A 11 10b EL271S

REFERENCE

PUBL

^

T

TraNS

'/ ,0 K,

NBSIR 87-3543

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE — NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

72ND ANNUAL MEETING

NATIONAL

CONFERENCE

ON WEIGHTS

AND

MEASURES

PROGRAM AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

JULY 19 -JULY 24,1987

EXCELSIOR HOTEL

LITTLE ROCK, ARKANSAS

QC

too

.U56

NO.87-3543

1987

OLD STATE HOUSE
THE NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

The National Conference on Weights and Measures is an organization of

weights and measures enforcement officials of the States, counties, and

cities of the United States. The annual meeting of the Conference brings

together government officials, and representatives of business, industry,

trade associations, and consumer organizations for the purpose of hearing

and discussing subjects that relate to the field of weights and measures

technology and administration.

The programs of the National Conference on Weights and Measures and

its committees explore the broad area of this economically important

segment of governmental regulatory service. The Conference develops and

adopts model laws and regulations, technical codes for weighing and

measuring devices used in commerce, test methods, enforcement

procedures, and administrative guidelines that serve as recommendations to

enforcement officials in the interest of promoting uniformity of

requirements and methods among State and local jurisdictions.

A major objective of the National Conference on Weights and Measures is to foster understanding and cooperation among weights and measures

officials and between them and all industrial, business, and consumer

interests. The Conference has been cited on numerous occasions for its outstanding success.

The National Bureau of Standards has a statutory responsibility for

"cooperation with the States in securing uniformity of weights and

measures laws and methods of inspection." In partial fulfillment of this

responsibility, the Bureau is pleased to publish this document for the

National Conference.
UJ

9EP— CO 2O

uiZo

UJ h

S8O N UJ 1“ Zu

LU

(0c

CO

CUT HERE
CUT HERE

HERE STAMP PLACE
DELEGATE REGISTRATION FORM

Registration Fee

The registration fee is $135.00 and includes membership in the National

Conference on Weights and Measures for one year, July 1, 1987 through June

30, 1988.

N8S

RESEARCH

INFORMATION CENTER

QCioo

ULZb

/to. c6

n Wi

Arkansas Weights and Measures officials who have never attended an annual

meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures may register

For $35.00. This registration entitles registrant to one year’s membership

but not voting privileges during the Voting Sessions.

Qualifying retirees may register at no cost.

The registration fee may be sent with this form or paid at the Registration

Desk in Little Rock. Pre-payment is preferred to save time at the Registration Desk. In any event, we would appreciate receiving your Delegate

Registration Form by June 15 in order for your registration to be processed.

Special Events Not Included

The registration fee does not include the cost of the Optional Events or the

Golf Tournament. Please complete separate forms for those events.

Detach Here

Please complete and mail this form and a check made out to the "NCWM"

for the registration fee, to: Ann P. Heffernan, Conference Coordinator

National Conference on Weights and Measures, P.O. Box 3137

Gaithersburg, MD 20878

O My cheek for $ 135.00 is enclosed.

O Please pre-register me; I will pay registration fee on-site.

O My check for $ 35.00 is enclosed. I qualify for the special fee.

O I qualify for the complimentary registration as a retiree.

Name:

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Telephone: ( )

Circle membership category: Active Associate Advisory

If Active, circle level: State Local

If Advisory, circle type: Federal Retired
'
GUEST REGISTRATION FORM

I plan to participate in the Guest Program

at the 72nd Annual Meeting

of the

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Excelsior Hotel, Little Rock, Arkansas

July 19-24, 1987

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Telephone: ( )

Please complete and mail this form to:

Ann P. Heffernan

Conference Coordinator

National Conference on Weights and Measures

P.O. Box 3137

Gaithersburg, MD 20878

OPTIONAL EVENTS REGISTRATION FORM

Please complete and mail this form, together with a check made out to the

"NCWM" to cover the costs of the optional events you wish to participate

in, to: Ann P. Heffernan, Conference Coordinator

National Conference on Weights and Measures, P.O. Box 3137

Gaithersburg, MD 20878

We must receive this form by June 15 in order to complete tour arrangements.

Please sign me up for the following Optional Events:

COST PER TOTAL

NUMBER PERSON COST

GOLF TOURNAMENT

Player(s)

$ 20.00

TOURS

Old State House No Charge

Territorial Restoration $ 1.00

Arkansas Arts Center Decorative

Arts Museum and

Architectural Antiques $ 7.00

Maybelline Plant-Monday $ 10.00

(See page 18 for this tour)

Maybelline Plant-Wednesday $ 7.00

CONFERENCE OUTING

Marlsgate Plantation $ 32.00

TOTAL PAYMENT ENCLOSED

Name(s)

Address:

City: State: Zip:

Telephone: ( )

NBSIR 87-3543

72ND ANNUAL MEETING

OF THE

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

PROGRAM AND COMMITTEE REPORTS

Sponsored by the National Bureau of Standards

Attended by Officials from the various

States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives from the U.S. Government,

Industry, and Consumer Organizations

Report Editors: Albert D. Tholen

Carroll Brickenkamp

Ann P. Heffernan

United States Department of Commerce

Malcolm Baldrige, Secretary

National Bureau of Standards

Ernest Ambler, Director

Issued April 1987

Additional copies of this Book are available from the National Conference

Weights and Measures, P.O. Box 3137, Gaithersburg, MD 20878.
CHAIRMAN

WEIGHTS & MEASURES SPECIALIST MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE

P.O. BOX 30017 LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909

FRANK NAGELE

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

ALBERT D. THOLEN

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

P O BOX 3137 GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND 20878 PHONE: 301-921-2401

TO: Weights and Measures Officials

Representatives of Business, Industry, and Consumer Organizations, Federal

Agency Representatives, and Others with Interest in Legal Metrology.

You are invited and encouraged to attend and participate in the 72nd Annual

Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. The Conference is

scheduled to be held July 19-24, 1987, in Little Rock, Arkansas.

For our Conference to continue to be a success, we must all participate and

become familiar with the national issues and work toward solutions to the

problems in the field of Weights and Measures. If you are not already thoroughly

conversant with the issues to be discussed and decided at the 72nd meeting now is

the time to study and become knowledgeable about them.

Our Conference has made great advancements in the last decade in two specific

areas, The National Type Evaluation Program and The National Training Program.

The training material from the Conference is advancing at a rate greater than our member states can assimilate and implement the materials. We will not solve this

problem at this conference, but we must work diligently to develop a system for

delivering the training material to our inspectors in an efficient and prompt

manner

.

If you bring your spouse or guest along, I can assure you they will have an enjoyable time too.

The tremendous work load of the standing committees, work groups, task forces,

and technical advisors to the committees is evident as we review this conference

book of program and committee reports. We could not have our Conference without

these dedicated workers. I thank them for all the work, study, time, and energy

they have expended on our behalf.

See you in Little Rock!

Consumer Involvement Fosters More Efficient Weights and

Measures Enforcement"

f\

Frank Nagele

Chairman

ii

CONSUMER INVOLVEMENT FOSTERS MORE EFFICIENT WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ENFORCEMENT
PAST CHAIRMEN OF THE CONFERENCE

YEAR CHAIRMAN

43rd 1958 J. P. McBride, MA

44th 1959 C. M. Fuller, CA

45th 1960 H. E. Crawford, FL

46th 1961 R. E. Meek, IN

47th 1962 Robert Williams, NY

48th 1963 C. Ho Stender, SC

49th 1964 D. M. Turnbull, WA

50th 1965 V. D. Campbell, OH

51st 1966 J. F. True, KS

52nd 1967 J. E. Bowen, MA

53rd 1968 C. C. Morgan, IN

54th 1969 S. H. Christie, NJ

55th 1970 R. W. Searles, OH

56th 1971 M. Jennings, TN

57th 1972 E. H. Black, CA

58th 1973 George L. Johnson, KY

59th 1974 John H. Lewis, WA

60th 1975 Sydney D. Andrews, FL

61st 1976 Richard L. Thompson, MD

62nd 1977 Earl Prideaux, CO

63rd 1978 James F. Lyles, VA

64th 1979 Kendrick J. Simila, OR

65th 1980 Charles H. Vincent, TX

66th 1981 Edward H. Stadolnik, MA

67th 1982 Edward C. Heffron, MI

68th 1983 Charles H. Greene, NM

69th 1984 Sam F. Hindsman, AR

70th 1985 Ezio F. Delfino, CA

71st 1986 George E. Mattimoe, HI

iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS

#

Page

Excelsior Hotel Reservation Card

Delegate Registration Form

Guest Registration Form

Optional Events Reservation Form

"Consumer Involvement Fosters More Efficient

Weights and Measures Enforcement" ii Past Chairmen iii Week at a Glance vi

Organizational Chart viii

The 72nd Annual Meeting 1 Registration 1 Registration Desk Location & Hours of Operation 2

Guest Registration, Optional Events, and

Conference Outing 2

Hotel Information 3

Message Center and NCWM Office 3

Conduct of the Annual Meeting 4

Meeting Procedures 4

Guides to Committee Reports 5

Meeting Rooms 6

Standing Committee Meeting Rooms 6

Program Times and Locations 7

Optional Events Program 17

Interim Meeting Committee Reports

Executive Committee 1-1

Appendices

A. OIML-NCWM Participation 1-26

B. Draft Operating Budget 1-30

C. National Type Evaluation Program

Policy and Procedures 1-34

D. Outline of OIML Update 1-54

E. Agenda, Issues and Roundtable 1-57

F. Committee Recommendation to the

72nd NCWM 1-59

IV
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)

Committee on Laws and Regulations 2-1

Appendices

A. Uniform Motor Fuel Inspection Law 2-25

B. Recommended Test Method

For Packages of Flour 2-30

C. A Basic Motor Fuels Testing

Laboratory 2-40

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances 3-1

Appendices

A. Report of the Technical Committee

on National Type EvaluationWeighing Industry Sector 3-59

B. Report of the Technical Committee

on National Type EvaluationMeasuring Industry Sector 3-70

C. Draft Electric Watt-Hour

Meters Code 3-75

D. Draft Carbon Dioxide LiquidMeasuring Devices Code 3-81

Committee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs 4-1

Appendices

A. NTP Summary of Registry Activity 4-9

B. NTP Criteria for Instructors 4-11

Committee on Liaison 5-1

Appendix

A. Letter from USDA/FSIS regarding

Handbook 133 5-16

Interim Meeting Registration List R-l
SCHEDULED EVENTS

#

8 a.m. SUNDAY MONDAY TUESDAY

9 a.m—

10 a.m.-

11 a.m.-

Noon1 p.m.

STANDING COMMITTEES

AGENDA REVIEWS

2 p.m.-

3 p.m.-|

4 p.m.-

5 p.m.-

UJ w St

§1x O WQ

z w 2kH- I- §1

O O

LU o

COzo

j= W

SE05w 2 ?o

coo oP

-•Oo

NASDA WEIGHTS

AND MEASURES DIVISION

6 p.m.—

7 p.m —

8 p.m.-

9 p.m.-

ORIENTATION SESSION

FOR MEMBERS

SPECIFICATION AND

TOLERANCES

COMMITTEE

SESSION

ICPU

OIML

PS20

USNWG

LUNCH (OPEN)

LAWS AND

REGULATIONS

COMMITTEE

SESSION

EDUCATION

COMMITTEE

SESSION

co§1

Ui

LIAISON COMMITTEE

SESSION

EXECUTIVE

COMMITTEE

SESSION

LUNCH (OPEN)

GENERAL SESSION - CEREMONIAL -

OPENING CEREMONY

ADDRESSES

HONOR AWARDS

PRESENTATION

ASSOCIATE

MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

TASK FORCES

£ w O 5

goO UJ

a.

Q3

<

(TLL

Z

2 co < UJ 5

IT CO z

OPEN

CHAIRMAN'S

RECEPTION OPEN

I

vi
72nd ANNUAL MEETING

WEDNESDAY THURSDAY FRIDAY

8 a.m.

9 a.m.

10 a.m.

-11 a.m.

MOISTURE

LOSS,

FLOUR

REGIONAL ASSOCIATION

SESSIONS

<

LUI

I—

ITO

z

z

—1<

QCLU

cc X

h- i- z z>

UJ o

o OT

z

(Em

t—

(0UJ5

LUNCH (OPEN)

VOTING SESSION*

VOTING PROCEDURE

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

SPECIFICATIONS AND

TOLERANCES COMMITTEE

ASSOCIATE

MEMBERSHIP

RECEPTION

VOTING SESSION*

(CONTINUED)

NOMINATING COMMITTEE

LAWS & REGULATIONS

COMMITTEE

LIAISON COMMITTEE

RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

AUDITING COMMITTEE

TREASURER’S REPORT

CLOSING CEREMONY

BREAKFAST MEETING

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

AND OFFICERS

STANDING

COMMITTEES,

SPECIAL COMMITTEES,

AND

TASK FORCES—

PLANNING

Noon

LUNCH (OPEN)

STANDING

COMMITTEES

WRAP-UP

CONFERENCE

OUTING

ABBREVIATIONS KEY: NASDA = National Association of State Departments of Agriculture

ICPL Industry Committee on

Packaging and

Labeling

OIML International Organization of Legal

Metrology

USNWG - United States National Working Group

"At the two voting sessions the

listed items will be voted in the order shown.

— 1 p.m.

-2 p.m.

-3 p.m.

—4 p.m.

—5 p.m.

-6 p.m.

“7 p.m.

-8 p.m.

-9 p.m.

vii
72nd NATIONAL CONFERENCE #

OPERATING COMMITTEES

TECH ADVISOR R. SMITH. NBS

AUDITING COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: E. ROMANO CA (1) MEMBERS F CLEM. OH (2)

J. RARDIN. WV (3)

RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: W ELORIDGE. MS (1) MEMBERS: C. CARROLL. MA (2) O.R. ELLIOTT. OK (3) M GRAY. FL (3) D. LYNCH. KS (1) G MacDONALD, MN (2) S MELOY, MT (3)

CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: G. ALLEN. WA (1) MEMBERS E. KEELEY. DE (2)

J. VANDERWEILEN IN (3)

NOMINATING COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: G MATTIMOE. HI MEMBERS: P ADAMS. PA

E HEFFRON. Ml

D. LYNCH. KS

A. NELSON. CT

K. SIMILA. OR

R. THOMPSON. MD

BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: F. NAGELE. Ml* MEMBERS: P ENGLER. CA (1) C GARONER. NY6 A DAVIS. JAMES RIVER CORP (1) R WALKER. IN (2) A. THOLEN. NBS4*

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

ELECTED OFFICERS CHAIRMAN* F. NAGELE. Ml

CHAIRMAN-ELECT*: D. GUENSLER. CA

PAST-CHAIRMAN*: G. MATTIMOE. HI TREASURER*: C. GARONER, NY ONE YEAR B. NIEBERGALL. NO

J. O’CONNOR. IA TWO YEAR J. LYLES, VA

J. SWANSON, AK

THREE YEAR J. BARTFA1. NY

L. ORAQHETT1. MA

other elected

OFFICERS

VICE- CHAIRMEN P ADAMS. PA

F GERK. NM

D. STAGG, AL R WALKER. IN

OIML REPRESENTATIVES

PS 20: A THOMPSON. MD

PS7/RS4: R. ANDERSEN. NY

STANOING COMMITTEES

viii
ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

NTEP BOARD OF GOVERNORS

PRESIDENT0 6

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY" e

E. AMBLER. NBS

A. THOLEN, NBS

APPOINTED

OFFICIALS

CHAPLAIN: M COILE. QA

PARLIAMENTARIAN J MELGAARD. SO

ASSISTANT TREASURER F THOMAS. PA

SERGEANTS- M HILE. AR

AT-ARMS C PITTMAN. TN

COORDINATORS

REGIONAL COORDINATOR R SMITH. NBS CONFERENCE

COORDINATOR A HEFFERNAN, NBS

EDUCATION. ADMINISTRATION. AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: T. GEILER. MA (2) MEMBERS: C. GREENE. NM (3) S. MALONE. NE (5)

T. SCOTT. NC (4)

P. STAGG. LA (1)

j TECH ADVISOR J. KOENIG. NBS |

special committees and task forces

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN W KUPPER. METTLER

INSTRUMENT

VICECHAIRMAN K APPEL. COLGATE-PALMOLIVE TREASURER R DAVIS. JAMES

RIVER-OIXIE/NORTHERN.

INC. MEMBERS: M CASANOVA, RAMSEY

ENGINEERING

A. LADD. A.J. LADD WEIGHING

4 PACKAGING ; H LODGE. DUNBAR

MANUFACTURING

R. NELSON. GENERAL MILLS,

INC. J THOMPSON. KRAFT. INC T TOPAUS. THE QUAKER OATS CO

R. WELLS. SENSITIVE MEASUREMENTS. INC.

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON NATONAL

TYPE EVALUATION

J ELENGO. JR.. REVERE CORP CHAIRMAN

PUBLIC MEMBERS

R. ANDERSEN. NY

L. DEGRANGE. MD

O. WARNLOF. NBS

J. LACY. USOA-P4S

D. MAHONEY. FGIS H OPPERMANN. NBS

C. SMITH. CA

J. TRUEX. OH

S. YANIV. NBS

WEIGHING INDUSTRY SECTOR

TASK FORCE ON

COMMODITY REQUIREMENTS

CHAIRMAN R THOMPSON MD

MEMBERS P ADAMS. PA R BRUCE. CANADA

K BUTCHER. MD

P ENGLER. CA

E HEFFRON, Ml T KLEVAY. MILLERS

NATIONAL FEDERATION

J. McCUTCHEON. USDA

A NELSON. CT

H PIPPIN. FDA

S. PRETANIK. NATL BROILER COUNCIL G WILSON. AMERICAN

MEAT INSTITUTE TECH ADVISOR C. BRICKENKAMP NBS

TASK FORCE ON

PREVENTION OF FRAUD

CHAIRMAN S MALONE. NE MEMBERS R. ANDERSEN. NY

P PERINO. TRANSDUCERS. INC

K. THUNER. CA

R TUCKER. TOKHEIM CORP

R WHIPPLE. GILBARCO.

INC. TECH ADVISOR J KOENIG. NBS

CHAIRMAN J. ELENGO. JR.. REVERE CORP

MEMBERS E. BRATLE. NCR W GOODPASTER, CARDINAL SCALE CO

J. GIANINNA. GEAPS

R. HURLEY. FAIRBANKS

F. KATTERHEINRICH. HOBART CORP

H. LOCKERY. HBM

J. MACDONALD. STREETER RICHARDSON

P PERINO TRANSDUCERS. INC

J. ROBINSON. AAR

T. STABLER. TOLEDO SCALE CO

D. TOMINI. SMA

MEASURING INOUSTRY SECTOR

CHAIRMAN R HOCKMUTH. PETROLEUM METER 4 PUMP CO

MEMBERS M BELUE. SOUTHWEST PUMP

E BRATLE. NCR

A EVANS. VEEDER-ROOT

R FONGER. BENNETT PUMP W GERDOM. TOKHEIM M HANKEL. LIQUID CONTROLS W KEY. TOKHEIM

L MURRAY. DRESSER

INDUSTRIES, INC. R ROELOFSEN. KOPENS

AUTOMATIC D SMITH. WM. M WILSON 4 SONS

R WHIPPLE. GILBARCO

ix

THE 72ND ANNUAL MEETING

The 72nd Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures is scheduled for Sunday through Friday, July 19 - 24, 1987 at the

Excelsior Hotel, Little Rock, Arkansas.

REGISTRATION

FILL OUT AND MAIL HOTEL RESERVATION, DELEGATE REGISTRATION,

GUEST REGISTRATION, AND OPTIONAL EVENTS FORMS

Included in the front of this document are:

1. A hotel reservation card;

2. A Delegate Registration Form;

3. A Guest Registration Form;

4. An Optional Events Reservation Form for delegates and guests

Please fill these forms out and mail to the appropriate address as soon as

possible. Note the cut-off date for the Excelsior Hotel is June 19th. We

request your sending the Conference the Delegate Registration Form and the

Optional Events Reservation Form by June 15th.

