0559 

Email: dcs9winwam.com 

Don Onaller 

NE Dcpt AgrlDiv Wghrs & Meas 

301 Centennial Mall slpo Box 94757 

Lincoln, NE 68509 

(402) 471-4292. FAX: (401) 471-2755 

Email: donlo9agr.stnte.nc.us 

Henry Opperrmnn 

NET 

100 Bunxu Drive Room 223 MIS 235 

Gaithasburg, MD u)899-2100 

(301)975-5507. FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: henry.oppcr”n@nist.gov 

Vincent R. Orr 

ConAgraRCftigentCdReparcdFOCdS 

ux)I Buttafield Rd. 

Downas Grove. IL 60515 

Email: vorr@crfc.com 

(630) 512-1070, FAX: (630) 512-112‘ 

Brad Pagratt 

940 Venm L.ae 

Williamston. MI 48895 

(517)655-8202 ex1 305 FAX: (517)65 

Email: pagratisb9stptc.mi.us 

MI Dcpt of Agriculblre 

Elhbetb Parker 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive, Stop 2100 

Gaimasburg.MD u)899-2100 

(301)975-3089. FAX. (301)975-4715 

Email eIisabeth.pPrLer@nist.gov 

Johnny Pard& 

Daniel, Bmks petroleum 

Scacesbom.0A 30458 

(912)489-0303. FAX: (912)489-0410 

Email: johnny.pmish@frw.com 

HWY 301 ~orth Po BOX 450 
List of Participants 

Gerald Peck 

E.J. Brooks Company 

8 Microlab Road 

Livingston. NJ 07039 

Email: 

(973)597-2900. FAX: (973)597-2939 

Horacio Pens 

SENCAMER 

Cawas. Venemia 

, FAX: 

Email: 

Jim Phillips 

Delaware County Weights &Measures 

100 West Main Strect 

Muncie, IN 47305 

Email: 

(765)747-7714, FAX: (765)747-7899 

Michelle I. Phillips 

Indianapolis Weights & Measures 

148 East Market shecs suite 609 

hdipaapolis. IN 46204 

(317)324-4272. FAX: (317)327-4291 

Email: p5618@indygov.org 

Eileen Pierce 

WI Dcpt Agr Trade & Cons Rot 

~BOXS~I~ 

Madison.WI 53708 

(608)224-4945. FAX. (608)224-4939 

Emnil: 

Michael S. Pinagel 

State of MI 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston. MI 48895 

Email: pinagelm9state.mi.us 

(517)655-8202 ext 301, FAX: (517)655-8303 

Quito. Ecuador , FAX: 

Email: inenl @inen.gov.ec 

Harold Prince 

28 State House Station 

Edwin Pineiros 

Institute Ecuatoriano de Normalizacion (INEN) ME DcpL Of A~culture ~. 

AugustaME 04333 

Email: hal.prince9state.me.w 

(207)287-7517, FAX: (207)287-5576 

Solomon PIange 

Convergent Labcl Technology 

620 Ware Blvd 

Tampa.m. 33619 

(813)621-8128. FAX: (8 13)62&1206 

Email: 

Bartolome Postigo 

INDECOPI 

Lima. Peru 

, FAX: 

Email: hpostigo9indecopi.gov.pe 

Edwin J. Price 

TX Dcpt of Agriculture 

Po Box 12847 

Austin, TX 78711 

(512)463-7607, FAX: (512)463-8225 

Email: epricc@agr.state.tx.us 

Jew Prieto, Jr. 

Frcsno County Dept of Ag 

1730 S. Maple 

Fresno,CA 93702 

(559)456-7510. FAX: (559)456-7379 

Email: jprieto@&no.gov 

Gale Prince 

Kmgcr co 

1014 Vine St 

Cincinnati, OH 45202-1 100 

(513)762-4209, FAX: (513)762-4372 

Email: gprince8Kmger.com 

David W. Quinn 

Fairbanks Scales 

4153 Telfair Lane SE 

Souchpon. NC 28461 

(910)253-1424. FAX: (910)253-1426 

Email: dave.w.quinn@fancor.com 

Robert A. Reinfried 

Scale Manufacturem Assn 

6724 Lone Oak Blvd 

Naples,FL 34109 

Email: rar@scalemanufach.org 

(941)514-3441. FAX: (941)514-3470 

Keith Ridenour 

EnmtscandHaUscr 

2350 Endrcss Place 

Greenwood, IN 46143 

(317)535-1468. FAX: (317)535-1498 

Email: keith.ridcncur@us.eh.com 

Bill Ripka 

Ramsey Tcchnology Inc 

501 90th Ave NW Minneapolis, MN 55433 

(612)783-2664. FAX: (612)78&1537 

Email: william.ripka9ramseyrsr.com 

Russell E. (Rusty) Robbins 

MS Dcpt of Agr & Commerce 

P.O. Box 1609 

Jackson. MS 39215-1609 

Email: rusty@mdac.state.ms.us 

(601)359-1149, FAX. (601)354-6502 

P-12 
List of Participants 

J. Alan Rogers 

VA Product & Industry Stds 

Po Box 1163 Rm 402 

Richmond, VA 23218 

(804)786-2476, FAX: (804)786-157 1 

Email: jrogers@vdacs.state.va.us 

Dennis Ross 

MI Dept of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895 

(517)655-8202, FAX: (517)655-8303 

Email: rossd9state.mi.u~ 

Joseph Rothleder 

CA Measurement Standards 

8500 Fruimdge Rd 

Sacnunento. CA 95826 

(916)229-3022. FAX: (916)229-3026 

Email: JRothleder@cdfa.ca.gov 

Alfonso Salinas 

Lakc Co Wghts & Meas 

2293 Noah Main Stmet 

Crown Point, IN 46307 

(219)755-3680, FAX: (219)755-30&1 

Email: 

Laura D. Sammoos 

IntCmational Dairy Foods Assn 

1250HStNW Ste900 

Washington,DC ZOO05 

(202)737-4332, FAX: (202) 331-7820 

Email: lsa”ons@idfn.org 

Gene R. Samuelson 

La Pork Co Weights L Measures 

1202 E State Rd 2 

La Porte, IN 46350 

(219)326-6808. FAX: (219)32&5615 

Email: 

Edgar Sanchez 

National Bureau of Standards and Measures 

San Jose, Costa Rica 

Email: esanchez@cnp.go.cr 

, FAX: 

Rafael Santiago-Negron 

Pucrto Rico Consumer Affairs 

PO Box 41059 Minillas Station 

San Juan. PR 009405153 

Email: rsnpr@hotmail.com 

(787)724-5153, FAX: (787)723-3491 

Tom W. Schafer 

ID Bureau of Wghts & Meas 

2216 Kellogg he 

Boise, ID 83712 

(208)332-8690, FAX: (208)334-2378 

Email: tschafer@agri.state.id.us 

Prentiss Searles 

American Petroleum Institute 

luOLStreetNw 

Washington,DC Zoo05 

(202) 682-8227, FAX: (202) 682-8051 

Email: searlespBapi.org 

Lynn Sebring 

MST 

100 Bureau Drive MIS 2350 

Gaithcrsburg,MD 20899-2350 

(301)975-4006, FAX: (301) 926-0647 

Email: lynn.sebring@Nst.gov 

Jeff Sedor 

Navy Primary Standardp Lab 

codc 41450 Bldg 469 Swth 

San Diego. CA 92135 

, FAX: 

Email: 

Geoue S. Shefcheck 

OR Dept of Agriculture 

635 Capitol SI NE Salem. OR 97301-2532 

(503)986-4668, FAX: (503)986-4784 

Email: gshcfcbe@odastate.or.us 

Duane Short 

USDA-GIPSA 

210 Walnut, Suite 317 

DcsMoims,IA 50309 

Email: duane_r.short8usda.gov 

(515)323-2579, FAX: (515)323-2590 

Richard Sicard 

Fairbanks Scales 

2176 Portland Streei Suite 1 

St. Johnsbury. VT 05819 

Email: rick.r.sicard@fsncor.com 

(802)748-5111. FAX: (802)748-5216 

Michael J. Sllnl. 

NYBurcau of Wghb & Mas 

373 North Rd Bmohidc Bldg 0 

Poughlrcepeie, NY 12601-1197 

(914)473-7189. FAX: (914)473-3947 

Email: weighpon0nyuu.t.net 

Cesor Luiz Sflva 

INMElRO 

Rio de J.nSir0, Brazil 

, FAX. 