REGISTRATION REQUIRED

Attendance at the sessions of the committees and general meetings will be

restricted to those who have registered and obtained a name badge.

REGISTRATION FEE

Please refer to the DELEGATE REGISTRATION FORM at the front of this

book regarding the Registration Fee and instructions for registering. Please

send in your registration form by June 15th.

All preregistered delegates must pick up their name tags and other pertinent

material at the registration desk. These materials will not be mailed out.

Delegates may also register and pay the registration fee at the Conference.

1
REGISTRATION DESK LOCATION AND HOURS OF OPERATION

Location: The Conference Registration Desk is located on the Ballroom level of the hotel.

Hours: Sunday

Monday

Tuesday &

Wednesday

Thursday

10:0U a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

7:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.

8:00 a.m. to 1:00 p.m.

GUEST REGISTRATION, OPTIONAL EVENTS, AND CONFERENCE OUTING

GUESTS of delegates to the Annual Meeting are asked to register using the

Guest Registration Form in the front of the book. There is no registration

fee for guests. Anyone wishing to attend the official sessions of the Annual

Meeting (except for the Opening General Session Tuesday afternoon) must

register as a delegate and pay the registration fee. A separate Guest Registration Desk will be available all week. Guests should pick up their badges

and tickets to events at the Guest Registration Desk. A Guest Program is planned for the week listing OPTIONAL EVENTS.

The OPTIONAL EVENTS scheduled for the week are described on page 17.

Each event has a separate fee which was established to cover the costs of

that event. The Conference Registration Fee does not cover the costs of

these optional events. Please use the Optional Events Form enclosed to list the Optional Events you wish to participate in and mail the form, together

with a check made out to the "NCWM" for the cost of the events. We

need to receive this form by June 15 in order to make final tour arrangements.

The CONFERENCE OUTING is an event planned for all delegates and guest

to attend. There is a separate fee for this event, also.

Please note that a special Golf Tournament has been scheduled for Sunday,

July 19, 1987 at Burns Park, Little Rock, Arkansas. See page 17, OPTIONAL

EVENTS PROGRAM, for details.

2
HOTEL INFORMATION

Excelsior Hotel

Three Statehouse Plaza

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

Telephone: (501) 375-5000

Room Rate: Single $66.00; Double $66.00; plus 7% tax

Cut-off date: June 19, 1987

The Excelsior Hotel is holding rooms for NCWM attendees. Registration for

rooms should be made directly with the Excelsior Hotel by mailing the hotel

reservation card at the front of this book or by calling 501-375-5000.

PARKING

Free parking is provided for registered guests at the Excelsior Hotel.

AIRPORT LIMOUSINE

The Excelsior Hotel provides courtesy shuttle service to and from the airport. Pick up is every 30 minutes on the hour and the half-hour between

6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. by using the complimentary telephone in the baggage area of the airport. After 6:00 p.m. the van will pick up at the

airport at any time. Call the hotel from the complimentary telephone when

you arrive.

MESSAGE CENTER AND NCWM OFFICE

A telephone message service will be operated during business hours for

registered attendees. Incoming messages may be left by calling the Excelsior Hotel (501-375-5000) and asking for the National Conference on Weights

and Measures Registration Desk. Messages received will be posted on a

display board adjacent to the Registration Desk.

3
CONDUCT OF THE ANNUAL MEETING

PURPOSE

The purpose of the Annual Meeting is to give the committee members an

opportunity to hear comments, to discuss items printed in their Interim

Reports with all the delegates, and to provide an opportunity for all active

members to vote on committee recommendations.

NOTEBOOK RECOMMENDED

It is recommended that those attending the Conference bring a three-ring

notebook for insertion of this book, the Addendum Sheets to the Interim

Reports of the Standing Committees, and any other NCWM printed material

to which you may want to refer during the sessions of the Conference.

ORIENTATION FOR FIRST-TIME ATTENDEES

Monday, July 20

8:00 a.m. to 8:30 a.m.

All delegates who attend, particularly those participating for the first time, are encouraged to attend the orientation meeting on Monday morning. This

session is held to acquaint delegates with the organization and procedures of

the Conference. The meeting is open to all registered delegates who may

be interested in the informal briefing that is offered and the questions and answers that follow.

MEETING PROCEDURES

The Interim Committee Reports contained in this document are provided so that delegates and others interested in committee matters may study the

items under consideration by the NCWM prior to attendance at the Annual

Meeting. All meetings of the NCWM are open to attendance by any registered delegate unless otherwise publicly posted.

The Committee Reports provide information received on each of the items

prior to, during, and subsequent to the Interim Meetings of the committees

held during the week of January 12 - 16, 1987 at the National Bureau of

Standards. Written comments, suggestions, and data relative to these Reports sent to the Executive Secretary or appropriate Technical Advisor,

National Conference on Weights and Measures, P.O. Box 3137, Gaithersburg,

Maryland 20878 prior to June 12, 1987 will be considered.

4
These Reports form the basis for conduct of the committee meetings. Each

committee will hold discussions on the items in its Report during the committee sessions beginning Monday, July 20, 1987. Any person or organization

wishing to present a prepared statement at one of the committee sessions

should make the request in writing to the Executive Secretary. Reasonable

limitations of time allotted for presentations will be imposed. (Note:

Persons making presentations must be registered delegates.)

Modifications to Committee Reports will be documented in the form of

Addendum Sheets prepared by the committees following the general sessions,

and will be available to the attendees at 8:00 a.m. on Wednesday, July 22,

1987. Committee Reports may be further modified as a result of actions

taken by the membership at the voting sessions on July 22 and 23. Final

Committee Reports will then be prepared by the committees and published

in the "Report of the 72nd Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, 1987." Members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures will receive a copy of this publication; other interested parties can receive a copy on request to the Executive Secretary.

GUIDES TO COMMITTEE REPORTS

Two guides are provided to identify each Committee’s Interim Meeting

Report.

1. A prefix is added to the page number at the bottom center of

each page as follows:

Executive Committee page 1-

L & R Committee page 2-

S & T Committee page 3-

Education Committee page 4-

Liaison Committee page 5-

2. Each page of a Committee’s Report is identified by the name of

the Committee at the top of the page.

ITEM CATEGORIES

The items contained in the Committee Reports are organized into three

categories:

1. Information Items report on informational subjects and/or actions

under consideration by the committee.

2. Voting Items are items for which the committee is making rec- ommendations for changes requiring voting by the members.

These items are identified by use of bold face type and may be

offered for voting as single items or in a group of items (Consent Calendar). A ”V’’ follows the item number.

5
Consent Calendar Items are voting items that the committees,

just prior to the voting sessions, assemble into a single Voting

Item on the assumption that they are non-controversial. The

voting items that will be grouped into the Consent Calendar will

be listed on the Addendum Sheets.

3. Withdrawn Items. Items numbers track those assigned in the

Interim Agenda. Items that have been withdrawn by the Committee from the Report are marked with a "W".

Each committee reserves the right to move items between the three categories (voting, information and withdrawn). Prior to making a motion for a

vote, a committee may move voting items from the Consent Calendar to

become voting items that will be handled individually; however, any change

from that presented in the Interim Report (contained in this document) or appearing on the Addendum Sheets will be explained prior to a motion, and

will be subject to action by the membership prior to calling for the vote.

The Conference area is on the Ballroom Level of the hotel. All meeting

rooms are in the same area. A floor plan of the hotel indicating the location of the meeting rooms will be at the registration desk.

The following rooms are reserved for the standing committees, Sunday

through Thursday:

These rooms are used by the committees for preparation for the official

Committee Sessions and for development of addendum sheets to the Interim

Report. All meetings are informal and open to registered attendees.

MEETING ROOMS

STANDING COMMITTEE MEETING ROOMS

Executive

Laws & Regulations

Specifications & Tolerances

Education

Liaison

La Salle

La Harpe

Tennis Hall of Fame

Doyle W. Rogers

River

6
1:00 p.m.

to

4:00 p.m.

4:00 p.m.

to

5:00 p.m.

6:30 p.m.

to

8:00 p.m.

PROGRAM TIMES AND LOCATIONS

SUNDAY AFTERNOON - JULY 19

STANDING COMMITTEE MEETINGS

AGENDA REVIEW

Executive Committee

Room: La Salle

Laws and Regulations Committee

Room: La Harpe

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Room: Tennis Hall of Fame

Education, Administration and Consumer

Affairs Committee

Room: Doyle W. Rogers

Liaison Committee

Room: River

SPECIAL MEETING

National Association of

State Departments of Agriculture

Room: River

SUNDAY EVENING - JULY 19

CONFERENCE CHAIRMAN'S RECEPTION

Room: Salon C

Bring along the family and guests to the "get

acquainted" opening of the Conference. Host

bar and complimentary snacks will be available.

7
MONDAY MORNING - JULY 20

8:00 a.m.

to

12:00 noon

8:00 a.m.

to

8:30 a.m.

8:30 a.m.

to

12:00 noon

«

OFFICIAL SESSION

Room: Grand Ballroom

ROBERT WALKER

Conference Vice-Chairman, Presiding

(Director, Weights and Measures Division

State of Indiana)

ORIENTATION FOR MEMBERS

This session is especially recommended for

new members to help them become

acquainted with the organization and procedures of the National Conference on Weights

and Measures.

Presentations:

RICHARD SMITH, Technical Advisor

(Office of Weights and Measures, NBS)

FRANK NAGELE, Conference Chairman

(Weights and Measures Specialist

State of Michigan)

WALTER KUPPER, Chairman

Associate Membership

(Mettler Instrument Corporation)

STANDING COMMITTEE SESSIONS COMMENCE

Committee on Specifications

and Tolerances

FRED GERK, Committee Chairman

(Director, Division of Standards

and Consumer Services

State of New Mexico)

8
MONDAY MORNING - JULY 20 (continued)

SPECIAL MEETINGS

8:30 a.m.

to

10:00 a.m.

Metrology Workshop

Room: Tennis Hall of Fame

10:30 a.m.

to

12:00 noon

Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling

and

OIML PS/20 U.S. National Working Group

Room: Arkansas River Valley

10:00 a.m.

to

5:00 p.m.

Metrologists’ Tour

Arkansas State Laboratory and

National Center for Toxicological Research

1:00 P.M.

to

6:00 p.m.

MONDAY AFTERNOON - JULY 20

OFFICIAL SESSION (Continued)

Room: Grand Ballroom

PEGGY ADAMS

Conference Vice-Chairman, Presiding

(Chief Sealer

Bucks County, PA Consumer Protection)

1:00 p.m.

to

4:30 p.m.

Committee on Laws and Regulations

ALLAN NELSON, Committee Chairman

(Director, Weights and Measures

State of Connecticut)

4:30 p.m.

to

6:00 p.m.

Committee on Education, Administration,

and Consumer Affairs

THOMAS GEILER, Committee Chairman

(Sealer of Weights and Measures,

Town of Barnstable, MA)

* * * *

9
TUESDAY MORNING - JULY 21

8:00 a.m.

to

12:00 noon

OFFICIAL SESSION (Continued)

Room: Grand Ballroom

DON STAGG

Conference Vice-Chairman, Presiding

(Director, Weights and Measures Division

State of Alabama)

8:00 a.m.

to

9:30 a.m.

Committee on Liaison

PEGGY ADAMS, Committee Chairman

9:30 a.m.

to

12:00 noon

Executive Committee

FRANK NAGELE, Committee Chairman

1:00 p.m.

to

3:00 p.m.

TUESDAY AFTERNOON - JULY 21

GENERAL SESSION

Room: Grand Ballroom

FRANK NAGELE

Conference Chairman, Presiding

1:00 p.m. Call to Order

Presentation of Colors and National Anthem

Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance

REV. MARTIN T. COILE

Conference Chaplain

(Director, Weights and Measures Laboratory

State of Georgia)

Address

KENNETH GILLES

Assistant Secretary of Agriculture

U.S. Department of Agriculture

Keynote Address

ERNEST AMBLER

Conference President

(Director, National Bureau of Standards)

Address

FRANK NAGELE

Conference Chairman
TUESDAY AFTERNOON - JULY 21 (continued)

Honor Award Presentation

ERNEST AMBLER

Conference President

End of GENERAL SESSION

* * *

SPECIAL MEETINGS

3:00 p.m.

to

5:00 p.m.

Task Force on Commodity Requirements

Room: Grand Ballroom

RICHARD THOMPSON, Chairman

(Chief, Weights and Measures

State of Maryland)

3:00 p.m.

to

5:00 p.m.

Task Force on Prevention of Fraud

Room: Rogers

STEPHEN MALONE, Chairman

(Director, Weights and Measures

State of Nebraska)

3:00 p.m.

to

5:00 p.m.

Task Force on Information Systems

Room: River

KENDRICK SIMILA, Chairman

(Administrator, Weights and Measures

Division, State of Oregon)

3:00 p.m.

to

5:00 p.m.

Associate Membership Committee

Room: Valley

WALTER KUPPER, Chairman

* * * * TUESDAY EVENING

No Event Scheduled

* * * *

11
WEDNESDAY MORNING - JULY 22

Addendum Sheets to the Interim Reports of

the Standing Committees will be available by

8:00 a.m. on Wednesday morning at the

Registration Desk for all registered delegates.

These Addendum Sheets are amendatory to

the reports in this document, will indicate the

Consent Calendar, and should be used with

each report during the voting sessions.

8:00 a.m.

to

9:30 a.m.

8:30 a.m.

to

12:00 noon

10:00 a.m.

to

12:00 noon

Moisture Loss - Flour

Room: Grand Ballroom

RICHARD THOMPSON, Chairman

(Chief, Weights and Measures

State of Maryland)

Metrology Workshop

Room: Valley

REGIONAL ASSOCIATION MEETINGS

Northeast

Room: La Harpe

CHARLES CARROLL, State of Massachusetts

Chairman

Southern

Room: Tennis Hall of Fame

JAMES LYLES, State of Virginia

Chairman

Western

Room: River

DARRELL GUENSLER, State of California

Chairman

Central

Room: La Salle

SIDNEY COLBROOK, State of Illinois

Chairman

12
WEDNESDAY AFTERNOON - JULY 22

1:00 p.m.

to

5:00 p.m.

I

VOTING SESSIONS COMMENCE

Addendum Sheets to the Interim Reports of

the Standing Committees are available at the

Registration Desk for all registered delegates.

These Addendum Sheets are amendatory to

the Reports in this document, will indicate

the Consent Calendar, and should be used

with each Report during the voting sessions.

The VOTING SESSIONS will be held on Wednesday afternoon and Thursday morning.

Please note that Committee Chairmen retain

the right to group items and select their

sequence for presentation for voting. There

will be no break between committee reports;

registrants should plan to attend an entire

voting session to ensure presence when items

of interest are likely to be under consideration.

GENERAL SESSION - VOTING

Room: Grand Ballroom

FRED GERK

Conference Vice-Chairman, Presiding

DESCRIPTION OF VOTING PROCEDURES

KEN SIMILA

Past Parliamentarian

(Administrator, Oregon Weights and

Measures Division)

JAMES MELGAARD

Parliamentarian

(Director, Fire Safety & Regulation

State of South Dakota)

VOTING ON COMMITTEE REPORTS

Education, Administration, and Consumer

Affairs Committee

THOMAS GEILER

Committee Chairman

Executive Committee

FRANK NAGELE

Committee Chairman

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

FRED GERK

Committee Chairman

13
WEDNESDAY EVENING - JULY 22

6:30 p.m.

to

8:00 p.m.

8:00 a.m.

to

12:00 noon

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP RECEPTION

Room: Salons B & C

All delegates and guests are Invited to participate in the reception hosted by the NCWM

Associate Members.

* * * * THURSDAY MORNING - JULY 23

GENERAL SESSION - VOTING (Continued)

Room: Grand Ballroom

FRANK NAGELE

Conference Chairman, Presiding

VOTING ON COMMITTEE REPORTS

Nominating Committee

GEORGE MATTIMOE

Committee Chairman

Laws and Regulations Committee

ALLAN NELSON

Committee Chairman

Liaison Committee

PEGGY ADAMS

Committee Chairman

Resolutions Committee

WILLIAM ELDRIDGE

Committee Chairman

(Director of Weights and Measures

State of Mississippi)

Auditing Committee

ED ROMANO

Committee Chairman

(Sealer of Weights and Measures

Glenn County, CA)

Treasurer’s Report

CHARLES GARDNER, JR.

Conference Treasurer

(Director, Weights and Measures

Suffolk County, NY)

14
THURSDAY MORNING - JULY 23 (continued)

CLOSING CEREMONY

Changing of the Gavel

FRANK NAGELE, Outgoing Chairman

New Chairman's Message

DARRELL GUENSLER, Incoming Chairman

(Assistant Director

Division of Measurement Standards

State of California)

Benediction

REV. MARTIN COILE

Conference Chaplain

THURSDAY AFTERNOON - JULY 24

1:00 p.m.

to

3:00 p.m.

Retired Officials Committee

Organization Meeting

RAYMOND WELLS, Chairman

Sensitive Measurement, Inc. Room: Valley

1:30 p.m.

to

3:00 p.m.

Standing Committees' Wrap-up

Rooms as assigned

4:00 p.m.

to

9:00 p.m.

CONFERENCE OUTING

MARLSGATE PLANTATION

See Optional Events Program

* * * *

FRIDAY MORNING - JULY 24

PLANNING MEETINGS

8:00 a.m.

to

9:30 a.m.

BREAKFAST MEETING

Executive Committee and 73rd NCWM

Conference Officers

Room: Arkansas River Valley

DARRELL GUENSLER, Chairman, Presiding

The newly elected officers, Executive Committee, members of all Standing Committees,

NBS Technical Advisors, and past Conference

Chairmen will meet to discuss plans for the

next year and for the 1988 NCWM meeting to

be held at the Amway Grand Plaza Hotel,

Grand Rapids, Michigan the week of July 17 -22, 1988.

15
FRIDAY MORNING - JULY 24 (continued)

9:30 a.m.

to

11:00 a.m.

Optional Events

STANDING COMMITTEES: PLANNING

Room: Same as above

These sessions will commence immediately

following the Breakfast Meeting to enable the

committees to review carry-over agenda

items and to make plans for the ensuing

year.

SPECIAL COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES:

PLANNING

Room: Same as above

These sessions are scheduled to enable Special Committees and Task Forces to review

matters and make plans and assignments for

the ensuing year. Committee or Task Force

Chairmen planning to hold meetings will

schedule those meetings and notify members

by noon Thursday.

Program and Interim Meeting Committee Reports follow.

(

16
OPTIONAL EVENTS PROGRAM

The activities listed below have been arranged to add to your enjoyment

of Little Rock, Arkansas and the surrounding area. The cost for these

events is NOT included in the Conference registration fee. Reservations

must be made ahead of time for each event for which a fee is charged.

Please return the Optional Events Reservation Form in the front of this

book along with your remittance by June 15.

THE BALCONY on the Ballroom Level of the Excelsior Hotel has been

designated as the Guest Hospitality Area beginning Monday, July 20,

through Thursday, July 23. Continental breakfast will be available each

morning for NCWM registered guests. Guests may use the Hospitality

Area freely throughout the week.

SUNDAY AFTERNOON - JULY 19

GOLF TOURNAMENT

Time: 11:00 a.m.

Place: Excelsior Hotel Lobby

Cost: $20.00

A 2-man or 4-man scramble golf tournament is planned at Burns Park,

Little Rock, Arkansas for Sunday afternoon. Departure from the Excelsior Hotel will be a 11:15 a.m. for a 12:00 tee-off time. Delegates and

guests who wish to participate should fill out the GOLF TOURNAMENT

portion of the Optional Events Form. Fee includes greens fee, cart fee,

and prize fund. Transportation will be provided.

SUNDAY EVENING - JULY 19

CHAIRMAN’S RECEPTION

Time: 6:30 p.m. to 8:00 p.m.

Place: Salon C, Excelsior Hotel

Cost: No fee

All delegates and guests are invited to attend the Chairman’s Reception

on Sunday evening. Complimentary hors d’oeuvres and open bar. No

reservation needed.