Email: cIsilva@inmctro.gov.br 

Joseph Silvcatro 

Consumer Rotsaion/Wgts L Msr 

152 N Broad St Box 337 

Woodbury,NJ 08096 

(609)853-3358, FAX: (609)853-2770 

Email: 

P-13 
List of Participants 

2000 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Curtis E. Simpkins 

Orant Co Wghts & Mcas 

401SAdamsSt OrSntCoofficcs 

Marion, IN 46953 

Email: wtgsmcas@grantcounty.net 

(765)651-2412 FAX: (765)651-2420 

Patrick Singh 

Safeway Inc 

5918 Stoncridge Mall Rd 

Pleasunton, CA 94588-3229 

Email: patricksingh@safeway.com 

(925)467-2423, FAX: (923467-3 126 

John C. Skuce 

FMC Smith Meter Inc 

PO Box 10428 

Erie,PA 16514-0428 

(814) 898-5405, FAX: (814) 899-3414 

Email: john-skuee@fmc.com 

N. David Smith 

NC Dept of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 27647 

Weigh, NC 2761 1 

(919)733-3313, FAX: (919) 715-0524 

Email: david.smith@ncmail.net 

Siiimnsa Soiomona 

AS Dept of Legal Affairs 

Pago Pago, AS 96799 

AS 

(684)633-1663. FAX: (684)633-1838 

Email: 

PO Box 7 

Steven Steinborn 

Hogan & Harrson 

555 13th Sweet NW 

Washington, DC Zoo04 

(202)637-5969, FAX: 

Email: sbs(cinbom@hhlaw.com 

James C. Stewart 

4300 Cochisc Trail 

Richmond, VA 23237 

(804)275-6736. FAX: 

Email: 

Wayne Stiefei 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive. Room 255 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

(301)975-4011. FAX: (301)975-5414 

Email: 

Martin Stoll 

Mettlex-Toledo GmbH 

PO Box MT-100 

Chifensee , Swiauland 8606 

SWitZUIBQd 

41-1-944-3344. FAX: +41-1-944-3170 

Email: mar(in.stoll@mt.com 

James Stouffer 

Animal uleaswnd services 

95 Brown Road Box 1035 

IthacaNY 

, FAX: 

Email: 

Loois E. Straub 

MD Dcpt of Agriculture 

50 Harry S Truman Parkway 

Annapolis. MD 21401 

(410)841-5790, FAX: (410)841-2765 

hail: strauble@mdastate.md.us 

Jon Strong 

MI Dcpt of Agriculture 

940 Venturc Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895 

(517)655-8202, FAX: (517)655-8303 

Email: stmngj@statc.mi.us 

Lawrence J. Stomp 

IN Weights & Mcasuns 

2525 North Shadeland Avenue, STE D 

Indianapolis, IN 46219-1791 

(317)356-7078, FAX: (317)351-2877 

Email: 

Richard C. Suiter 

NIST 

100 Bmu Drive MIS 2350 

Gaithemburg, MD 20899-2350 

(301)975-4406, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: rsui(cr@nist.gov 

Billy W. Sullivant 

AR Bureau of Standards 

4608 West 61 St 

Little Rock, AR 72209 

Email: SullivantB @aspb.state.ar.us 

(501) 570-1151, FAX: (MI) 562-7605 

William Sveum 

Kraft Foods. Inc. 

Po Box 7188 

Madison. WI 53707-7188 

, FAX: 

hail: 

John Szymanski 

zeltex hc 

130 Wstem Maryland Fbvy 

Hagerstown. MD 21740 

(301)791-7080. FAX: (301)733-9398 

Email: johnski@zcltex.com 

Chester Szyndrowski 

East Chicago Wghts & Mcas 

628 Rescobie Ln 

Schercrvillc, IN 46375 

(219)865-1880, FAX: 

Email: 

P-14 

, 
List of Participants 

2000 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Elizabeth Tensing 

Food Marketing Institute 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202)220-0638, FAX: (202)220-0873 

Email: etansing@fmi.org 

655 15th Streef NW 

Mlcbael Teasdale 

General Mills 

1 General Mills Boulevard 

Minneapolis, MN 55440 

(763)764-3305. FAX: (763)764-4434 

Email: teasdooo@mail.genmilIs.com 

Miguel Tevez 

Conacyt Laboratorio de Metrologio Legal 

San Salvador, 

El Salvador 

, FAX: 

Email: 

Aves D. Thompson 

AK Div Measurement SWCVE 

12050 Industry Way Bldg 0 

Anchorage. AK 99515 

(907)345-7750. FAX: (907)345-6835 

Walter K. Tkachuk 

Consultant 

I7919 Fireside Dr 

Spring, TX 77379-8008 

(281)251-0327, FAX: 

Email: 

Daryl E. Tonini 

Scale Manufacturers Assn 

6724 Lone Oak Blvd 

Naples, FL. 34109 

(94 l)5 14-344 I, FAX: (94 l)5 14-3470 

Email: det@.ccmanet.org 

Maria Ton, 

SENCAMER 

Av. Andres Bello, Torrefondo Comun, Piso 16 

Caracas, 1010-A 

Ve€lezUela 

, FAX: 

Email: mmtl@cantu.net 

Jose A. Torres-Ferrer 

herto Rico Consumer Affairs 

PO Box 41059 Minillas Station 

San Juan. PR 009405153 

(7873724-5 153, FAX: (787)723-3491 

Email: Aves-Thompson@DOT.STATE.AK.US Email: jatorres@nist.gov 

Merrill S. Thompson Robert M. Traettino 

Baker & Daniels 

PO Box 8500 Main Street 105 Albrecht Drive 

Bridgeton, IN 47836 

(765)548-221 I, FAX: (765)548-2214 

Email: Email: btraettino@lcmeter.com 

Liquid Controls LLC 

Lake Bluff, IL 60044-9951 

(847) 283-8300. FAX. (847) 295-1057 

John M. Tillson Casey Tribble 

MS Dept of Agr & Commerce Smithfield Packing Company 

PO Box 1609 2401 Wilco Blvd 

Jackson, MS 39215-1609 Wilson. NC 27893 

(601) 359-1148, FAX (601)359-1175 (252)243-7180, FAX: (252)243-6079 

Email: johnt@mdac.state.ms.us Email: caseytribble@smithfeldpacking.com 

James C. Tntex 

OH Dept of Agriculture 

8995 E Main St Bldg #5 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399 

(614)728-6290. FAX. (614)728-6424 

Email: euex@odant.agri.state.oh.us 

Richard L. Tucker 

Tokbeim Corporation 

PO Box 360 

Ft Wayne, IN 46801 

(219) 470-4610, FAX: (219) 470-472( 

Email: RTucker@Tokheim.com 

Floyd Van Syckle 

Warren Co Wghts & Meas 

Furnace Street PO Box 359 

Oxford, NJ 07863 

(908)453-2828, FAX: (908)453-2662 

Email: wcweight.s@nac.net 

James A. Vanderwlelen 

USDA GIPSA 

Room 317 Federal Bldg 210 Walnut 

Des Moines, IA 50309 

(515) 323-2584, FAX: (515) 323-259( 

Email: 

Ronald VanCelderen 

Carpet and Rug Institute 

3 IO Holiday Drive 

Dalton. GA 30720 

(706) 278-3176, FAX: (706) 278-883! 

Email: 

Gilles Vinet 

Measurement Canada 

11 Holland Ave. #5l3 

Ottawa. Ontario KIAOC9 

Canada 

(61 3)941-8918. FAX: (6 13)946-8 177 

Email: vinet.gilles@ic.gc.ca 

P-15 
List of Participants 

Thomas Vormittag 

Commercial Testing & Eng Co 

Kayenta,AZ 86033 

(520)677-5006. FAX. 

Email: 

Po BOX 474 

Irene B. Wamlof 

9705 Inaugural Way 

Gaithersburg, MD 20886 

(301)926-8155. FAX: (301)%3-2871 

Email: owamlof9nist.gov 

2000 Annual Meeting Attendees 

Otto K. Warnlof 

9705 Inaugural Way 

Gaithersburg, MD 20886 

(301)926-8155, FAX: (301)963-2871 

Email: owamlof@nist.gov 

Jeffrey Wntters 

Mcanuanentcanada 

6850 est, IUC Sherbrooke 

Montreal. Quebec HIN 1El 

c.Rada 

(514) 496-7511, FAX: (514) 283-1864 

Email: wattcrs.jeffrey9ic.gc.ca 

Gary D. West 

NM Dept of Agdcultum 

MSC 3170, Po BOX 3wos 

Lap Cruces. NM 88003-8005 

(505)646-1616, FAX: (505)646-2361 

Email: gwestenmda-bubhnmsu.edu 

Ronnie P. West 

SC Dept of Agriculture 

894 Seivern Road 

Wagener, SC 29164 

(803)737-9690. FAX: 

hail: 