17
MONDAY MORNING - JULY 20

WELCOME TO LITTLE ROCK

Time: 9:00 a.m.

Place: THE BALCONY - Excelsior Hotel

Cost: $1.00

Mary Lou Hindsman and her family will welcome you to Little Rock and

assist guests with the several tours of historic Arkansas that are within

walking distance of the Excelsior Hotel. The Old State House next door

welcomes visitors who can explore ways of life in Arkansas’ past and the

state's official history.

The Work Projects Administration (W.P.A.), The State of Arkansas and

many Arkansas citizens contributed time, talents and money to restore the

shabby structures on "Block 32" of the original city of Little Rock which

is now know as the Arkansas Territorial Restoration. Included in the

restored area are the Hinderliter House, the Noland House, the Woodruff

House (William E. Woodruff founded the Arkansas Gazette) and the

Conway House. The cost of this tour is $1.00.

TOUR OF MAYBELLINE PLANT

(For Weights and Measures Officials and Packagers)

Time: 8:20 a.m.

Place: Excelsior Hotel Lobby

Cost: $10.00

Meet in lobby of Excelsior Hotel at 8:20 a.m. Busses will leave hotel at

8:30 a.m. for the Maybelline Plant. An extensive tour is planned of the

manufacturing, packaging, and warehouse areas. This tour is intended

primarily for weights and measures officials and packagers. See Wednesday morning tour description for guests.

This tour will only be conducted if at least 18 people pre-register.

TUESDAY MORNING - JULY 21

ARCHITECTURAL ANTIQUES

THE ARKANSAS ARTS CENTER DECORATIVE ARTS MUSEUM

Time: 7:45 a.m.

Place: THE BALCONY - Excelsior Hotel

Cost: $7.00

Meet for coffee and then board busses at 8:45 a.m. to Architectural

Antiques, "Treasures of the Future From Buildings of the Past." There

are over 46,000 square feet of merchandise featuring one of the largest,

most complete collections of architectural artifacts in the country,

complete paneled rooms, large selection of stained and beveled glass,

entryways, doors, country store collectibles, chandeliers, park benches,

mantels, furniture and accessories.

18
TUESDAY MORNING - JULY 21 (continued)

The Arkansas Arts Center Decorative Arts Museum collects and exhibits

contemporary and historic objects which demonstrate the creative accomplishments of artists, designers, and craftsmen. Permanent exhibitions

from the Arkansas Arts Center Foundation Collection feature ceramics,

glass, textiles, crafts, and Oriental works of art. Temporary exhibitions

will present a wide variety of styles, periods, and viewpoints in the

decorative arts. The collection ranges from Greek and Roman objects to

contemporary American works in every medium.

TUESDAY AFTERNOON - JULY 21

CONFERENCE GENERAL SESSION

Time: 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m.

Place: Grand Ballroom, Excelsior Hotel

Guests are invited and encouraged to attend this General Session of the

Conference.

WEDNESDAY - JULY 22

TOUR OF MAYBELLINE PLANT

McCAIN MALL SHOPPING

Time: 7:45 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.

Place: THE BALCONY-Excelsior Hotel

Cost: $7.00

Meet for coffee at 7:45 a.m. and then board busses at 8:30 for a tour of

the Maybelline plant in North Little Rock. Maybelline grew from a product manufactured on the first floor of a Chicago apartment building

to the expanded plant it is today. The plant has more than 775,000

square feet on a 110-acre site, employs over 1,000 people and has an

annual payroll of more that $20 million. With a few exceptions, all Maybelline products are made at the plant. Since the early 1900’s they

have been a company built on hard work, dedication and high principles.

The Maybelline plant can accommodate 47 people (one busload) for the

tour. If there are more than 47 persons wishing to participate in this

tour, another group will be formed to go on Thursday morning at the

same time.

Reboard busses after tour for the short trip to McCain Mall for lunch and

shopping.

THURSDAY MORNING - JULY 23

OPEN MORNING FOR SHOPPING

Time: 8:30 a.m.

Place: Excelsior Hotel Balcony

Meet for coffee then off to shopping of your choice.

19
THURSDAY AFTERNOON - JULY 23

CONFERENCE OUTING

Time: 3:45 p.m.

Place: Marlsgate Plantation

Cost: $32.00 (includes transportation and sit-down dinner)

Marlsgate Plantation is an outstanding Greek Revival home majestically

situated in a pecan orchard amid acres of soybean and cotton fields on

Bearskin Lake near Scott, Arkansas. Marlsgate stands today virtually as

it did at the turn of the century containing 26 rooms with over 10,000

square feet of living space. The first floor boasts a magnificent entry

hall and staircase, drawing room, dining room, music room, solarium,

master bedroom, and plantation office. The mansion, including six bedrooms on the second floor, has been appointed with family heirlooms and

antique furnishings reflecting the lifestyle of the glamorous Southern

plantation era of the 1800’s. Of special historic interest is a black walnut

half canopied bed which was once the property of Jefferson Davis, President of the Confederacy, a befitting tribute to the Southern heritage of

this Scott plantation home.

Please assemble in the lobby of the Excelsior Hotel at 3:45 p.m. for

boarding busses. Busses will leave at 4:00 p.m. for Marlsgate Plantation.

Guests will be greeted upon arrival with "Southern Hospitality" - mint

juleps. Browse the grounds of this magnificent mansion while sipping your

mint julep, and await dinner within. Most of the food served for dinner

is home grown on the plantation's 600 acres.

You will have an unforgetable evening in this authentically restored

property given to a couple as a wedding gift in 1885.

* * * * EXCELSIOR HEALTH CLUB

Place: Excelsior Hotel Parking Plaza

8th Floor

Telephone: (501) 374-1005

Cost: See below

The Excelsior Health Club offers a variety of services that include a

Nautilus area, lifecycles/exercise bicycles, whirlpool/spa area, steam room

and exercise classes. The Veranah Restaurant is open to the public on weekdays from 11 a.m. to 2 p.m. Food and beverages are available.

$5.00 is charged on a daily basis or 3 days for $10.00. Hours are Monday

through Friday from 5:45 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Call the Excelsior Health

Club for further information.

20
Executive Committee

INTERIM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Frank Nagele, Chairman

Weights and Measures Specialist

Michigan Department of Agriculture

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

100 INTRODUCTION

The Executive Committee submits its Interim Report to the 72nd Annual

Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM).

Items are grouped into two parts: Part I - Executive Committee Business;

and Part II - National Type Evaluation Program, Board of Governors

Business.

The Parts are grouped into the following series for ease of reference:

PART I ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY

MEMBERSHIP

OPERATIONS

PROGRAM

101 Series

102 Series

103 Series

104 Series

PART II ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY

OPERATIONS

PROGRAM

110 Series

111 Series

112 Series

Table A identifies all of the items contained in the Report by Reference

Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number.

Voting items are identified in bold face type as well as by a suffix "V"

(i.e., 101-1 V). Items identified by a suffix "W" were on the agenda for the

Interim Meeting but are not going to be addressed at the Annual Meeting

for any of several reasons. Examples of reasons include referral to the

Regional Associations for study and recommendations, or withdrawal because

higher priority items must be handled first. (The reason for withdrawing an item is stated in the report.) Items without a suffix are informational.

1-1
Executive Committee

The Report contains six appendices which are related to specific Reference

Key Numbers as follows:

A. Proposed Revised Policy, International Organization of Legal

Metrology, NCWM Participation (see page 1-26)

B. Draft Operating Budget (see page 1-30)

C. National Type Evaluation Program Policy and Procedures (see page

1-34)

D. OIML Update (see page 1-55)

E. Agenda, Issues Roundtable (see page 1-58)

F. Committee on Nominations, Recommendations to the 72nd

NCWM (see page 1-60)

Following Table A, each item is described in detail in numerical sequence of

the Reference Key Number.

Throughout the Report, recommended changes to NCWM or NBS publications are shown as follows: wording to be deleted is shown lined eut; wording to

be added is underlined; sections being changed are indented and printed in

bold face type.

Table A

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS AND INDEX

Reference Title of Item Page

Key No.

PART I ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY

101-1 V Coordination with OIML 1-4

101-2 National Training Program, Funding 1-5

101-3A NCWM/NBS Publications 1-9

101-3B Procurement of Documents 1-9

101-3C NCWM Publication 3 1-10

101-4 Energy Allocation Systems 1-10

101t5A Issues Roundtable 1-10

101-5B V Submission of Agenda Items 1-11

101-6A Committee on Liaison, Role 1-11

101-6B V Committee on Liaison, Role, Retirees 1-12

101-7 Audit Procedures 1-12

101-8 Enforcement of Polyethylene Standards

continued

1-12

1-2
Executive Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference

Key No.

Title of Item Page

MEMBERSHIP

102-1 Status and Trends 1-12

102-2 Promotional Activities 1-14

102-3 V Associate Members, Retirees, Waiving

Registration Fee 1-14

OPERATIONS

103-1 Organizational Reassignments

Site Selection and Format

1-15

103-2 Task Force on Fraud 1-15

103-3 Appointments and Assignments 1-15

103-4 Treasurer’s Report 1-16

103-5 Draft Operating Budget 1-16

103-6 Draft Grant Budget 1-16

PROGRAM

104-1 Critique of Past Meetings 1-17

104-2 Planning for 72nd Annual Meeting 1-17

104-3 Future Meetings 1-17

104-4 OIML Program Update 1-20

104-5 OWM Program Update 1-20

104-6A V Task Force on Commodity Requirements,

Flour

1-20

104-6B Task Force on Commodity Requirements,

Meat and Poultry 1-21

104-7 Task Force on Information Systems 1-22

PART II - BOARD OF GOVERNORS

ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY

110-1 Policies and Procedures 1-22

110-2 Load Cell Testing (See 111-2)

110-3 Environmental Factors (See 111-2)

continued

1-3
Executive Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference

Key No.

Title of Item Page

OPERATIONS

111-1 Technical Committee, Update (See 111-2)

111-2 Checklists and Test Procedures 1-23

PROGRAM

112-1 Status of Program Acceptance 1-23

112-2 Participating Laboratories 1-24

112-3 Evaluation Activities 1-24

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS

(in the order they appear in Table A)

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

PART I ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY

101-1 V COORDINATION WITH OIML

Adoption of a new comprehensive policy, International Organization of Legal

Metrology, NCWM Participation (see Appendix A), is recommended to replace

the three current policies. (The numbers correspond to the numbering system

in the draft NCWM Publication 3, "National Conference on Weights and

Measures Policy, Interpretations and Guidelines.)

1.5.1. International Organization of Legal Metrology, NCWM

Review of Recommendations (adopted by the Conference as part of the Committee on Liaison Report; see Report of

the 60th NCWM 1975, p. 218);

1.5.2. International Organization of Legal Metrology, NCWM

Participation (adopted by the Conference as part of the

National Measurement Policy and Coordination Committee

Report; see Report of the 64th NCWM 1979, p. 160);

and

1-4
Executive Committee

1.5.3. International Organization of Legal Metrology, Review of

Papers (adopted by the Conference as part of the

Committee on Liaison Report; see Report of the 60th NCWM

1975, p. 218).

The existing NCWM policies regarding the work of OIML are several years

old and need revision in at least two areas — NCWM involvement in the

work of the OIML committees, and the policy for NCWM review of OIML

standards so that the NCWM can decide on acceptance, nonacceptance, or abstention.

101-2 NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM FUNDING

A. Recommendations of the Committee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs.

In a letter to past Chairman Mattimoe, dated March 3, 1986, Mr. Tom

Geiler (MA), Chairman, Committee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs, made recommendations regarding the future funding of the

National Training Program. The letter offered seven suggestions for the

future funding.

1. Request an additional $50,000 under the NBS Grant;

2. request that NBS (OWM) support the module maintenance

program;

3. increase the Conference membership fee by $15.00 per

member;

4. solicit funding from industry groups;

5. solicit funds from groups such as the National Science

Foundation and the Council of State Governments;

6. seek funding from Federal agencies; and/or

7. seek one-time contributions from regional weights and measures

associations.

The Executive Committee agreed to consider all of the recommendations

except #3, raising NCWM membership fees.

B. Status of the National Training Program.

Mr. Geiler briefed the Executive Committee at the Interim Meeting. A

summary of his comments is reported below.

Draft Budget. The draft Grant Budget (Table B) for the year

beginning July 1, 1987 was reviewed and approved.

1-5
Executive Committee

Table B

GRANT BUDGET

July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988

Receipts

Payments on the Grant by NBS

Monies carried forward

Total Receipts

Disbursements

Contract 69-2 (1984) 1 Other contracts

Travel

Administrative

Printing

Miscellaneous

$65,000

3,000

$ 68,000

$ 6,000

45,500

1,000

1,000

6,000

8,500

Total Disbursements $ 68,000

1 Contract with Landvater Associates for Module #4.

Total Grant Funding to Date. The Grant funding summary since

February 1, 1983, the beginning of the NBS Grant, is shown in Table

C.

Seven modules have been completed and distributed. Five additional

modules are under development with the funding of $394,877.57

committed.

An unobligated amount of approximately $70,000 remains of approved

funding through the NBS grant. The Committee expects an additional

$50,000 for a total unobligated grant funding of approximately

$120,000. This will provide for the development of four additional

modules, for a total of fourteen modules. The Education Committee

will poll the weights and measures jurisdictions for guidance in

determining which four modules should have the highest priority for

development.

1-6
Executive Committee

Table C

GRANT FUNDING SUMMARY

As of 12/31/86

Total funding authorized $465,189.00

Net Expenditures to date 362,876.22

Unliquidated obligations 32,001.35

Expenditures plus obligations 394,877.57

Unobligated funds as of 12/31/86 70,311.43

Additional NBS funding requested 50,000.00

Projected balance of funds 120,311.43

Module Development Cost Analysis. An analysis of the costs of

developing the modules for the first seven modules is shown in Table

D.

Based on the analysis, the anticipated cost for development of a

single module in the near-term is:

Contract costs $ 30,000

Publication costs 2,000

Miscellaneous costs 2,000

Total $ 34,000

Table D

COST PER MODULE

Contractor's cost for a single module:

Highest $ 37,295.69

Lowest 19,000.00

Average 27,237.00

Publication cost for a single module

Highest $ 1,976.80

Lowest 779.62

Average 1,367.24

Miscellaneous Costs 2,000.00

1-7
Executive Committee

Module Sales Summary. The policy of the NCWM regarding the

distribution of the modules is to provide one copy of each module to

each state (one Inspector’s Manual and one Instructor's Manual

including visuals) at no cost to the state.

The original expectation was that the states would purchase multiple

copies of the modules for use in their training programs. This

expectation has proven to be incorrect. The states are requesting

permission to reproduce copies themselves. Consequently, sales and

income from sales are insignificant compared to the total costs of

funding development of new modules. Sales to date are shown in

Table E.

Regarding future funding of the Program, the Education Committee

accepts the advice of the Executive Secretary that funding future

module development through an increase in support from the Office of

Weights and Measures is not a viable option at this time. If this

remains true, the Executive Committee recommends that the OWM

support the National Training Program in the following priority order:

1. assist the jurisdictions to use the existing modules by

training trainers;

2. update the existing modules to incorporate changes in the

various handbooks which are adopted by the NCWM,

then

3. develop new modules.

Table E

SALES AND INCOME BY MODULE

Module Manuals Sold Income

No. Inspector Instructor

1 6 4 $ 360

2 17 8 1,020

5 5 2 290

8 7 4 490

10 14 9 890

20 4 2 260

27 92 49 2,016

Total Income $5,326

1-8
Executive Committee

C. Executive Committee Position.

The Executive Committee concluded that training by the OWM should

increase, if possible, in order to assist the state or local jurisdictions to use

the existing modules on their own by developing qualified instructors. The

Executive Secretary was asked to provide the Executive Committee with

recommendations for future development of the training program for

discussion at the 72nd Annual Meeting.

The Executive Committee asked the Executive Secretary to prepare

specialialized "packets of promotional materials", which the Executive

Committee members will use in a pilot project in their states to:

1. contact their local industry trade association groups such as food merchants associations, service stations dealers groups,

scale dealers, and other related associations in an effort to

expand present NCWM membership;

2. contact their budget offices to explore the possibility that the

state fund continuation of module development or purchase of

modules; and

3. promote increased membership among state weights and measures officials.

If the experimental phase is successful, the Executive Conmmittee plans to

recommend the same approach to all of the weights and measures

jurisdictions. Additional memberships will provide a source of funding for

NCWM activities, including the National Training Program. While these

means for funding are being explored, the Executive Committee emphasizes

the need to get the existing modules into use in state training programs,

including developing qualified instructors at the state level.

101-3A NCWM/NBS PUBLICATIONS

The Committee reviewed: (1) the status of NCWM publications (see Report

of the 71st NCWM 1986, p. 58); (2) the status of NCWM adoption of NBS

publications (see Report of the 70th NCWM 1985, p. 48); (3) the methods of

distribution and sale; and (4) recommendations regarding their formats and

procedures for their updating. No recommendations to change current

practices were made.

101-3B PROCUREMENT OF DOCUMENTS

Several jurisdictions have reported difficulties in timely procurement of

documents from the Government Printing Office. A letter was sent to each

state to determine its preference for procurement of NBS Handbook 44.

Twenty-nine states, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands responded with

results as listed below.

1. In five states, all weights and measures officials are members

of the NCWM, and therefore, get their handbooks from the

NCWM shortly after publication.

1-9
Executive Committee

2. Five other states would prefer to purchase their handbooks from

the NCWM and are willing to buy them by the box (rather than

in smaller quantities).

3. Nineteen states (the remainder of the twenty-nine jurisdictions

that responded) prefer to buy their handbooks from the NCWM,

but not in box-size quantities.

The Executive Secretary will follow up by:

1. contacting the twenty-one jurisdictions that did not respond to

to give them the opportunity to express their preferences; and

2. confirming that responding states are willing to procure

specified quantities of Handbook 44 from the NCWM.

The Executive Committee wants to avoid carrying an inventory of handbooks

which might not be purchased.

101-3C NCWM PUBLICATION 3

NCWM Publication 3, "National Conference on Weights and Measures Policy,

Interpretations, and Guidelines," was completed in draft and a copy was

given to each member of the Standing Committees. The publication consists

of four sections: (1) NCWM Management; (2) Laws, Regulations, and

Commodity Control; (3) Specifications, Tolerances, and Device Inspection; and

(4) Education.

The Standing Committees have been asked to review the draft and

recommend changes necessary to ensure that the contents are up to date.

101-4 ENERGY ALLOCATION SYSTEMS

The Western Weights and Measures Association recommended that the NCWM

establish a task force to study this issue and make appropriate

recommendations. (See Report of the 71st NCWM 1986, p. 160.)

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association requested that the scope

of this issue be broadened to include the submetering of utilities.

The Executive Committee decided not to establish a task force at this time

(See Item 103-1.)

101-5A ISSUES ROUNDTABLE

During the past two years, the Regional Associations have incorporated an

"Issues Roundtable" into their meeting agenda. This part of their

proceedings has been very popular and valuable. The Interim Meeting agenda

included an "Issues Roundtable" on Monday Morning, January 12. Five items

were on the program. They were selected to provide background and

tutorial information for the attendees on some of the key issues being

addressed by the Standing Committees. (See Appendix E for the Issues

Roundtable agenda and summaries of the five items covered.)
Executive Committee

101-5B V SUBMISSION OF AGENDA ITEMS

The Executive Committee recommends establishing a revised deadline date

of November 1 for the submission of items for inclusion in the agenda of

the Interim Meeting. Item 1.1.1. of NCWM Publication 3 establishes a

deadline 60 days prior to the Interim Meeting (P&C 1977; Executive 1980;

Executive 1981). The date must be changed in order to provide the time

needed to meet the printing deadlines so that Conference members can

receive the Interim Meeting agenda by December 20. Inadequate time prior

to the January 1987 Interim Meeting forced the NCWM to incur additional

expenses for special printing services.