Scott Whitakcr 

cargowc Inc 

6405 N 50th Strcct, Suite B 

Tmp8,FL 33610 

(813)628-4633. FAX: (813)628-4772 

hail: 

Juana Williams 

NIST 

100 Burcau Drive MIS 2350 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2350 

(301)975-3989, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: juana.williams8nist.gov 

Robert G. Williams 

RI Dcpt of Agriculhlre 

PO Box 40627 Melrorc Station 

Nashville, TN 37204-0627 

(615) 837-5109, FAX: (615) 837-5015 

Email: nvilliams2Bmail.st.tn.us 

Carole L. Wilson 

safeway Ine 

4551 Forbes Blvd 

Lanham.MD 20706 

(301)918-8902. FAX: (301)918-8921 

hail: carole.wilson9safewayafcway.com 

Randy Wise 

KY Dept of Agriculhlre 

106 west 2nd stroet 

FrenkforLKY 40601 

(502) 564-4870. FAX: (502) 564-5669 

hail: Randy.WiseOKyagr.com 

Cory woodward 

Hamilton Co Weights & Mcasurcs 

2224 W 186th Sr 

Westfield, IN 46074 

(317)896-5700. FAX: 

Email: 

Richard W. Wotthlie 

MD Dcpt of Agriculture 

50 Harry S Truman Parltway 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

Email: wotthh8mda.state.md.us 

(410)841-5790, FAX: (410)841-2765 

Michael Wylie 

MI Dcpt of Agriculture. 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895 

(517)655-8202. FAX: (517)655-8303 

Email: wyliem@state.mi.us 

Lorelle Young 

U.S. Metric Association. Inc. 

2032 Mendon Drive 

Rancho Palm Verdes, CA 90275 

(310)832-3763. FAX: (310)832-0211 

Email: lorclIeylO@aol.com 

Ysn-Li Zhang 

National Institute Metrology 

No.18. Bei San Huan Dong Lu 

Beijing. 100013 

China 

64211631 2810. FAX: 64271075 

Email: yanli8public.thnet.cn.net 

P-16 
New Chairman’s Address 

NCA-1

New Chairman’s Address 

Louis E. Straub

Chief, Maryland Weights and Measures Section

Thank you for the kind remarks, Wes. Please remain here with me at the podium. 

During the past 12 months I have had the opportunity to observe your chairman “up close and personal.” Because of our 

proximity, Wes and I have probably spent more time working together and discussing the operation of the Conference 

than any other chairman and chairman-elect. This was a tremendous help to me as I prepared for my new role. Wes has 

answered every challenge, and leaves the Conference in a healthier position as we move forward into the new 

millennium. Wes, on behalf of the membership of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, it is my pleasure 

to present you with this plaque commemorating your service as chairman. 

Good morning, everyone. I feel very fortunate to have spent my entire professional career in the weights and measures 

arena. In those 27 years I have worked as a weights and measures field inspector for Prince George’s County, MD, a 

scales and weighing specialist for U.S. Department of Agriculture Packers and Stockyards Administration, and the last 18 

years with the Maryland Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures Section. This path has also allowed me to 

work for and learn from some of the best people in Weights and Measures: Chuck Oakley, Dick Thompson, Lacy 

DeGrange, Paul Peterson, and Ken Butcher. 

When I began my Weights and Measures career in 1973, I didn’t realize that an organization that impacts so many people 

on a day-to-day basis existed, much less, that one day I would be asked to serve as its chairman. It is truly an honor and a 

privilege; I thank you. 

One of the first things you realize when you begin the year as chairman-elect is that 12 months later you have to be 

prepared to make this address. I will try to follow the advice that a university president once gave a prospective 

commencement speaker. “Think of yourself as a body at an Irish wake,” he said. “They need you in order to have the 

party, but no one expects you to say very much.” 