101-6A COMMITTEE OF LIAISON, ROLE, GENERAL

The Executive Committee requests that a past oversight be rectified by

substituting the following wording, already approved by the membership at

the Annual Meeting in 1982, in Section 5E of the Bylaws for the wording

that currently describes the role of the Committee on Liaison. No action

is required by the membership.

The Committee on Liaison annually presents a report for Conference

action. Its mission is divided into two categories as follows:

I. Liaison with Federal Agencies

Intergovernmental (with NBS/USDA/FDA/FTC/DOD/Postal

Service, etc.) contacts and relations on behalf of the

Conference. This role involves explaining, advocating, and

coordinating Conference positions, recommendations, and needs

before Federal Government agencies and promoting uniformity

among those agencies and with NCWM.

II. Liaison with Other Groups or Organizations and Agencies

This role involves public liaison with consumer groups, the

associate NCWM membership, domestic and international

standards organizations, industry, trade associations, and others.

The goals are to provide and solicit information, develop a

spirit of cooperation, and promote uniformity with the activities

of the NCWM.

At the Interim Meeting, Chairman Adams reported to the Executive

Committee on the activities of the Committee on Liaison, including its plans

regarding: (1) recognition of the 150th Anniversary of the issuance of the

first state standards (1988); (2) the 200th Anniversary of the Constitution of

the United States (1987); and correspondence with various Federal Agencies.

(See the Report of the Committee on Liaison for details.)

1-11
Executive Committee

101-6B V COMMITTEE ON LIAISON, ROLE, RETIREES

The relationship of retirees with the NCWM was discussed. As a result of

the change to the Constitution and Bylaws last year, the Annual Meeting

registration fee for retirees was waived. In addition, a formal retirees

group was established. The Committee on Liaison now coordinates with the

Associate membership. The Executive Committee recommends that the role

of the Committee on Liaison be expanded to include the retirees by

amending Section 5E of the Bylaws (see Item 101-6 A) to read as follows:

n. Liaison with other Groups or Organizations and Agencies

This role involves public liaison with consumer groups, the

associate NCWM membership, the retiree membership, domestic

and international standards organizations, industry and trade

associations, and others. The goals are to provide and solicit

information, develop a spirit of cooperation, and promote

uniformity with the activities of the NCWM.

(See also Item 509 of the report of the Committee on Liaison.)

101-7 AUDIT PROCEDURE

The accounts of the NCWM are audited by the Auditing Committee at each

Annual Meeting. This procedure has been questioned on the grounds that the

members of the Auditing Committee do not always have accounting expertise

nor continuing involvement with the finances of the NCWM. Alternative

auditing procedures will be explored by the Executive Secretary.

101-8 ENFORCEMENT OF POLYETHYLENE STANDARDS

The Southern Weights and Measures Association recommended that a task

force be established to examine the problems encountered with the

enforcement of the standards for the sale of this product. (See Item 103-1

of this report and Item 214-5 of the L<$cR Committee report.)

MEMBERSHIP

102-1 STATUS AND TRENDS

The current status of NCWM membership, including trends in total

membership and its composition, were reviewed. The membership of the

NCWM remains steady around 1300. (See Table F for membership by state

and Table G for the composition of the NCWM mailing list by category.)

1-12
Executive Committee

Forty percent of the 1313 members are active (weights and measures

officials) and 60 percent are associate (industry). Fewer than 18 percent of

the weights and measures officials nationwide belong to the NCWM.

Table F

NCWM MEMBERSHIP BY STATE

Jurisdiction Members Jurisdiction Members

Alabama 16 Alaska 3

American Samoa 1 Arizona 8

Arkansas 21 California 96

Colorado 18 Connecticut 23

Delaware 7 Washington, DC 36

Florida 20 Georgia 21

Guam 1 Hawaii 3

Idaho 14 Illinois 56

Indiana 50 Iowa 10

Kansas 32 Kentucky 3

Louisiana 4 Maine 5

Maryland 39 Massachusetts 54

Michigan 22 Minnesota 30

Mississippi 7 Missouri 53

Montana 1 Nebraska 26

Nevada 1 New Hampshire 4

New Jersey 74 New Mexico 27

New York 72 North Carolina 25

North Dakota 2 Ohio 106

Oklahoma 19 Oregon 12

Pennsylvania 64 Puerto Rico 6

Rhode Island 2 South Carolina 4

South Dakota 13 Tennessee 11

Texas 46 Utah 4

Vermont 11 Virginia 33

Virgin Islands 1 Washington 19

West Virginia 9 Wisconsin 34

Wyoming 7

1313

Promotion of membership in the NCWM will continue, including

promotion of current activities and study of proposals to satisfy the

needs of the membership, thus attracting membership.

1-13
Executive Committee

Table G

COMPOSITION OF NCWM MAILING LIST

Category

NCWM

Members

NonMembers Total

State 241 862 1103

County 158 672 830

City 126 436 562

Subtotal 525 1970 2495

Federal 31 18 49

Industry 749 2456 3205

Retirees 8 5

Total 1313 4449 5762

The Executive Committee decided on actions to address the question of

funding the National Training Program. (See Item 101-2.) If successful, the

basic purpose of increasing the membership of the NCWM will be met.

102-2 PROMOTIONAL ACTIVITIES

Past, current, and potential promotional activities were discussed. The

Executive Secretary was encouraged to identify new promotional items for

sale by the NCWM, and to report his recommendations to the Executive

Committee prior to the 72nd Annual Meeting.

102-3 V ASSOCIATE MEMBERS, RETIRED, WAIVING OF

REGISTRATION FEE

The Executive Committee decided that Article II, Section 5, of the Bylaws

should be changed to waive the payment of the registration fee for retired

associate members to attend the Annual Meeting. The following rewording

of Section 5 is proposed:

1-14
Executive Committee

SECTION 5 - WAIVER OF REGISTRATION FEE

Individuals Advisory members who have retired from Federal? State?

eeunty? or etty weights and measures employment after having been

members of the NCWM for ten or more years shall not be subject to

the payment of the Registration Fee for attendance at the Annual

Meeting.

103-1 ORGANIZATIONAL REASSIGNMENTS

The Chairman reassigned the Task Force on Information Systems from the

Executive Committee to the Committee on Liaison.

The Executive Committee received requests to establish new task forces:

Energy Allocation Systems (Item 101-4) and Enforcement of Polyethelene

Standards (Item 101-8). They concluded that the NCWM could not manage

or fund the activities of additional groups at this time without cutting back

the activities of existing groups. They also concluded that none of the

existing groups have completed their work and that all should be continued.

Consequently, no action was taken on the requests.

103-2 TASK FORCE ON FRAUD

The Chairman established the Task Force on Fraud with the following

members: Steve Malone, NE, Chairman; Ross Andersen, NY; Pete Perino,

Transducers, Inc.; Kathleen Thuner, San Diego, CA; Richard Tucker, Tokheim

Corp.; and Richard Whipple, Gilbarco, Inc.

The Task Force has been asked to: (1) identify devices that can be "easily"

modified to play "dirty tricks" on consumers and (2) submit proposals to the

Executive Committee and the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

for design requirements that would eliminate the potential for fraud in those

devices where problems are found to exist. The Task Force will report to

the Executive Committee.

103-3 APPOINTMENTS AND ASSIGNMENTS

The Chairman reported on the following assignments made to the

committees and task forces.

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

Bruce Niebergall replaces Charles Forester who resigned.

COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Ken Simila replaces Leo Letey who has retired.

AUDITING COMMITTEE

James Rardin, West Virginia

1-15
Executive Committee

BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE

Robert Walker, Indiana

CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE

James Vanderweilen, Tippecanoe County, Indiana

RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

O. Ray Elliott, Oklahoma

Max Gray, Florida

Stephen Meloy, Montana

TASK FORCE ON PREVENTION OF FRAUD

Stephen Malone, Nebraska, Chairman

Ross Andersen, New York

Peter Perino, Transducers, Inc. Kathleen Thuner, San Diego, California

Richard Tucker, Tokheim Corporation

Richard Whipple, Gilbarco, Inc. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION - MEASURING INDUSTRY SECTOR

Willem Roelofsen, Koppens Automatic

TASK FORCE ON COMMODITY REQUIREMENTS

George Wilson, American Meat Institute, replaces

Mahlon Burnette

SERGEANTS-AT-AR MS FOR 72nd NCWM

James Hile, Arizona

Cathryn Pittman, Tennessee

103-4 TREASURER'S REPORT

The Treasurer reported on the financial status of the NCWM, including the

income and expenses to date for the current fiscal year and the overall

asset position. He also described a planned realignment of accounts designed

to provide the Executive Committee and the membership with a clearer

understanding of the use of the NCWW funds.

103-5 DRAFT OPERATING BUDGET

Details of the draft operating budget were reviewed. After some

modifications, the Executive Committee approved the draft as the operating

budget of the NCWM for the year beginning July 1, 1987. (See Appendix B

for the budget and its explanation.)

103-6 DRAFT GRANT BUDGET

See Item 101-2, NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM FUNDING.

1-16
Executive Committee

104-1 CRITIQUE OF PAST MEETINGS, SITE SELECTION

AND FORMAT

The Executive Committee decided that no changes should be made in regard

to the planning and conduct of the Annual Meeting.

104-2 PLANNING FOR 72ND ANNUAL MEETING

A contract has been signed with the Excelsior Hotel in Little Rock,

Arkansas for the Annual Meeting during the week of July 20-24, 1987.

Address: Excelsior Hotel

Three Statehouse Plaza

Little Rock, Arkansas 72201

Telephone: 5U1/375-5U00

Rate: $66.00 single or double

Cut-off date: June 19, 1987

Only 10 minutes from the airport, the Excelsior is conveniently located in

the Statehouse Plaza in downtown Little Rock and overlooks the Arkansas

River. Situated above the Statehouse Center, the Excelsior provides

weather-protected complimentary parking for guests and complimentary

limousine service to and from the airport.

The Excelsior has a 18-story atrium crowned by a 40-foot chandelier

providing an open but comfortable public area. The hotel has several

restaurants providing gourmet cuisine at La Petite Roche; imported ale at the English Pub; cocktails at the Edgewater; relaxed dining at the Apple

Blossom; and, high above the city, music and dancing at the Pinnacle rooftop

lounge.

A variety of activities are planned for guests and delegates. Among them

are Sunday afternoon golf; tours of the Old Statehouse and Territorial

Restoration area; and an outing for all at Marlsgate Plantation — a real

southern experience.

104-3 FUTURE MEETINGS

The 73rd Annual Meeting, July 1988

The Executive Committee decided to hold the 73rd Annual Meeting in

Grand Rapids, Michigan at the Amway Grand Hotel. No commitment has

been made with the hotel. The Executive Secretary has requested a firm

proposal from the hotel.

1-17
Executive Committee

Hotel

The Grand Plaza Hotel has traditional and contemporary rooms. There are 682 guest rooms; 385 are in the original renovated building; the rest are in

the attached 29-story glass tower overlooking the Grand River. There is 24-hour room service, concierge assistance, and nightly turn-down service.

There are 12 restaurants and lounges throughout the hotel. It has been

recognized for its excellence with the AAA 5-Diamond Award and the Mobil

Four-Star Award. The lobby and concourse levels of the hotel contain a dozen shops. The hotel has a fitness center on its fourth floor with a workout room, a glass enclosed swimming pool, two outdoor tennis courts, one racquetoall court with gallery viewing, a sauna, and a tanning booth.

The hotel is located in a downtown complex in the heart of Grand Rapids. A

sky-walk connects the hotel with the Gerald Ford Museum.

Location and Transportation

The hotel is less than 20 minutes from the Kent County International

Airport. Eight major carriers, including American, Northwest, Piedmont,

United, and USAir provide more than 100 arrivals daily with direct service

to more than 50 cities. The hotel operates shuttles between the hotel and

the airport.

The hotel is only two blocks from U.S. 131 and Interstate 96 highways.

The hotel has its own 750-car parking lot.

The 74th Annual Meeting, July 1989

The Executive Committee selected Seattle, Washington as the site of the

74th Annual Meeting insofar as the latest sequence of meeting sites has

been Boston, Massachusetts, Washington, D. C., Albuquerque, New Mexico,

and will be held in Little Rock, Arkansas and Grand Rapids, Michigan. The

Executive Secretary had visited several candidate cities to be considered for

future Annual Meetings, and recommended Seattle, Washington because of its combination of attractive downtown hotels, convenient shopping and

entertainment, and moderate weather.

Local Tours and Attractions

Seattle offers a wide spectrum of unique and enjoyable activities. Radiating

from the immediate downtown are several distinct areas of interest.

To the north, 90 seconds from downtown by monorail, is the Space Needle, a 600-foot high revolving restaurant. The Space Needle is within the grounds

of the Seattle Center, a 74-acre urban park. The Center features the Food

Circus Court and International Bazaar, the Pacific Northwest Arts and Craft

Gallery, the Seattle Art Museum Pavilion, and the Pacific Science Center.

Pioneer Square is Seattle’s historic "old area." Its red brick buildings have

been restored and house shops, art galleries, restaurants, sidewalk cafes, and

boutiques. An aboveground tour, as well as an underground tour, can be

arranged with lunch in one of the area's many restaurants.

1-18
Executive Committee

Between the Seattle Center and Pioneer Square stretches Seattle's

waterfront with import shops and good seafood restaurants. The newest

attraction at the waterfront is the Marine Aquarium which ranks as one of

the best in the entire country. Tours of the harbor by sightseeing boats

originate at the waterfront.

Up the hill from the waterfront is one of the last remaining public markets

in the country — the Pike Place Market. Locally grown produce and fresh

seafood are sold in open stalls along with the works of local artists and

craftsmen. Visitors can arrange to have a fresh salmon or other seafood

packed to accompany them home.

Restaurants

There are over 300 restaurants in downtown Seattle and 500 throughout the

metropolitan district. Although the city's eating establishments offer a full spectrum of international cuisines, Seattle is best known for its seafood

delicacies. Its unique waterfront location in the midst of some of the finest

fishing and clamming in the world insure a daily fare that is almost

invariably fresh. Seattle's large mixed oriental community is also well

represented on the local dining scene, with restaurants featuring Japanese,

Vietnamese, Filipino, Korean, and East Indian dishes.

Entertainment

In the performing arts, Seattle and the Puget Sound area support over 35

dance, 120 musical, and 45 theatre groups or companies. The First Chamber

Dance Company, consisting of seven soloists and principals from the

American Ballet Theatre, City Center, Joffrey Ballet, New York City Ballet,

and San Francisco Ballet, offers performances year round, as does the

Pacific Northwest Ballet. A Contemporary Theatre produces six plays a year, which are held from May through October. Seattle also has a live

professional children's theatre, the Poncho Theatre, as well as plays direct

from Broadway performed at the exquisite oriental-style 5th Avenue

Theatre and the Paramount Theatre.

The 75th Annual Meeting, July 1990

The Executive Committee selected Albany, New York as the site of the 75th

Annual Meeting.

The tradition of the NCWM has been to return to Washington, D. C. every

fifth year. Therefore, 1990 would be the year for the next Washington,

D. C. meeting. The continued use of Washington, D. C. tends to eliminate

other east coast jurisdictions from being considered as hosts of the Annual

Meeting. The Committee decided to break with the precedent of returning

to Washington, D.C. every fifth year because of the increasing cost of

holding a major meeting there, plus the desire to provide additional

opportunities for east coast jurisdictions to host the Annual Meeting.

1-19
Executive Committee

Beyond 1990

The NCWM has received invitations from the following jurisdictions to host

the Annual Meeting: Hawaii (various locations), Indiana (Indianapolis), and

Ohio (Columbus).

104-4 OIML PROGRAM UPDATE

Mr. David Edgerly described the OIML work program activities related to

the interests of the NCWM. Although reporting on the overall OIML

program, he emphasized those activities of most interest to the NCWM.

An outline of Mr. Edgerly’s presentation is contained in Appendix D as the

"OIML Pilot and Reporting Secretariats of Possible Interest to NCWM". The

Summary is annotated to indicate Mr. Edgerly’s recommendations for NCWM

member representation.

104-5 OWM PROGRAM UPDATE

Mr. Albert Tholen described changes in the OWM program and staffing. (See

the report of the Committee on Liaison, Item 504, for details.)

104-6A V TASK FORCE ON COMMODITY REQUIREMENTS, FLOUR

Chairman Richard Thompson reported on the progress of the Task Force and

proposed actions by the NCWM regarding compliance testing of packaged

flour.

The Task Force and the Executive Committee recommend the following for

National Conference on Weights and Measures action:

Adopt the three percent gray area approach as NCWM policy for

weights and measures officials to use in checking packages of flour.

As part of the L&R Committee Report, the Conference will be asked to

adopt specific procedures delineated for flour during the Pilot Study and

incorporate them in NBS Handbook 133. (See Item 230-2 of the L&R

Committee Report.)

In addition, the Task Force recommended, and the Executive Committee

approved, two actions:

1. Continue the Pilot Study from December 1986 to February 1987

to cover the season that was not in the original study in order

to assure that the three-percent gray area is neither too large nor too small.

2. Conduct a round robin during this same time to ensure that the

moisture content values, as determined by manufacturers and

weights and measures laboratories, are reliable.

1-20
Executive Committee

104-6B TASK FORCE ON COMMODITY REQUIREMENTS,

MEAT AND POULTRY

Chairman Ricnard Thompson reported on the progress of the Task Force

regarding meat and poultry.

Tentative

following:

agreement within the Task Force was reached on the

1 . Processed or "prepared" products such as hot dogs or bologna,

whether made of chicken or meat, should be treated as a separate category from raw "fresh" products such as whole

chicken, cut-up, breast "nuggets," etc.

2. Category A sampling plans from H-133 are suitable for use in

testing these products.

The additional data listed below are needed in both the poultry and meat

areas:

1 . The Task Force must determine whether used dry tare is equivalent to unused dry tare for field test purposes.

2. The Task Force must determine the size of the gray area that

makes wet tare tests equivalent to dry tare tests in the field.

3. The Task Force must determine whether the procedures for

determining dry tare by the packager follow the rounding

recommendations given in the proposed USDA Memorandum of

Agreement.

In order to accomplish the above, the Task Force plans to request Pilot

Study participants to change their approach slightly and continue to take

data following the guidance listed below:

1 . Wet tare, dry tare values (as supplied by the packager), and

used dry tare will be requested on every lot tested under the

pilot study. Therefore, results on fewer lots will be requested

from each participating jurisdiction.

2. A questionnaire has been designed and will be circulated to

members of the National Broiler Council and American Meat

Institute (AMI) to determine the procedures currently used to

obtain a dry tare average value in the plant.

3. A small study will be conducted by the State of Maryland

Weights and Measures to determine the range of and average

dry tare at the plant and, following a prescribed procedure, how

closely the used dry tare values can match the unused dry

tare.

1-21
Executive Committee

4. Since fresh meats with net weights applied at

Federally-inspected plants are available only in a few test

markets, AMI will determine whether their members want to

supply data on these products. Otherwise, the pilot study

participants will be requested to focus on:

Fresh Category

o whole cut-up chickens

o Sausage (fresh chubbs)

Prepared Category

o franks and bologna made from poultry or meat.

New summary sheets, provided for meat and poultry, incorporate the data

requested for both wet tare and dry tare tests.

104-7 TASK FORCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Chairman Ken Simila reported on the progress and plans of the Task Force.

(See Item 507 in the report of the Committee on Liaison for details.)

PART II NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM (Board of Governors)

ADMINISTRATION AND POLICY

110-1 POLICY AND PROCEDURES

NCWM Publication #4, "NTEP Policies and Procedures," (planned to be

incorporated into the NCWM Publication #14) has been reviewed by the

Executive Committee (letter ballot) and revised editorially and for clarity of

presentation. Appendix C is a copy of the current version.

The NTEP Policy and Procedures, first published as NTEP Publication 4, was

adopted at the 69th Annual Meeting. A new section (Q) was added to define

the policy to be followed by the states and industry when referring to NTEP.

This new section was adopted at the 70th Annual Meeting.

Significant proposed changes in policy and procedures were contained in the

Executive Committee Interim Report for the 71st Annual Meeting (Item

105-2). The Executive Committee withdrew this item in its entirety,

referring the proposed changes to the Committee on Specifications and

Tolerances and to the NTEP Technical Committee.

1-22
Executive Committee

Subsequent to the 71st Annual Meeting, Publication 4 was again reviewed by

the Executive Committee. Major changes were made in formatting and

sections were rearranged to present the policy in a more understandable

sequence. Additionally, editing to reduce ambiguities and to improve clarity

was done.

The Executive Committee believes that all changes were editorial in nature

to improve the format, clarity, and use. This item is therefore presented as an information item with no proposal for adoption.

111-2 CHECKLISTS AND TEST PROCEDURES

The Executive Committee (Board of Governors) and the Committee on

Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) met in joint session. (The equivalent

S<5cT Items are shown in parentheses and the details of each are contained in

the S &T Committee report.) Mr. Oppermann reported on the following

items:

110-2 LOAD CELL TESTING (S<5cT Items 320-10, 320-19,

320-27)

110-

3 ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS (S<5cT Items 320-27, 320-8)

111-

1 TECHNICAL COMMITTEES UPDATE (S<5cT Item 320-27)

111-2 CHECKLISTS AND TEST PROCEDURES (S&T Item 320-27)

These are S&T Committee voting items, not Executive Committee voting

items. The Executive Committee recommends adoption of the items as reported by the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances.

PROGRAM

112-1 STATUS OF PROGRAM ACCEPTANCE

The implementation of the NTEP and the subsequent acceptance of the

program by the states was reviewed. The SMA communicated its concern

about a seeming lack of urgency in some jurisdictions with respect to

adoption of NTEP. They requested that the Executive Committee encourage

adoption.

Most states participate in the NTEP program by accepting the Certificates

of Conformance as evidence that the device meets the requirements of NBS

Handbook 44. In some cases, states which have type evaluation

requirements on their books have taken legislative and/or administrative

action to participate in NTEP. A few jurisdictions still have requirements

to do their own testing and do not participate fully in NTEP. Illinois and

New York report that they are actively moving toward full recognition of

NTEP Certificates of Conformance. New Jersey and Massachusetts report

that they are faced with other considerations before full participation. The

Executive Committee asked the Executive Secretary to work with the

remaining states that are not full participants to determine what steps are necessary to accommodate their requirements.

1-23
Executive Committee

112-2 PARTICIPATING LABORATORIES

The Executive Secretary reported on the authorized Participating

Laboratories and their evaluation capabilities and activities. In addition to

the NBS, California, Ohio, and the Federal Grain Inspection Service are

Participating Laboratories. NBS, California, and Ohio have operating

environmental chambers for testing scales under 2000 pounds capacity. The

NBS has limited capability for testing load cells. California is arranging

with the Navy Department for facilities to test load cells.

NBS is working with New York so that it can become a Participating

Laboratory.

NBS plans to hold a training seminar on the evaluation of liquid measuring

devices at the NBS in May. Thereafter, NBS will work with Alabama to

develop it into a Participating Laboratory and to add that capability to

current Participating Laboratories.

112-3 EVALUATION ACTIVITIES

The Executive Secretary reported on the evaluation activities, including the

testing completed by each participating laboratory and Certificates of

Conformance issued. Tables H and I summarize the report.

Table H

CERTIFICATES OF CONFORMANCE ISSUED

Year Issued Number

Issued

Full Certificates

1985 75

1986

(1985

(1986

Criteria) 43

Criteria) 37 1

80

Provisional Certificates

1986 (Load Cells) 9

1 25 Certificates were issued based on

testing for conformance to the requirements of the Influence Factors.

1-24
Executive Committee

Table I EVALUATIONS CONDUCTED BY JURISDICTION

Evaluations

performed

by

In 1985In 1986

1985

criteria

using

1986

criteria

California 28 20 10

Ohio 2 4 3

Kansas 5

(for NBS)

FGIS 2 1 NBS (Full) 43 13 24 1 NBS (Provisional) 9

Total 75 43 46

* Only NBS and California had an environmental chamber.

F. Nagele, Michigan, Chairman

D. Guensler, California, Chairman-Elect

L. Draghetti, Town of Agawam, MA

J. Lyles, Virginia

G. Mattimoe, Hawaii, Past Chairman

B. Niebergall, North Dakota

J. O’Connor, Iowa

J. Swanson, Alaska

C. Gardner, Suffolk County, NY, Treasurer

A. Tholen, NBS, Executive Secretary

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

1-25
Executive Committee

APPENDIX A

PROPOSED REVISED POLICY

INTERNATIONAL ORGANIZATION OF LEGAL METROLOGY, NCWM PARTICIPATION

1.5.1. International Organization of Legal Metrology

(Exec, 1987, Proposed; will supersede 1.5.1, 1.5.2., and 1.5.3. in draft

NCWM Publication 3, "Policy, Interpretations, and Guidelines".)

PART I - GENERAL

A. It is the policy of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures (NCWM) to participate in U.S. activities related to

the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML).

B. NCWM participation in U.S. activities is viewed as an opportunity to introduce U.S. practices into international weights

and measures requirements and also to enrich the U.S. system

through adoption of international weights and measures practices.

C. The NCWM is the principal organization through which the

recommendations of the OIML can be introduced into state

weights and measures laws and regulations in the United

States.

D. The Executive Committee will review the OIML Working

Program and decide which Pilot and Reporting Secretariats are

of interest to the NCWM, and will promote participation of its

members on the various USNWGs overseeing these secretariats.

1-26
Executive Committee

PART II NCWM REVIEW OF OIML RECOMMENDATIONS AND DOCUMENTS

A. The NCWM Chairman and Executive Secretary shall jointly

receive and coordinate invitations or requests for NCWM

participation in OIML activities.

B. Members selected for participation as NCWM representatives to

U.S. National Working Groups or as delegates to meetings of

the OIML should be qualified to represent the NCWM to ensure close coordination of the work and scope of the NCWM

committees and of the OIML organizations.

C. Selection of NCWM members for participation will be determined as follows:

1. Requests will normally be referred to the appropriate

NCWM Committee, in which case the Committee will

recommend to the NCWM Chairman by letter the NCWM

member believed to be fully qualified. The NCWM

Chairman may exercise the right to make the selection

without reference to a Committee if the subject matter is not covered by the standing committee.

2. The NCWM Chairman, in consultation with the Executive

Secretary, shall make the final NCWM selection and

forward the name of the nominee to the NBS Standards

Management Program.

D. The role of the NCWM representative is of special significance

in that he or she may be the first NCWM member having

knowledge of the recommendations being developed. As the

NCWM representative, the member:

1. will keep the sponsoring standing committee current on

the progress of the OIML activity;

2. will promote the policies of the NCWM and will seek

guidance if a question arises regarding the policy and/or

position of the NCWM; such issues will be reviewed

within the Committee structure of the NCWM.

1-27
Executive Committee

PART III DEVELOPMENT OF NCWM POSITIONS

A. Formal processes are followed by the NCWM to review OIML

Recommendations and Documents, leading to and including the

development of official NCWM positions on these papers and

the forwarding of these positions to the U.S. Representative to

OIML.

B. Recommendations and documents will be reviewed to determine

if the draft material is equivalent to existing NCWM codes,

uniform laws and regulations.

C. The NCWM Chairman and Executive Secretary shall jointly

receive and coordinate requests for review of draft OIML

International Recommendations and Documents which are to

come before the International Committee of Legal Metrology

(CIML) and the International Conference as follows:

1. The requests will be referred to the appropriate NCWM

Committee for review and development of recommended

NCWM position for submission to the Executive Committee. (The Executive Committee may decide to solicit

comments from other members of the NCWM through use

of the mail ballot.)

2. The Executive Committee will review the comments

received and will formulate a recommended NCWM position on the OIML draft.

3. An affirmative position will be taken if the reviewers

agree that the OIML draft is sufficiently beneficial and

one of the following circumstances is met (otherwise, a negative position will be taken):

a. The proposed OIML requirements are considered to

be equivalent to existing or proposed NCWM codes,

and uniform regulations and/or laws;

b. Conflicts with existing or proposed NCWM codes,

uniform regulations, and/or laws can be resolved

without difficulty or losing equivalence; or

1-28
Executive Committee

c. No NCWM codes or uniform regulations exist and

the draft OIML requirements could be considered as the basis for such codes or regulations.

4. The NCWM will consider abstaining if the draft is

considered to be outside the scope of the NCWM interests

or if a NCWM position on the draft can not be achieved.

PART IV

ADOPTION OF OIML RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Any OIML recommendation under consideration for adoption

may be considered in whole or in part, or rejected. (NOTE:

NCWM requirements may be less stringent and/or ‘different

from OIML requirements as long as they do not present a technical obstacle to the marketing of equipment in the United

States.)

B. The OIML recommendation, or part thereof, may be proposed

for adoption by the NCWM provided that:

1 . it was not opposed by the NCWM;

2. a need exists;

3. the OIML recommendation satisfies the need; and

4. it is considered beneficial to the U.S. marketplace

PART V - FUNDING

A. The NCWM will annually budget to support OIML activities. The

amount of funding wi 1 ! be determined within the context of

overall NCWM activities and will likely vary from year to year.

B. The representatives will be encouraged to arrange funding,

either in full or partially, by their employer for their participation.

1-29
Executive Committee

APPENDIX B

DRAFT OPERATING BUDGET

(July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988)

The entries in columns (c) and (d) are the proposed amounts budgeted for the

operating year July 1, 1987 to June 30, 1988.

The entries in column (f) are the amounts budgeted for the current operating

year July 1, 1986 to June 30, 1987; these numbers are provided as a basis for

comparison between the two years.

INCOME

Account Amount

Footnotes

(e)

Prior Year

Budget

(f)

Number

(a)

Name

(b)

Subaccount

(c)

Account

(d)

1.1 Registration Fees $30,000 1 $34,000

1.2 Membership Fees 45,500 2 45,500

1.3 Training Modules 3,500 3 8,000

1.4 Interest 2,000 4 1,600

1.5 Promotion 1,000 5 0

1.6 Special Events 5,000 6 6,000

1.9 Miscellaneous 200 7 0

Total $87,200 8 $95,100

1-30
Executive Committee

EXPENSES

Account Amount Prior Year

Number

(a)

Name

(b)

Subaccount

(c)

Account

(d)

Footnotes

(e)

Budget

(f)

2.0 Annual Meeting $10,000 9 $ 12,000

3.0 Interim Meeting 4,000 10 5,100

4.0 Committee Meetings 19,400 11 24,500

4.1 Executive $6,000

4.2 Education 4,900

4.3 Laws and Regs 2,500

4.4 Liaison 2,000

4.5 Specs & Tol 2,500

4.9 Miscellaneous 1,500

5.0 Special Meetings 20,500 12 20,500

5.1 TF on Comm Req 3,500

5.2 TF on Info Sys 3,500

5.3 TF on Fraud 5,500

5.4 OIML 4,000

5.5 NTEP Tech Cte 3,000

5.9 Miscellaneous 1,000

6.0 Chairman/Chairman Elect 8,500 13 7,500

7.0 Membership Program 5,000 14 6,000

8.0 Printing/Pubs 3,500 15 3,000

9.0 Administration 6,500 16 7,000

10.0 Special Events 5,000 17 6,000

11.0 Promotion 800 18 0

12.0 Training Modules 4,000 19 3,500

Total Disbursements $87,200 20 $ 95,100

Footnotes (Income).

1. Account 1.1. Recent experience is that registration is leveling at

300. The estimate is based on 300 registrations @ $100.00 each =

$30,000.00.

1-31
Executive Committee

2. Account 1 .2. No change. Estimate is based on 1300 members @

$35.00 each = $45,500.00.

3. Account 1 .3. Module sales have not reached expectations. States

are reproducing the modules rather than purchasing them from the

NCWM; therefore, this budget item has been reduced.

4. Account 1 ,4. A slight increase based on the expectation that the

average bank balance will be larger.

5. Account 1.5. The sales (and inventory) of ties, tie-tacks, etc. is down. Sales in the prior year were approximately $1700.

6. Account 1.6. This account represents the income from the various

elective activities of the guest program and the social activities of

the membership at the Annual Meeting.

7. Account 1.9. This is a miscellaneous account.

8.

Total Income. There is a significant reduction in budgeted income

due primarily to a reduction in the estimate of registrations at the

Annual Meeting and a reduced expectation in the sale of training

modules.

Footnotes (Expenses).

9. Account 2.0 A reduction to reflect experience.

10. Account 3.0. A reduction to reflect experience.

11. Account 4.0. A reduction to reflect experience.

12. Account 5.0. No change.

13. Account 6.0. An increase to support added travel.

14. Account 7.0 A slight decrease because of plans which will add

efficiencies to the operation of this activity.

15. Account 8.0. These are the expenses of preparation and printing of

NCWM publications (other than the training modules) and for other

incidentals such as the NCWM stationery, and for part-time typing

assistance. A small increase reflecting added printing.

16. Account 9.0. These are the expenses for the procurement of

supplies for general operations including the post office box,

magazine subscription, etc. Included in the budgeted amount is

$2,000 for the purchase of a second IBM compatible or clone

computer and printer to broaden the capability of the Bulletin Board

operation. Note: the NCWM currently owns three computers, two

1-32
Executive Committee

Compucorp machines (used for the preparation of camera-ready copy

for Handbooks, and publications, as well as for correspondence), and

an IBM (purchased for the use of the Chairman for preparation of

official correspondence and communications with the NCWM office).

Two of the computers have their own dedicated printers. Additionally, a computer and printer belonging to the OWM are dedicated

full time to the operation of the Bulletin Board.

17. Account 10.0. Offset by Income account 1.6.

18. Account 1 1 .0. This is the cost of purchase of promotional items

such as ties, tie-tacks, etc.

19. Account 12.0. This is the cost of printing, assembling and mailing

training modules.

20. Total Expenses . The total of $87,200 is reduced from last year

because of economies planned in the operation of the meetings under

Accounts 2.0, 3.0, and 4.0.

1-33
Executive Committee

APPENDIX C

NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

Policy and Procedures

CONTENTS

A. Definitions 1-35

B. Administration of the Program 1-36

C. The Type Evaluation Process 1-37

D. Request for Evaluation 1-38

E. Steps in the Type Evaluation Process 1-39

F. Extent of Evaluation 1-40

G. Kinds of Type Evaluation 1-41

H. Evaluation of New Technology 1-43

I. What Constitutes a Different Type 1-44

J. Considerations Preceding Evaluation 1-44

K. Period of Validity of Approval 1-46

L. Results of Evaluation 1-46

M. Certificate of Conformance 1-48

N. Report of Deficiencies 1-50

0. Appeal Process 1-50

P. Distribution of Outputs of Evaluation 1-51

Q. References to NTEP Activities

(added at the 7Uth Annual Meeting)

1-51

1-34
Executive Committee

NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES

A. DEFINITIONS

1. "NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM"

A program of cooperation between the National Bureau of Standards,

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

private sector for determining, on a uniform basis, conformance of a "type" (q.v.) with the relevant provisions of:

National Bureau of Standards Handbook 44, "Specifications,

Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and

Measuring Devices";

National Bureau of Standards Handbook 105-1, "Specifications and

Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights

and Measures, Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard

Weights (NBS Class F)";

National Bureau of Standards Handbook 105-2, "Specifications and

Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights

and Measures, Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard

Measuring Flasks"; or

National Bureau of Standards Handbook 105-3, "Specifications and

Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights

and Measures, Specifications and Tolerances for Graduated Neck

Type Volumetric Field Standards".

2. "TYPE EVALUATION"

A process for the testing, examination, and/or evaluation of a "type"

(q.v.) by a "Participating Laboratory" (q.v.) under the National Type

Evaluation Program.

1-35
Executive Committee

3.

"TYPE”

A model or models of a particular measurement system, instrument,

element, or a field standard that positively identifies the design. A

specific type may vary in its measurement ranges, size, performance,

and operating characteristics as specified in the "Certificate of

Conformance" (q.v.).

4. "PARTICIPATING LABORATORY"

A Federal or a State Measurement Laboratory authorized by the

National Bureau of Standards, in accordance with its program for the

Certification of Capability of State Measurement Laboratories, to

conduct a type evaluation under the National Type Evaluation Program.

The National Bureau of Standards is a Participating Laboratory.

5. "CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE"

A document issued by the National Bureau of Standards based on

testing by a Participating Laboratory, said document constituting

evidence of conformance of a type with the requirements of this

document and the National Bureau of Standards Handbooks 44, 1U5-1,

105—2, or 1U5-3.

B. ADMINISTRATION OF THE PROGRAM

The National Type Evaluation Program is operated by the following

organizations.

1. Board of Governors

The Executive Committee operates as the NTEP Board of Governors

and is responsible for the operation of the program, including the

establishment of policy and procedures and the resolution of policy,

technical and appeals issues. (See Bylaws, Article V, Section 5.)

2. NTEP Advisory Committee

The NTEP Advisory Committee is composed of Associate Members of

the NCWM appointed by the NCWM Chairman to represent the

interests of industry in advising the Board of Governors. (See Bylaws,

Article V, Section 5.)

3. Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation

The Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation includes the

NTEP Advisory Committee plus Active Members of the NCWM

appointed by the NCWM Chairman. It is responsible for the

development of test criteria and procedures for use in the evaluation

process by the Participating Laboratories.
Executive Committee

4. The National Bureau of Standards

The NBS Office of Weights and Measures (OWM) provides:

a. technical and administrative support to the National Type

Evaluation Program (see NBS SP 250 Appendix, November

1985, page 37); and

b. the Secretariat for the National Conference on Weights

and Measures (see NBS SP 250, 1982 Edition, Chapter

X.H.).

In these roles, the OWM:

a. administers the Program, including the receipt, review,

and recording of requests for evaluation;

b. assigns responsibility for evaluation to a Participating

Laboratory and maintains records to provide knowledge of

the progress of evaluations;

c. evaluates the qualifications of potential Participating

Laboratories and issues Certificate of Authorization to

those that comply (see NBS Handbook 143, Part II for

criteria);

d. functions as a Participating Laboratory;

e. reviews Reports of Test prepared by Participating

Laboratories, makes decisions regarding compliance of the

tested types with NBS Handbooks, and issues the

Certificates of Conformance or Reports of Test; and

f. maintains records of Certificates of Conformance and

Reports of Test that have been issued and updates the

composite record annually.

C. TYPE EVALUATION PROCESS

The type evaluation process follows a sequence of major steps (further

explained in Sections D and E):

- Request for type evaluation (usually by the manufacturer)

- Decision by NBS to accept or reject the request to conduct

evaluation

- Assignment by NBS of Participating Laboratory

- Decision by NBS on extent of evaluation necessary

- Conduct of the type evaluation by the Participating Laboratory

1-37
Executive Committee

- Report of deficiencies, if any, by the Participating Laboratory to

manufacturer, who must correct the deficiencies before the process can continue

- Decision on conformance or nonconformance by the Participating

Laboratory; if non-conformance, the manufacturer must correct

deficiencies before the process can continue

- Evaluation of the type evaluation results by NBS

- Preparation of the type evaluation report by NBS

- Issuance of the Certificate of Conformance by NBS

D. REQUEST FOR TYPE EVALUATION

Examples of potential applicants for evaluation are:

1.

the manufacturer, including assemblers of systems comprised of

subsystems produced by various manufacturers; and

2.

manufacturer's sales representatives

To obtain a type evaluation, the applicant shall:

1. address a letter requesting the evaluation to:

National Type Evaluation Program

c/o National Conference on Weights and Measures,

P.O. Box 3137, Gaithersburg, MD 20878;

2. attach the appropriate Application Form (see Part II of this

publication), describing the type (include drawings with

dimensions and specifications of large capacity scales), its

operating characteristics and instructions, intended application,

model number, capacity, size, and shipping weight; and

3. authorize the billing of all associated costs incurred by the

Participating Laboratory conducting the evaluation.

4. Following acknowledgement of a request by OWM, ship the

type, intact and ready for evaluation, to the assigned testing

location. (If special installation arrangements are required, they

must be made by the requestor prior to the time of

evaluation.)