But more importantly it signals the end of another successful Conference. Everyone should be proud of the work we 

accomplish, it is a total team effort with government and industry working together -- what a unique concept. 

.

Before I go any further I would like to recognize two members of our Conference. Ronald Murdock, Program Manager, 

Measurement Standards Division, North Carolina Department of Agriculture, is your new chairman-elect, and Allan 

Nelson with NW Associates has been elected Chairman of the Associate Membership Committee. Ron, Allan, and I are 

anxious to tackle our new responsibilities, but we need your feedback to be successful. Please feel free to talk with us as 

the year progresses.

I believe every chairman feels compelled to review earlier Conference reports. I found one common element in every 

report, the Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) and the Conference coping with change. This year is no different. 

In every relationship there will be changes; however, the point is both partners have to change. I believe that 

commitment is now a reality. For that reason I have selected the following theme for the year: “Success Through 

Communication and Cooperation.” 

 I have decided this year to focus on our “work in progress.” These are not new items, but I think it is crucial that we 

successfully address these issues. 

1) National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) - I believe the transfer of the NTEP management is one of the most 

important challenges to face the Conference and OWM. I am happy to report that both partners have been working hard 

to ensure a smooth and complete transition. We are on schedule to meet our October 1, 2000, transition date. The 

selection of an NTEP Director is our “missing piece of the puzzle.” We will complete our final interviews for this 

position at the end of this Conference and expect to make a selection shortly. I have asked Wes Diggs as Chairman of the 

NTEP Committee to make the rewrite of the Administrative Section of Publication 14 his number-one priority. Alan 

Johnston of Measurement Canada and I have discussed the renewal of the U.S./Canada Mutual Recognition Agreement 

for Weighing Devices. We will begin work on this project after the October 1, 2000, NTEP transition is completed. 
New Chairman’s Address 

NCA-2

2) NIST Handbook 133 - Henry Opperman and I have discussed the importance of completing this project. Henry has 

assured me that his staff will complete the 4th draft in mid-October with Carroll Brickenkamp conducting the final 

review. This should allow enough time for the draft to be circulated to all interested parties and discussed at this year’s 

Interim Meeting. 

3) The “R” words, “Remanufactured,” “Reconditioned,” and “Repaired” - Everyone understands the issue; we need to 

come to an understanding. The Remanufactured Device Task Force will meet at the conclusion of our session this 

morning. Chairman Jim Truex has promised to have a proposal available in August; this will allow each regional 

association the opportunity to comment. 

4) NIST Handbook 44 - I have asked your new chairman-elect Ron Murdock to continue to oversee the Handbook 44 

Working Group. Revising the handbook will not be an easy task, but I think everyone agrees it is a project that needs to 

be addressed. Our field inspectors need a handbook that is easy to use and understand. 

I have only mentioned four issues this morning, Ron Murdock and I have other items for discussion that we will bring to 

the regionals. We look forward to your comments. 

In order to continue the work of the Conference, it is my pleasure to make the following appointments: 

Administration and Public Affairs Committee: Bruce Adams, State of Minnesota, 1 year to fill Richard Philmon’s 

term, and Mike Sikula, State of New York, a 5-year term; 

Board of Directors: Dennis Ehrhart, State of Arizona, 1 year to fill Ron Murdock’s term as Ron assumes his new 

position as chairman-elect; 

Laws and Regulations Committee: Larry Hatfield, State of Kentucky, a 5-year term; 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee: Jack Kane, State of Montana, a 5-year term; 

Credentials Committee: Larry Stump, State of Indiana, a 3-year term; 

Parliamentarian: Bruce Adams, State of Minnesota, a 1-year term; and 

Chaplain: Mike Hile, State of Arkansas, a 1-year term. 

I have a few remaining appointments; I will make them prior to the 2001 Interim Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona.

To all of the new appointees, thank you for accepting the challenge; I look forward to your support and participation. 

In closing, this year as chairman-elect has been a true learning experience. There have been a lot of ups and downs, but 

there was always one constant that I could rely on: you, the membership of the Conference. We have a great 

organization; if we cooperate and communicate we can succeed. 

I would like to quote Benjamin Franklin, “Well done is better than well said.” I will try to follow this advice as your 

chairman. Thank you.