The physical and metrological characteristics of copies of a type submitted

for evaluation under NTEP are expected to be representative of production

devices.

1-38
Executive Committee

E. STEPS IN THE TYPE EVALUATION PROCESS

The type evaluation process is the first step of regulatory involvement in

the legal metrology control system.

1. Conditions for Evaluation

a. Test criteria and procedures are contained in Part El of

this publication.

b. Facilities are available to conduct the evaluation. (See

options available to Participating Laboratories, paragraph

4 below.)

2. Initiation of Evaluation Process

In general, one or more copies of the type wiU be submitted with a request for device evaluation. Submission of engineering specifications

and operating descriptions that characterize the type are required.

3. Choice of Participating Laboratories

The manufacturer may request a particular Participating Laboratory

for the conduct of the evaluation, probably based on location.

Cooperation between the manufacturer and NTEP is considered to be

advantageous.

NTEP wiU try to honor the request. If another Participating

Laboratory could conduct the evaluation sooner, the manufacturer wiU

be given an opportunity to withdraw his request, but NTEP has the

final authority to assign the Participating Laboratory.

4. Participating Laboratories - Options

The type evaluation process normaUy will be conducted in

Participating Laboratories.

a. Minimizing Program Cost

A policy of the NTEP is to minimize the cost of the Program

to aU parties. In some circumstances, testing in laboratories

other than Participating Laboratories might be warranted, but

only if the testing is supervised by representative(s) of a

Participating Laboratory. Participating Laboratories may

consider using other facilities to augment their own capability,

including those belonging to:

(1) manufacturers;

(2) independent testing organizations; and

(3) Federal or state government agencies.

1-39
Executive Committee

b. Considerations

NTEP should consider the following before proceeding with full

evaluation:

(1) Is the availability and credibility of test data provided

by the manufacturer as evidence of conformity of the

type to NBS Handbooks equivalent to that which would

be produced by a Participating Laboratory?

(2) Does the type apply new technology with which NTEP

has not dealt before, and/or does the Participating

Laboratory have the facilities or knowledge necessary to

carry out the required evaluations?

(3) In the absence of adequate test facilities in the

Participating Laboratory, are manufacturer or third party

test facilities available to augment the facilities of the

Participating Laboratory?

(4) Must the testing be done in situ because the type is not portable and must be assembled at a user site?

Different aspects of a given evaluation may be carried

out at different sites for convenience, such as at the

factory, in a laboratory, and at a user location.

5. Safeguarding Proprietary Information

In the course of the process, the NTEP (and Participating

Laboratories) often become privy to proprietary information related to

the device, manufacturing techniques, etc. These agencies are bound

to protect this information and must carefully limit access to it, or

to data developed during the NTEP process, to properly authorized

organizations or individuals, e.g., only the applicant or the

manufacturer.

F. FULL OR PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

Normally, the NTEP will conduct a complete evaluation of a type which, if the type meets the requirements, will result in the issuance of a Full

Certificate of Conformance. Under certain circumstances, the NTEP will

issue a Provisional Certificate of Conformance.

1. FULL CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

a. Various conditions may justify limiting the scope of the

evaluation but still result in the issuance of a Full Certificate

of Conformance. These conditions include:

(1) restricted application of the type, and

(2) requirements concerning installation, safeguarding,

maintenance, and/or recalibration.

1-40
Executive Committee

These conditions may be inclusive or exclusive, as in "...for use

in measuring the volume of water only..." or "...not for use in

measuring corrosive liquids..."

b. Permanance Test

In those cases where a permanance field test is required under

NTEP, it is a part of the "full" type evaluation.

2. PROVISIONAL CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

Under some circumstances, a Certificate of Conformance may be

issued without a full evaluation. Such a Certificate of Conformance

is referred to as Provisional.

In accepting a Provisional Certificate of Conformance, the

manufacturer shall agree in writing that:

a. the Provisional Certificate of Conformance is granted only

with the understanding that further evaluation will take place

before a Full Certificate of Conformance can be issued; and

b. existing copies of the type will be modified or retrofitted if required.

A Provisional Certificate of Conformance will be issued infrequently,

and only after authorization by the Board of Governors.

A Provisional Certificate of Conformance may, for example, be issued

after partial or limited evaluation if there is an urgent need for use

of the type, and the NTEP is temporarily unable to carry out a complete evaluation. (See also Section H.)

G. VARIATIONS IN TYPE EVALUATION

Variations in the type evaluation process result from considerations of the

history of the type.

1. INITIAL EVALUATION

An Initial Evaluation is conducted on a type not previously submitted

to the NTEP. In most cases, the Initial Evaluation will comprise

full testing of the type. However, previous experience with the

manufacturer and/or with similar types may suggest that some tests can be waived.

2. REEVALUATION

NTEP may decide to reevaluate a type that it has previously

evaluated, whether or not a Certificate of Conformance was issued.

Reevaluation of a type must be justified. Some considerations are

listed below.

1-41
Executive Committee

a. Devices manufactured after the effective date of any new

non-retroactive regulations must meet the new requirements;

devices manufactured prior to the effective date of such

regulations must meet retroactive requirements only.

b. The devices in use fail to meet the requirements.

Reevaluation may result in reconfirmation of the Certificate of

Conformance, amendment to the Certificate of Conformance, or withdrawal of the Certificate of Conformance.

3. EXPANSION OF THE CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

A type with a valid Certificate of Conformance may be reevaluated

in order to consider additional features, such as the range of the

measured quantity or the kind of commodities that may be measured.

In most such cases, evaluation to determine the validity of the

added features will be sufficient; that is, the evaluation(s) will not

go through the entire check list, but will test the new features

through the entire range of performance.

4. EVALUATION OF A TYPE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED BY PRE-NTEP

JURISDICTION

A type already approved in one or more jurisdictions may be

submitted for evaluation under NTEP.

Discussions with the approving jurisdiction(s) may lead to the

conclusion that the type meets all requirements of NTEP, in which

case a Certificate of Conformance will be issued without formed

testing.

The NTEP may accept data obtained in or conclusions drawn from

prior evaluation.

The NTEP may conclude that limited evaluation will suffice to check

for differences in the requirements of the testing jurisdiction and

NTEP.

Prior to an NTEP evaluation, OWM will examine the report of the

previous evaluation and regulations under which the prior evaluation

was made and will determine the extent to which the former

evaluation can be accepted. This decision may be based in part on the

similarity of requirements in the two cases and on the policies and

reputation for competence of the pre-NTEP jurisdiction.

5. EVALUATION OF A TYPE IN USE BUT NOT PREVIOUSLY

APPROVED

Many types in use have never undergone type evaluation, neither at

the NBS nor by a state. A manufacturer may choose to request

evaluation under NTEP or, if the device is to be installed in a

1-42
Executive Committee

particular jurisdiction, that jurisdiction may require that the type be

evaluated.

Some such devices might not meet the requirements of the NTEP;

however it is assumed that all types in use meet the requirements of

Handbook 44 since they have underwent testing in the state(s) in

which they are installed. The NTEP has no authority to change the

status quo in these instances. However, for the continued sales of

these types, they must be evaluated and a Certificate of Conformance

issued.

H. EVALUATION OF NEW TECHNOLOGY

Type evaluation must deal with innovation and the application of new

technology. It is anticipated that the NTEP will encounter features for

which no test criteria or procedures have been developed.

In such cases:

a. the necessary criteria and/or procedures will be developed, ad

hoc, by the NBS and participating laboratory representatives as expeditiously as possible;

b. these criteria and/or procedures will be submitted to the NTEP

Technical Subcommittee, either by letter ballot, regularly

scheduled meeting, or at a specially called meeting, depending

on the complexity or sensitivity of the material; and

c. material accepted by the Technical Committee will be

introduced into the normal NCWM process.

d. Pending completion of the normal NCWM administrative

process, the NTEP will issue a Provisional Certificate of

Conformance, provided the device meets the requirements of

the proposed criteria and/or test procedures.

Normal NCWM administrative process follows the steps described below.

a. If no changes are required to NBS Handbook 44, proposed

criteria and/or procedures will be submitted through the

Executive Committee (Board of Governors), and the NCWM

membership in sequence. Adopted test criteria and procedures

will appear as part of this Handbook.

b. Any changes required in NBS Handbook 44 will be submitted

through the S&T Committee, the Executive Committee (Board

of Governors), and the NCWM membership in sequence. Adopted

changes will appear in NBS Handbook 44. As before, test

criteria and procedures will appear as part of this Handbook.

1-43
Executive Committee

A new feature or technology incorporated in the type being evaluated may

not meet current NTEP requirements, but is nonetheless appropriate for its

intended commercial use. In such a case, the NTEP can WAIVE or ALTER

current practice and issue a Provisional Certificate of Conformance pending

adoption of the change(s) by the NCWM process.

If there is an NTEP consensus on the recommended criteria and procedures,

AND the type meets the new requirements, the follow-up process is administrative. If no consensus can be reached on the criteria or procedures, but the type meets the requirements as proposed by the NBS and

Participating Laboratories, a Provisional Certificate of Conformance will be

issued. If more demanding criteria or procedures are subsequently proposed

and adopted, the type will be tested under these criteria or procedures.

I. WHAT CONSTITUTES A "DIFFERENT" TYPE?

When there are two very similar types (from a single manufacturer), a

decision must be made whether one or two separate evaluation processes

must be followed. The following guidelines should to decide.

1. SUPERFICIAL DIFFERENCES BETWEEN DEVICES

Types that are identical in design, materials and components used, and

measurement ranges, but that differ superficially in their enclosures,

detailed size, color, or location of non-metrological appointments

(function lights, display location, operational key locations, etc.) can

normally be covered by a single evaluation.

2. COMPONENT VARIATIONS

Types produced by the same manufacturer with nominally identical

components or materials procured from different suppliers can usually

be regarded as the same type. They will be covered by a single

evaluation if the different components or materials are not likely to

affect the regulated metrological characteristics, reliability, or life of

the types.

If changes in components or materials are likely to affect the

performance or operational characteristics of a device, separate

evaluations may be required. A type is considered MODIFIED if a change alters a metrological or technical characteristic.

J. CONSIDERATIONS PRECEDING EVALUATION

Certain considerations that precede the type evaluation process itself are discussed in the following paragraphs.

1-44
Executive Committee

1. REASONS FOR INITIATING PROCESS

Reasons for initiating evaluation are listed below:

a. new type;

b. existing type not previously evaluated for legal use or not evaluated by NTEP;

c. new application of an evaluated type;

d. modification of an approved type; or

e. previous rejection or withdrawal of Certificate of

Conformance coupled with newly presented facts

concerning the type, improvements to the type, or a change in regulations.

2. RESPONSIBILITY FOR REPORTING OCCURRENCE OF

MODIFICATIONS

When a manufacturer makes changes related to an approved

type, evaluation of the modification may be necessary.

The manufacturer is responsible for reporting changes that

might require the attention of the NTEP; the decision to report

is dictated by the significance of the modification.

a. Notification of Change.

The manufacturer notifies the NTEP that a change has been

made or is contemplated for an approved device. The

manufacturer may make judgments concerning the modification

and request issuance of an approval of a modification by citing

the existing Certificate of Conformance, detailing the changes

and giving any data, analysis, and conclusions concerning the

technical or metrological consequences of the changes.

b. NTEP Options

On the basis of the notification, the NTEP will decide whether

or not to require an evaluation which may result in an approval

of a modification, or a new Certificate of Conformance. NTEP

will inform the manufacturer accordingly.

1-45
Executive Committee

K. PERIOD OF VALIDITY OF CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

The Certificate of Conformance remains valid unless withdrawn as the result

of a specific determination by the NTEP. (See paragraphs 1 and 2, below.)

1. WITHDRAWAL OF CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

Approval may be withdrawn for deficiencies in the type.

Withdrawal will, however, be an action of last resort.

The decision to withdraw must be clearly established on the basis of

evidence provided to the Board of Governors. A manufacturer has the

option of appealing the withdrawal before notice of the action is sent

to the State directors.

2. FEEDBACK

The evaluation process under NTEP can generate only limited data.

The data gathered during the initial and subsequent verifications of a

larger number of devices of a given type will, when systematically

analyzed, often yield information not available from the type

evaluation. Such feedback can be used as the basis for revising the

conditions of approval when the situation so warrants.

Depending on circumstances, the experience gained during verifications

may justify later changes in the Certificate of Conformance; in

extreme cases, it might result in a reevaluation of the type.

L. RESULTS OF EVALUATION

The results of evaluation include both a report of objective findings and a report of conclusions and recommendations concerning approval. These may

be given in a single document or in two separate documents, as indicated

below. Separate documents are especially appropriate when evaluation and a

Certificate of Conformance are the responsibilities of different officials (for

example, when testing of the type is carried out in a state laboratory and a Certificate of Conformance is issued by NBS). These reports will be retained

permanently by the NCWM.

1. REPORT OF OBJECTIVE FINDINGS

The report will be a permanent, objective record of the evaluation

process and its results, against which future evaluations can be

compared. It will identify the type, components and salient

documents examined, personnel and laboratories that carried out the

evaluation, and any special procedures, standards, and equipment used

in the process. It will contain important data, ambient conditions,

and the time data were taken, or identify the repositories of such

data and the values of measured metrological characteristics and the

associated uncertainties.

1-46
Executive Committee

These characteristics will include all those subject to requirements in

regulations and those that will form the basis for the definition of the

type. To the extent that findings are based not on measurement, but on visual inspection, they will be as objective as possible in each

instance.

2. REPORT OF CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS RESULTING

FROM EVALUATION

The report giving conclusions and recommendations will be based on

the findings of the Participating Laboratory and will provide the basis

for a decision by NBS regarding issuance of a Certificate of

Conformance.

Examples of the recommendation can include the following:

a. Certificate of Conformance,

b. Provisional Certificate of Conformance,

c. unqualified rejection (the main reasons for rejection should

be given),

d. qualified rejection (recommendation that the type be

rejected, but that it be approved in the future if specified

modifications are made to the satisfaction of the Participating

Laboratory, as may be demonstrated by a partial reevaluation),

or

e. recommendation that the type be rejected, that the applicant

be adequately informed about its deficiencies, and that the type

be accepted for a complete reevaluation in the future, provided

the applicant declares that the deficiencies have been

corrected.

3. DEFICIENT EVALUATION

If a significant area of non-compliance was overlooked by a Participating Laboratory in evaluating a type, costs of re-evaluation

will be borne by the Participating Laboratory. In such cases every

effort will be made to provide the manufacturer with adequate time

to meet the requirements, including time to modify and/or retrofit

the devices in use.

If a type for which a Certificate of Conformance was issued is found in use to have a feature that was not operational or present

during the evaluation, costs of re-evaluation will be borne by the

manufacturer. If the manufacturer requests a re-evaluation with

the new feature, and the type is approved, an amendment to the

Certificate of Conformance will be issued. If the type does not

meet approval as a result of the new feature, the Certificate of

Conformance will be withdrawn.

1-47
Executive Committee

M. CERTIFICATE OF CONFORMANCE

The Certificate of Conformance (see next page) may include the following

information:

1. APPLICATION OF THE TYPE

a. approved ranges

b. maximum capacity

c. reference conditions

d. normal conditions of use

e. approved subjects of measurement: physical quantities,

commodities, materials, objects, or phenomena that may

be measured

f. special restrictions on application

2. ACCURACY

a. accuracy class

b. nominal error(s); maximum permissible error(s)

c. required use of calibration charts, corrections, or instrument constants

3. REQUIREMENT OF MANUFACTURER

required name plate information and stamps, marks, and

seals affixed at the factory

4. REQUIREMENTS FOR USE

a. installation requirements

b. legally required auxiliary equipment and its minimum

characteristics

c. in the case of approval of auxiliary equipment,

identification of the measuring instruments in conjunction

with which it may be legally used

d. operating instructions

1-48
Executive Committee

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

GAITHERSBURG, MARYLAND 20899

CERTIFICATE NO.

Page of

(tterttfiort? of (ttottformanr?

For Weighing and Measuring Devices

This device was evaluated under the NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION PROGRAM

(NTEP) and found to comply with the applicable technical requirements of NBS

HANDBOOK 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices”.

Evaluation results and device characteristics necessary for inspection and use in commerce are on the following pages. For further information, contact the National

Bureau of Standards, address above, or telephone (301) 975-4004.

Date:

Chief, Office of Weights and Measures

NOTE: The National Bureau of Standards does not “approve”, "recommend”, or ‘‘endorse” any proprietary product or material, either as a single Item or as a class or group. Results shall not be used in advertising or sales promotion to indicate explicit or implicit endorsement of the product or material by the Bureau. (See NTEP Policies and Procedures).
Executive Committee

5. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS

The summary lists the characteristics, attributes, and conditions of

the type that are subject to regulation.

N. REPORT OF DEFICIENCIES

A report of deficiencies will include the following information:

1. applicant, manufacturer, and type for which application was

made;

2. applicable regulations;

3. specific components and salient documents examined;

4. characteristics and the values of their parameters found to be

deficient, as well as the corresponding acceptable values; and

5. other unfulfilled conditions (when there are many reasons for

rejection, only the major reasons will be given).

When reasons for non-conformance are based on relatively small deficiencies

or when deficiencies can be easily corrected, the report may list changes

that would make it acceptable.

O. APPEALS PROCESS

At any stage in the evaluation process, especially concerning a decision NOT

to issue a Certificate of Conformance or to WITHDRAW a previously issued

Certificate of Conformance, a manufacturer may appeal to the NTEP Board

of Governors. A state or other party may also appeal a decision of the

NTEP, including the issuance of a Certificate of Conformance.

Upon request, the NTEP Board of Governors will review the case and issue

its decision, which may result in withdrawal of a Certificate of

Conformance. In its evaluation, the Board may request the advice of the

Advisory Committee.

The second level of review will be the NBS, the issuer of the NTEP

Certificates of Conformance. If the NBS confirms the recommendation of

the NTEP and the appellant disagrees at this stage, he may appeal the

decision through the Federal Government process to the Federal Trade

Commission.

1-50
Executive Committee

P. DISTRIBUTION OF OUTPUTS OF EVALUATION.

A Certificate of Conformance, a report of deficiencies, an amendment to an

existing certificate, or a similar document reflecting the approval decision

will always be sent to the applicant at the earliest possible time. NTEP will

send to the applicant copies of, or excerpts from, the reports of evaluation

and of conclusions and recommendations.

The Certificate of Conformance will be sent to all the states and major

jurisdictions. NCWM Publication #5 will be updated annually to incorporate

all Certificates of Conformance issued during the previous calendar year.

The Publication includes the information listed below. (The publication is on the Weights and Measures Information System (WAMIS) Bulletin Board,

updated monthly on the first of each month.)

1. Number assigned to the Certificate of Conformance.

2. Date Certificate of Conformance was issued.

3. Company name.

4. Model designation.

5. Brief description of model.

6. Capacity, flow rate, or size.

Q. REFERENCES TO NTEP

The use and effectiveness of the NTEP system depends on the extent to

which knowledge of its operation and the results of its evaluations are known and requested.

1. RESTRICTION

Recipients must avoid any implication that the Certificate of

Conformance carries with it an endorsement or approval of the

product by the National Bureau of Standards.

Issuance of the Certificate of Conformance by the National Bureau of

Standards only "constitutes evidence of the conformance of a type

with the requirements of this publication and NBS Handbooks 44,

105-1, 105-2, and 105-3." (See Paragraph A.5 of this document.)

1-51
Executive Committee

2. PERMISSIBLE USE OF STATEMENTS AND NTEP LOGO

a. The Manufacturer

The manufacturer may communicate to clients and the public

the fact that a Certificate of Conformance was issued for a

type. State officials will automatically receive copies of all Certificates of Conformance issued and need not be advised of

this fact by the manufacturer.

(1) Statement

The following statement may be used in company

correspondence, brochures, and professional, technical, and

trade publications;

’’Certificate of Conformance (insert Certificate number)

was issued under the National Type Evaluation Program

of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.’’

(2) Logo

The NTEP logo (see next page) may be:

(a) used in conjunction with the above statement as

well as in advertising materials for the device for

which the Certificate of Conformance was issued;

and

(b) affixed to any device manufactured as being the

same as the NTEP approved device. However, sale

and use of individual devices manufactured are

subject to acceptance testing by state and local

jurisdictions.

b. The states

States participating in the NTEP (permitting the sale of

devices in their states based on the NTEP Certificate of

Conformance) and/or states operating NTEP Participating

Laboratories are encouraged to communicate their

activities to potential clients and the public. NTEP

authorization means that a laboratory is competent to

perform standard tests of specific weighing or measuring

devices.

A statement about the states’ participation and/or

authorization and the NTEP logo may be used in

correspondence, brochures, and test reports and data

sheets (provided the tests or services are performed in

accordance with the terms of its authorization).

1-52
Executive Committee

(1) Statement

A state whose laboratory is authorized may use the

following statement:

"Authorized by the National Bureau of Standards under

the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) for testing

—(identify device types covered by the Authorization

Certificate)."

A state accepting Certificates of Conformance may use the following statement:

"(Name of State) — permits the sale of weighing or measuring devices for use based on the issuance of the

NTEP Certificate of Conformance".

(2) Logo

The NTEP Logo (see below) may be used in conjunction

with the above statements as well as alone in materials

dealing with the NTEP.

Figure 2 - NTEP Logo

1-53
Executive Committee

c. Questions About Use of Statements or Logo

Any questions regarding the use of the statements or logo not

specifically covered above, or any questions concerning the

propriety or acceptability of their use in a particular situation,

should be brought to the attention of the NTEP Board of

Governors through the NCWM Executive Secretary.

d. The NTEP Logo

Glossy black and white positives and adhesive backed copies of

the logo are available from the NCWM office.

1-54
Executive Committee

APPENDIX D

OIML UPDATE

1. OIML Pilot and Reporting Secretariats of Possible Interest to NCWM

Recommend that NCWM Rep

Pilot and Reporting

Secretariats

be member of US

National Working Group

PS1 Terminology

Revision of the OIML

Vocabulary (RSI)

PS2 General Legal Metrology

Control of measuring

instruments by sampling

(RS5)

General requirements for

electronically equipped

measuring instruments

(RS6)

X

PS4 Measurement of Length,

Area, Angle

PS5S Dynamic Measurement of Liquid

Volume

Laboratory volume

measures (RS3)

PS5D Dynamic Measurement of Liquid X

Volume

Requirements for metering

systems (RSI)

Cryogenic meters (RS2)

Electronic devices applied

to flow (RS6)

Provers and verification

devices (RS7)

1-55
Executive Committee

Recommend that NCWM Rep

Pilot and Reporting be member of US

Secretariats National Working Group

PS7 Measurement of Mass X

Electronic weighing

instruments (RS2)

Verification weighing

instruments (RS3)

Non-automatic weighing

instruments (RS4)

Automatic weighing

instruments (RS5)

In-service EPOs (RS7)

Load cells (RS8)

PS8 Weights X

Weights used in trade

and industry (RS5)

Precision weights (RS6)

PS 10 Measuring Instruments for

Vehicles

Taximeters (RS3)

PS12 Measurement of Temperature

and Heat

Heat meters (RS8)

PS 18 Measurement of the

Characteristics of

Food Products

Grain moisture

meters (RSI) X

PS20 Prepackaged Products X

General packaging

problems (RSI)

Verification of

net contents

declarations (RS2)

PS22 Principles of

Metrological Control

PS31 Teaching of Metrology

1-56
Executive Committee

11-15 May

1-5 June

15-19 June

April/May

October/

November

1987 OIML Meetings of Possible Interest to

Scheduled

Seminar on Calibration of

Large Volume Liquid

Measuring Installations

PS7/RS4 Non-automatic Weighing

Instruments

PS20 Prepackaged Products

Provisional

PS5D/RS6 Electronic Flow

Devices

PS7/RS5 Automatic Weighing

Instruments

NCWM

Arles,

France

Braunschweig,

FRG

Falkenberg,

Sweden

1-57
Executive Committee

APPENDIX E

AGENDA, ISSUES ROUNDTABLE

Monday, January 12, 1987

This session will provide background or introductory material on selected

topics. It is a new part of the Interim Meeting agenda designed to cover

the technical aspects of more complex issues before specific committees

deliberate on related proposals during the week. The background information

to be presented is intended to prepare attendees to participate in the week’s

meetings with a fuller understanding of the issues in questions.

APPLICATION OF NTEP TO STATE ENFORCEMENT PROGRAMS

Albert D. Tholen, Executive Secretary

National Conference on Weights and Measures

(Chief, Office of Weights and Measures, NBS)

The following topics will be discussed:

- Evolution of NTEP

Need, NBS/NCWM Actions

- Status

Adoption/recognition by states

- Accomplishments

Participating laboratories, evaluations completed

- Benefits

Economy, field inspection

- Issues

Remove obstacles to adoption/recognition,

improve procedures to deal with innovation

TESTING PROCEDURES FOR LOADING-RACK METERS

Henry V. Oppermann, Technical Advisor

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(Office of Weights and Measures, NBS)

Several Specifications and Tolerances agenda items are related to this issue

and will be explained. These include the following: (1) whether or not

temperature corrections for the change in product temperature and prover

capacity should be included in the test procedure; (2) whether a separate

1-58
Executive Committee

tolerance for temperature probes should be included in Handbook 44; (3) the

use of remote temperature probes; (4) the tolerances proposed by the S&T

Committee in 1986; and (5) the variability in test results based upon prover

design and product vaporization.

MASS FLOW METERS

Brian Hoover

Product Market Manager

Micro Motion, Inc. A brief description of the technology used in mass flow meters will be

given. The test procedures to be used to test mass flow meters will be

discussed. The changes proposed for Handbook 44 to recognize these devices

will be reviewed.

TESTING FLOUR AND HOW TO DEAL WITH MOISTURE LOSS

Richard L. Thompson, Chief

Weights and Measures Section

Maryland Department of Agriculture

The Task Force on Commodity Requirements is ready to propose: (1) NCWM

policy to the Executive Committee; and (2) test procedures to be

incorporated into Handbook 133 for checking flour packages to the Laws and

Regulations Committee. Details of the test method will be described,

including:

- Potential moisture loss and the loss actually found

- "Gray area" vs. "tolerance"

- Equipment and personnel administration

- Traceability at the plant, laboratory, and in the field

CHECKING POLYETHYLENE SHEETING

Carroll S. Brickenkamp, Technical Advisor

Laws and Regulations Committee

(Office of Weights and Measures, NBS)

Polyethylene sheeting is labeled by length, width, thickness, and weight.

Until recently, many jurisdictions were reluctant to check the product

because it was believed that the field inspector had to have a dead-weight-dial micrometer. A review of the steps involved in testing

polyethylene sheeting and film will be presented, including:

- Checking the label declaration for consistency

- Checking the net weight

- Checking the thickness

1-59
Executive Committee

APPENDIX F

January 30, 1987

TO: Frank Nagele, Chairman, NCWM

FROM: Committee on Nominations

SUBJECT: COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE 72ND NCWM

NOMINEE FOR NAME JURISDICTION REGION

Chairman Darrell Guensler California W

Chairman Elect John Bartfai New York NE

Vice Chairman James Vanderweilen Tippecanoe County,

Indiana

C

Vice Chairman Stuart Rosenthal City of New York,

New York

NE

Vice Chairman

Executive

Committee

Sterling MacFarlane

(THREE-YEAR TERMS)

City of Seattle,

Washington

W

Bruce Niebergall North Dakota C

Sam Hindsman Arkansas S

Executive (TWO-YEAR TERMS) (submitted as a recommendation to the incoming chairman

for the resulting vacancy the above officer

slate will create)

Fred Gerk New Mexico W

Treasurer Charles Gardner Suffolk County,

New York

NE

Respectfully submitted,

George Mattimoe (HI), Chairman

Ken Simila (OR), Chairman Pro Tern

Richard Thompson (MD)

Ed Heffron (MI)

Allan Nelson (CT)

Don Lynch (KC, KS)

Peggy Adams (BC, PA)

cc: A. Tholen, NBS-OWM

G. Mattimoe, HI

A. Heffernan

1-60
Laws and Regulations Committee

INTERIM REPORT OF THE

COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

Allan M. Nelson, Chairman

Chief, Weights and Measures

State of Connecticut

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

200 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Laws and Regulations submits its Interim Report to the

National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report results

from consideration of all communications received by the Committee prior

to and during the Interim Meeting, January 12-16, 1987, at the National

Bureau of Standards.

Items are grouped into the following series for ease of reference:

HANDBOOK 150 210 Series

Uniform Weights and Measures Law 211 Series

Uniform Weighmaster Law

Uniform Packaging and Labeling

212 Series

Regulation

Uniform Regulation for the Method

213 Series

of Sale of Commodities 214 Series

Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation

Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary

Registration of Servicepersons

and Service Agencies for Commercial

215 Series

Weighing ana Measuring Devices 216 Series

Uniform Open Dating Regulation

Uniform Regulation for National Type

217 Series

Evaluation 218 Series

HANDBOOK 153 230 Series

OTHER ITEMS 250 Series

This year's Report contains no items in the 215, 216, nor 218 series.

Table A on the following two pages identifies items contained in the Report

by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number.

2-1
Laws and Regulations Committee

The item numbers are those assigned in the Interim Agenda; in cases where

the Committee changed the order of presentation of items, the listing in

Table A may not be in numerical order. Item numbers followed by a "W"

were listed in the Interim Agenda, but withdrawn from the Committee’s

consideration. The reasons for withdrawal are given in the text of the

Report. The titles of voting items are identified in bold face print followed

by a "V" after the item number. In the Report, the key text upon which a vote is to be taken is also highlighted by bold face print. All other listed

items are information items.

Much of the report contains recommendations to revise or amend National

Bureau of Standards (NBS) Handbook 130, 1987 edition, "Uniform Laws and

Regulations", or NBS Handbook 133, Second Edition, "Checking the Net

Contents of Packaged Goods". Proposed revisions to the handbooks are shown in bold face print by eressfng out what is to be deleted, and

underlining what is to be added. Entirely new sections proposed for the

handbooks are designated as such and shown in bold face print.

Table A

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS AND INDEX

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

HANDBOOK 130

210-

1 V Proposed Uniform Motor Fuel Law and 2-4

Regulation

UNIFORM WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

211-

1 Proposed Section 1.10. Net Weight 2-5

211-2 V Section 22. Offenses and Penalties 2-6

212 UNIFORM WEIGHMASTER LAW 2-7

UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

213-1 V Proposed Section 2.9. Definition of

"Petroleum Products" 2-9

213-3 V Section 10.9.2. Textiles 2-9

213-2 V Proposed Section 11.4. Meat Packages Less Than

One-Half Ounce 2-1 1 213-4 W Labeling of Nonalcoholic Malt

Beverages 2-11

213-5 Editorial Review of the Uniform

Regulation 2-11

2-2
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference

Key No. Title of Item Page

UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF SALE OF

COMMODITIES

214-1 V Section 1.2. Bread 2-12

214-2 V Section 1.7. Other Milk Products 2-13

214-3 V Section 1.9. Pricing of Bulk Food

Commodities 2-13

214-4 Section 2.3.3. Quantity (of Fireplace and Stove

Wood/Wood Chips or like Products Used for

Seasoning) 2-14

214-5 V Section 2.12. Polyethylene Products 2-14

214-6 Proposed Section 2.15. Compressed or Liquefied

Gases in Cylinders 2-16

214-7 V Section 2.17. Bark Mulch 2-18

214-8 Section 2.20. Liquefied Petroleum Gas 2-19

214-9 W Miscellaneous Items: Soups Sold by Volume,

Roofing 2-20

UNIFORM OPEN DATING REGULATION

217-1 V Section 3.4.4. Expression of Month and

Day 2-20

HANDBOOK 133

230-1 Sampling Plans and MAV’s 2-21

230-2 V Section 1.9. Allowances for Variations Due to

Moisture Loss or Gain

Section 2.14. Moisture Allowance

Proposed Section 3.16. Flour 2-22

230-3 V Section 5.4. Polyethylene Sheeting 2-22

OTHER ITEMS

250-1 Task Force on Commodity Requirements 2-23

250-2 Task Force on Motor Fuels 2-24

In addition, the Report contains three appendices; Appendix A, beginning on page 2-25 is related to Reference Key 210-1, Appendix B, beginning on page

2-30 is related to Reference Key 230-2, and Appendix C, beginning on page

2-40 is related to Reference Key 250-2.

2-3
Laws and Regulations Committee

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS

(in order they appear in Table A)

HANDBOOK 130

210-1 V PROPOSED UNIFORM MOTOR FUEL LAW AND

REGULATION

(See also Item 250-2 on the Task Force on Motor Fuels)

During the 71st National Conference Interim Meeting of January 1986, the

Task Force on Motor Fuels provided the Laws and Regulations (L&R)

Committee with a draft of a Uniform Motor Fuel Inspection Law and a Uniform Regulation for Motor Fuel. The Task Force recommended a year's

delay in Conference action to allow:

(1) the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), upon

whose standards the law and regulation are based, to confirm new

test methods for oxygenated fuels, and

(2) the ethanol industry to evaluate the impact of ASTM P176

"Proposed Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine

Fuel."

Therefore, the L&R Committee published the proposed law and regulation as an information item in its report at the 71st Annual Meeting, July 1986.

(See pages 135-139 of the Report of the 71st NCWM 1986.) The following

discussion is based on that version; the final Committee recommendation is printed in Appendix A.

At the Interim Meeting held in January 1987, it was reported to the L&R

Committee that ASTM P176 will be letter balloted by ASTM Subcommittee

D02.A on Gasoline this spring. ASTM members generally agree that if the

negative votes on this ballot can be resolved at their June 1987 Meeting,

further ballots by higher levels within ASTM (Committee D02 and the

Society) can be handled expeditiously.

Most of the oral discussion and written testimony provided at the Interim

Meeting centered on Section 2.1. of the Proposed Uniform Regulation for

Motor Fuel, which would require gasoline and gasoline-alcohol blends to meet

ASTM PI 76 "Proposed Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine

Fuel." Although ASTM PI 76 cites Clean Air Act waivers of the U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), it also states in paragraph 1.3 (of

PI 76): "With regard to fuel properties, including volatility, this specification

may be more or less restrictive than the EPA rules, regulations, and

waivers."

In fact, EPA waives ASTM volatility limits for blends of unleaded gasoline

and ethanol at the present time. The agricultural industry, the ethanol

industry, gasoline-alcohol manufacturers, and marketers requested specific

language in the Uniform Regulation to recognize the EPA volatility

exemption. The Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association (MVMA) argued

that volatility standards should apply uniformly to all gasoline and

gasoline-alcohol blends for the benefit of the motoring public. While the

2-4
Laws and Regulations Committee

Committee is sympathetic to the concerns of the MVMA, it cannot

recommend adoption of a national standard in direct conflict with EPA

requirements. Therefore, the Committee recommends adding the following

to the end of the first sentence in Section 2.1.: "except that volatility

standards for unleaded gasoline blends containing up to 10% ethanol shall not

be more restrictive than those adopted under the EPA Clean Air Act

waivers." This wording would alert states to the existence of the EPA

waivers. It would also permit those states that adopt the regulation to

track the EPA waivers as they change over time. For this reason, the

Committee also recommends deleting the second sentence in Section 2.1.

(concerning a maximum oxygen content of 3.7% by weight) because EPA

waivers for gasoline-alcohol blends beyond this amount have been withdrawn.

Further editorial corrections have also been made to the regulation:

(1) a definition for diesel fuel has been added, and

(2) Section 2.3. on kerosene has been deleted, since motor fuel of

this nature would be sold as diesel fuel and covered under

Section 2.2. of the regulation.

(3) Section 3. of the regulation is identical to Section 2.19. of the

Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities.

Changes that were made to Sec. 2.19. at the 71st NCWM are

reflected in Section 3 below.

The Committee therefore recommends the law and regulation printed in

Appendix A for adoption by the NCWM.

UNIFORM WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

211-1 PROPOSED SECTION 1.10. NET WEIGHT

Section 1.2. of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law defines "weight":

"The term ’weight* as used in connection with any commodity means

net weight..."

The term "net weight" is not defined.

The State of North Carolina found the definition 1 in Black’s Law Dictionary 2 not entirely satisfactory for a particular problem they faced. For retailers

Net Weight. The weight of an article or collection of articles, after

deducting from the gross weight the weight of the boxes, coverings,

casks, etc., containing the same. The weight of an animal dressed for

sale, after rejecting hide, offal, etc.

Black, H.C., Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, West Publishing Co.,

St. Paul, MN, 1979.

2-5
Laws and Regulations Committee

selling wrapped candy from bulk displays, merely deducting the tare weight

of the poly bag filled by the consumer does not satisfy the requirement to

sell by net weight: a deduction for the individual piece coverings must also

be made. The Committee deliberated on a draft definition as follows:

1.10. Net Weight. — The term "net weight" means the weight of a commodity, or collection of commodities, excluding any material(s) or substance(s) not considered to be part of the commodity, including, but

not limited to containers, bags, wrappers, packaging materials, labels,

individual piece coverings, decorative accompaniments, coupons, etc.

This proposal was discussed within the context of several issues:

1. It is the intent of this proposed definition to include truck loads

of commodities, not just packages ("containers").

2. It is not the intent to define the net weight of packaged goods

as requiring dry tare, ("...excluding... substance(s) not considered

to be part of the commodity" could just as well be interpreted

as excluding liquids not considered part of the commodity at the

time of sale.)

3. It is also the intent to permit more specific definitions as the

occasion warrants. ("...material(s)...not considered... part of the

commodity" might include dirt or "foreign material" in a commodity.)

The Committee is not committed to carrying this definition forward for

Conference action without serious review. In the technical sense, it is inconvenient to go elsewhere to define net weight; however, neither does the

Committee want to create problems where none exist.

Therefore, the Committee would like to entertain input on:

(1) the relative need to include the definition of net weight in the

law, and

(2) potential misinterpretations to which the draft definition above

might be subject.

211-2 V SECTION 22. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES

Section 22. (a) of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law specifies that no

person shall use or have in possession for use in commerce any incorrect

weight or measure The Committee recommends that this subsection be

expanded to prohibit the sale of incorrect weights or measures.

It has been noted that there is an enforcement problem wherein a company

has upon occasion been found routinely selling and installing incorrect

devices. When the weights and measures official finds such devices, the law

allows citation only against the users, not the seller. The law prohibits the

2-6
Laws and Regulations Committee

use of incorrect devices, but not their sale. The Committee members

believe that businesses should be protected from equipment that ought not

have been offered for sale. Representatives of scale manufacturers

expressed some concern, because they have no control over the application

of a scale (this might make a scale incorrect). The Committee believes

that the addition to the law would be a useful tool against repeated

intentional sales of incorrect devices, but (as always) will require careful

application of the law to avoid the concerns voiced by the scale

manufacturers. This recommendation would permit the jurisdiction to take

action against the seller of an incorrect device and would strengthen type

evaluation requirements in the law.

The Committee recommends the following revision to Section 22:

Any person who violates the following enumerated provisions or any

provision of the Act or regulations promulgated pursuant thereto, for

which a specific penalty has not been prescribed, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon a first conviction thereof shall be punished by a

fine of not less than $50 or more than $500, or by imprisonment for

not more than three months, or both. Upon a subsequent conviction

thereof, he shall be punished by a fine of not less than $100 or more

than $1,000 or by imprisonment for up to one year, or both. No

person shall:

(a) Use or have in possession for use in commerce any

incorrect weight or measure.

(b) Sell or have in possession for sale in commerce any

incorrect weight or measure.

(cHb) Remove any tag, seal, or mark from any weight or measure without specific written authorization from

the proper authority.

(dXe) Hinder or obstruct any weights and measures

official in the performance of his duties.

UNIFORM WEIGHMASTER LAW

212 UNIFORM WEIGHMASTER LAW

The Committee sent out a questionnaire to state directors concerning the

status of adoption of the NCWM Uniform Weighmaster Law by each state

and asking for recommendations for necessary amendments to the law.

Forty responses (out of fifty-three) were received. Twelve states (Hawaii,

Iowa, Louisiana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, North Dakota,

Oklahoma, South Dakota, Utah, West Virginia, and Wisconsin) and the Virgin

Islands did not respond.

2-7
Laws and Regulations Committee

The Committee will request that those jurisdictions that did not respond to

the earlier survey do so by the 72nd Annual Meeting so that statistics on

the status of adoption of this NCWM recommendation are up-to-date,

correct, and complete.

The Committee plans to present a full report of its survey at the 1988

Interim Meeting, together with recommendations for Conference action at

that time.

The recommendations for revision that have been received to date include

the following:

o Require all users of large capacity devices (not just weighing) to

be licensed; alternatively, require that all weighing be done by

licensee (grocery stores, etc.); alternatively, require those that

"certify correct quantities" (for example, calibrate a vehicle

tank) to be licensed.

o Add civil penalties for minor infractions, rather than making

every offense a criminal offense.

o Add appeal rights.

o Better define when a public weighmaster is required;

alternatively, require that all bulk commodities intended for sale

and loaded into a vehicle must be weighed by a licensed public

weighmaster before delivery and the original weight certificate

must be presented to the purchaser at the time of delivery.

o Require that a tare be determined for every weighment.

o Eliminate the following requirements:

U.S. Citizenship or intent to become a citizen (Section 3)

State residency (Section 3)

Age restriction of 21 years (Section 3)

Rigid date of expiration (Section 8)

Oath (Section 9)

The scale must be tested by a weights and measures

officer on an annual basis (Section 12).

o Require the seal to be applied over the weighmaster's signature

(Section 9).

o Change "carbon" copy to "duplicate" copy (Section 14).

2-8
Laws and Regulations Committee

Preliminary results show that 27 out of the 40 respondents have weighmaster

requirements and 13 do not. Of the 27 that reported having requirements,

only 6 reported any suspensions or revocations of a license in the last 10

years, and only 4 convictions. Perhaps of greater significance are the

responses from 7 jurisdictions that said they did not have the staff to

enforce a law that is perceived to be of low priority or to be only a revenue-generating requirement.

The Committee recommends that this item be carried over.

UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

213-1 V PROPOSED SECTION 2.9. DEFINITION OF "PETROLEUM

PRODUCTS"

(This is a carry-over item and was Item 213-1 in the 71st NCWM.)

The Committee has been asked to define what packaged products are "petroleum products" and, therefore, subject to the reference temperature

of 6U °F in the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation, Section 6.5.(b),

6.6.(b), 7.4.(b), and 7.5.(b). Examples of products that have been questioned

include: brake fluid, copier machine dispersant, antifreeze, cleaning

solvents, sewing machine lubricant, camping fuel, alcohol, and synthetic

motor oil. Certain companies noted that some cleaning solvents are referenced to 68 °F when sold at retail to consumers; but that the

reference temperature is 60 °F when the same product is sold in 55-gallon

drums. The State of California noted that certain camping fuels that were

intended to power "pressurized" camping equipment such as lights and stoves

should also be subject to the 60 °F reference temperature.

The Committee therefore recommends that the following definition be added

to the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation:

2.9. PETROLEUM PRODUCTS. - Gasoline, diesel fuel, kerosene, or any product (whether or not such a product is actually derived

from naturally occurring hydrocarbon mixtures known as "petroleum") commonly used in powering, lubricating, or idling

engines or other devices, or is labeled as fuel to power camping

stoves or lights. Therefore, sewing machine lubricant, camping

fuels, and synthetic motor oil are "petroleum products" for the

purposes of this regulation. Brake fluid, copier machine

dispersant, antifreeze, cleaning solvents, and alcohol are not

"petroleum products."

213-3 V SECTION 10.9.2. TEXTILES

A consumer products firm that manufactures furniture in European standard

sizes also supplies packaged bed sheets for their beds. The dimensions of

their mattresses are different from U.S. sizes customarily known as "twin,"

"double," etc. Since the dimensions of the mattresses for which the

sheeting and blankets have been designed are not equivalent to U.S.

dimensions, it had been recommended to the Committee that a specific

2-9
Laws and Regulations Committee

exemption for this type of product be added. Subsections 10.9.2. (a), (b),

and (c) of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation require the use of

the size designation of the mattress for which the sheet or pillowcase is designed, such as "king," etc. Subsection 10.9.2.(d), however, does not

require the size designation for the mattress for which blankets, quilts, and

mattress pads are designed. (The subsection uses the term "may state... the

size designation".)

The Committee members believe that Subsections 10.9.2. (a), (b), and (c)

should also be reworded to permit, but not require, the size designation of

the mattress or pillow for which the sheet or pillowcase is designed. The

Committee members also believe that, if this change is made, the average

U.S. consumer still will need length declarations in inches. Because the

sheeting industry has voluntarily labeled sheet and pillowcase dimensions in

inches, for full consumer information, the Committee proposes only revising

the examples in these sections (which are given as metric declarations only)

and reversing the order of recommended units (changing "centimeters or inches" to "inches or centimeters"). The proposed revisions to Subsections

10.9.2. are as follows:

(a) The quantity statement for fitted sheets and mattress covers

shall state, in inches or centimeters er -inches, the length and

width of the mattress for which the item is designed, and may

also state the size designation of the mattress for which the item

is designed, such as "twin," "double," "king," etc. (Example:

"Double Sheet for 54 inch x 75 inch 136 eenfimefer x 199

eentimeter mattress."5

(b) The quantity statement for flat sheets shall state the stae

designation ef the mattress fee whieh the sheet -is designed? sueh

as “fwin?“ double-,

11 “king7“ eter The quantity statement aise

shall state in inches or centimeters er -inehes, the length and

width of the mattress for which the sheet is designed, followed

in parentheses by a statement, in inches or centimeters er

inehes, of the length and width of the finished sheet. The

quantity statement may also state the size designation of the

mattress for which the sheet is designed, such as "twin,"

"double," "king," etc. (Example: "Twin Flat Sheet for 39 inch x

75 inch 199 eentimeter x 199 eentimeter mattress (66 inch x

96 inch finished size.")

(c) The quantity statement for pillowcases shall slate the stae

designation of the pillo w for whieh the pi llowease -is designed?

sHeh as “youth?11 “standard^ and “queen?11 eter The quantity

statement also shall state in inches or centimeters or inehes, the

length and width of the pillow for which the pillowcase is designed, followed in parentheses by a statement, in inches or centimeter or inehes, of the length and width of the finished

pillowcase. The quantity statement for pillowcases may also

state the size designation of the pillow for which the pillowcase

is designed, such as "youth," "standard," and "queen," etc.

(Example: "Standard Pillowcase for 20 inch x 26 inch §9

eentimeter x 66 eenfimeter pillow (20 inch x 30 inch §3

eentimefer-x-76-eentimeter finished size).")

2-10
Laws and Regulations Committee

213-2 V PROPOSED SECTION 11.4. SMALL PACKAGES OF MEAT

OR MEAT PRODUCTS

USDA regulations for meat do not require individually wrapped and labeled

packages of less than 1/2 ounce to bear a net weight statement if the

shipping container bears a net weight statement. 9CFR§317.2(9)(i) states:

Individually wrapped and labeled packages of less than 1/2-ounce net

weight which are in a shipping container, need not bear a statement of

net quantity of contents as specified in this paragraph (h) when the

statement of net quantity of contents of the shipping container meets

the requirements of this paragraph (h):

The Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation only exempts foods not

intended for sale at retail and confectionary. It is recommended that the

Regulation specifically acknowledge the exemption for meat packages of less

than 1/2 ounce as well.

The Committee therefore recommends that the following subsection be added

to the the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation, and that all subsequent subsections in Section 11 be renumbered:

11.4. SMALL PACKAGES OF MEAT OR MEAT PRODUCTS. - Individually wrapped and labeled packages of meat or meat

products of less than 1/2-ounce net weight, which are in a

shipping container, need not bear a statement of the net

quantity of contents when the statement of the net

quantity of contents on the shipping container is in

conformance with the labeling requirements of this

regulation.

213-4 W LABELING OF NONALCOHOLIC MALT BEVERAGES

This item was referred to the Liaison Committee for action. See Item 515

in their report.

213-5 EDITORIAL REVIEW OF THE UNIFORM REGULATION

The State of Virginia had its Packaging and Labeling Regulation reviewed by an expert in the use of the English language. Several recommendations for

rewording for clarity were made as a result of this review. Since Virginia's

Packaging and Labeling Regulation is identical to the Uniform Packaging and

Labeling Regulation, Virginia Weights and Measures has passed the results of

this review along to the Committee. The Committee will study the

recommendations during the coming year. Editorial revisions based on this

review will be proposed next year. This item will be carried over.

2-11
Laws and Regulations Committee

UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES

214-1 V SECTION 1.2. BREAD

A 12-oz size for bread has been proposed to be added to Section 1.2. of the

Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities. The reasons given for this proposal are (1) because U.S. household size is declining, and

the total number of meals consumed at home per week is declining,

consumers want smaller portioned bread, and (2) weights and measures

jurisdictions have not enforced bread weight restrictions on in-store bakeries

producing unwrapped breads: this has led to an unfair competitive advantage

for in-store bakeries that are allowed to respond to consumer needs for

smaller portion bread sizes. At the Interim Meetings, two other suggestions

were discussed:

(1) eliminating bread sizes altogether, or

(2) eliminating the terminology of "loaf," because specialty breads

consisting of segments of much larger loaves are better termed

"units" rather than "loaves."

The Committee heard strong opposition from several weights and measures

jurisdictions to the suggestion of dropping all bread sizes. It was argued

that bread is a basic commodity to the food shopper, and that there are

strong expectations for standardized sizes in staples such as milk, butter,

flour, and bread.

On the other hand, several weights and measures officials contended that the

method of sale restrictions in their states were a result of direct requests

of the bakery industry. Nevertheless, the Committee is committed to

retaining the size restrictions because there is no jurisdiction with unit

pricing requirements that extend to small stores where a large amount of

bread is sold.

When the Committee examined the suggestion of eliminating the term "loaf"

and "twin or multiple loaf" they were faced with defining "bread". For

example, bread sticks are not ordinarily considered "bread." The Committee

decided to include wording so that portions of loaves which are prepackaged

as a "unit" are covered under this method of sale.

The Committee would like to remind weights and measures officials that

Section 1.2. pertains to both packaged and unpackaged bread ("..whether or not wrapped...").

The Committee recommends the following change to Section 1.2:

1.2. BREAD. - Each loaf and each unit of a twin or multiple loaf

made or procured for sale, kept, offered, exposed for sale, or

sold, whether or not wrapped or sliced, and each portion of a

loaf that is prepackaged, shall have a weight per subsection

1.2.(a) or subsection 1.2.(b); provided, that the provisions of this

2-12
Laws and Regulations Committee

section shall not apply to biscuits, buns, or rolls of inch-pound

sizes 4 ounces or less or of metric sizes 100 grams or less, or to "stale bread" sold and expressly represented at the time of

sale as such, and when so sold, the wrappers shall be deemed

not to be packages for labeling purposes.

(a) Inch-Pound Weights. - 1/2 pound, 3/4 pound, 1 pound, 1-1/2

pounds, or a multiple of 1 pound.

(b) Metric Weights. - 250 grams, 375 grams, 500 grams, 750

grams, or a multiple of 500 grams.

214-2 V SECTION 1.7. OTHER MILK PRODUCTS

Editorial corrections are proposed to clarify the meaning of this section. The

term "multipack" is not defined; the term "multi-unit package" as defined in

Section 2.8. of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation is recommended to replace the term "multipack". In addition, from time to

time the question arises of whether the proviso of 6 ounces of less applies

to the total net weight of the multi-unit package or only to the net weight

of single servings in the multi-unit package. It is clear from study of past

Conference reports that the requirement is to apply to the single servings.

Therefore, the Committee recommends the following revision to this section:

1.7. OTHER MILK PRODUCTS. - Cottage cheese, cottage cheese

products, and other milk products that are solid, semi-solid,

viscous, or a mixture of solid and liquid, as defined in the

Pasteurized Milk Ordinance of the U.S. Public Health Service, as amended in 1965, shall be sold in terms of weight; Provided,

that cottage cheese, cottage cheese products, sour cream, and

yogurt shall be packaged for retail sale only in weights per

subsection 1.7(a) or subsection 1.7(b) and Provided further, that

mutttpaek ©r single serving tneh pound sizes of 6 ounces or less or individual units in multi-unit packages shall be sold only in

whole ounce increments, and that metric sizes of 200 grams or

less shall be sold only in 25-gram increments.

(a) Inch-Pound Weights - 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 64, 80, and 128 ounces avoirdupois.

(b) Metric Weights - 250, 375, 500, 750 grams; 1, 2, and 4

kilograms.

214-3 V SECTION 1.9. PRICING OF BULK FOOD COMMODITIES

It has been recommended that this section be clarified so that display price

signs, window ads, and newspaper ads also be required to indicate the price

in whole units and not in common or decimal fractions. The additional

wording would make unambiguous the Conference position adopted at the

2-13
Laws and Regulations Committee

60th and 61st Annual Meetings that advertising only a price per quarter

pound, as is still practiced at many delicatessen counters, needs to be

changed to advertising per whole pound. It is thought that the term

"pricing” in this section has been interpreted as merely requiring a device

that computes per pound. The Committee recommends the following

revision:

1.9. ADVERTISING AND PRICING OF BULK FOOD COMMODITIES. - Bulk food commodities or food commodities not in package form

and sold by weight shall be advertised and priced in terms of

whole units of weight and not in common or decimal fractions.

214-4 SECTION 2.3.3. QUANTITY (OF FIREPLACE AND STOVE

WOOD/WOOD CHIPS OR LIKE PRODUCTS USED FOR

SEASONING)

The Committee has been requested to include the proper method of sale of

packaged wood chips, such as hickory or mesquite, used for barbeque

seasoning or flavoring in Section 2.3.3. of the Uniform Regulation for the

Method of Sale of Commodities. Section 2.3.3. does not now cover wood

chips; it only covers logs.

The Committee members agree that Section 2.3.3. needs editorial work. It presently covers fuel wood sold from bulk, single logs, and packaged logs.

Several new products, including pelletized wood chips used for stove fuel

and wood shavings, were brought to the attention of the Committee for

consideration. In addition to a method of sale by weight or volume, the

Committee will also address test methods and appropriate units to declare on the label. The Committee will carry this item over until next year.

214-5 V SECTION 2.12. POLYETHYLENE PRODUCTS

See also Item 230-3 on polyethylene sheeting.

Different labeling requirements currently apply to sheeting and film

depending upon whether they are consumer or nonconsumer products. For

consumer sheeting and film, the area in square feet or square meters is required. The area statement is not required for nonconsumer sheeting and

film products. Because nonconsumer polyethylene products are commonly

found in retail consumer outlets, the Committee recommends that an area

declaration be required whether or not the sheeting or film is intended as a consumer product.

The proposed revision to Section 2.12. is as follows:

2.12. POLYETHYLENE PRODUCTS. -

2.12.1. Consumer and nonconsumer products offered

and exposed for sale at retail shall be sold in

terms of as given in subsection 2,12.1.1.:

2-14
Laws and Regulations Committee

2.12.1.L SHEETING AND FILM. -

(a) length find width

(b) area in square feet cr square meters

(c) thickness

(d) weight

2.12.2. Consumer products at retail shall be sold in

terms as given in subsections 2.12.2.1.,

2.12.2.2., and 2.12.2.3.

2.12.2.L_ FOOD WRAP. -

(a)

(b)

length and width area in square feet or square meters

2.12.32.2. LAWN AND TRASH BAGS. -

(a)

(b)

(c)

count

dimensions

thickness

2.12.42.3. FOOD AND SANDWICH BAGS. -

(a)

(b)

count

dimensions

2.12.3. Products not intended for the retail consumer

shall be offered and exposed for sale in

terms ef as given in subsection 2.12.3.1.:

2.12.6.

SHEETING-ANB-FILM-;

iiii

i

i

i

i

iiii iiii iiii

length

width

thiekness

weight

2.12.6.3.1. BAGS. -

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

count

dimensions

thickness

weight

2.12.?v4l DECLARATION OF WEIGHT. - The labeled

statement of weight for polyethylene products

under sections 2.12.1.1., 2.12.6., and 2.12HL

2.12.3.1. shall be not less than the weight

calculated by using the following formula:

2-15
Laws and Regulations Committee

W = T x A x 0.03613 x D, where

W = net weight in pounds

T = nominal thickness in inches

A = nominal length in inches times nominal width

in inches

D = density in grams per cubic centimeter as determined by ASTM Standard D1505-68

"Standard Method of Test for Density of

Plastics by the Density Gradient Technique:

(or latest issue)

0.03613 is a factor for converting g/cm** to lb/in^.

214-6 PROPOSED SECTION 2.15. COMPRESSED OR LIQUEFIED

GASES IN CYLINDERS.

The Thermophysics Group of the National Bureau of Standards has worked

closely with the Compressed Gas Association to produce a set of tables

(published in NBS Technical Note 1079) that the bottled gas industry uses when declaring the net contents of products such as acetylene, oxygen,

argon, helium, etc. In order to get these tables uniformly recognized as the

national standard, the Compressed Gas Association has asked that these

tables be referenced in NBS Handbook 130, "Uniform Laws and Regulations"

and in NBS Handbook 133, "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods."

Also, the NBS Office of Weights and Measures receives requests on a frequent basis for assistance in how to test gas cylinders safely for accuracy

of labeling when there is a complaint. OWM generally references State of

California procedures for use in the testing of gas cylinders.

Section 2.15. now only concerns LP Gas cylinders; it is proposed to expand

the section to include all compressed or liquefied gases in cylinders,

including products such as liquefied petroleum gases, acetylene, oxygen,

argon, nitrogen, helium, and hydrogen. The proposal has been patterned

after California's requirements.

At the Interim Meeting, several issues were discussed. California Weights

and Measures recommended tightening the allowable difference between the

actual tare weight and the stamped tare weight (of 1%) presently in section

2.15. to 1/4% and apply this to all compressed gases. The Committee

believes that the allowable difference of 1% should be retained because the

U.S. Department of Transportation permits this tolerance for cylinders.

Another item that needed to be clarified is that this proposal is intended to

apply only to refillable cylinders. Therefore, wording has been added to

specifically exempt disposable cylinders. Finally, California Weights and

Measures recommended that the method of sale for LP Gas, because it is a mixture of substances and therefore cannot be tested by weight and

converted to volume, be limited to sale by weight. Industry representatives

pointed out that filling by volume was the only feasible means for

permanently installed cylinders and very large cylinders. Therefore, the

Committee recommends at this time that LP Gas sales be permitted both by

weight and volume.

The Committee is ready to recommend the following substantial changes to

Section 2.15. printed below, but feels that a complete test procedure must

2-16
Laws and Regulations Committee

also be incorporated into Handbook 133 to permit safe testing of cylinders.

The Compressed Gas Association has volunteered to review the test

procedures used in California, to propose some additional precautions and

procedures to protect the less experienced testing official, and to address

the full range of product cylinder sizes. The Committee intends to propose

this revision plus procedures to be incorporated into H-133 next year.

Therefore, the Committee provides the following revision of Section 2.15.

for information only:

2.15. COMPRESSED OR LIQUEFIED GASES IN REFILLABLE

CYLINDERS

This Section does not apply to disposable cylinders of compressed or liquefied gases.

2.15.1. NET CONTENTS. - The net contents shall be expressed

in terms of cubic feet or cubic meters; pounds and

ounces; or kilograms. A standard cubic foot of gas is defined as a cubic foot at a temperature of 70 °F and a pressure of 14.696 psia (or metric equivalent) except for

liquefied petroleum gas as stated in Section 2.20.

2.15.2. CYLINDER LABELING. - Whenever cylinders are used for

the sale of compressed or liquefied gases by weight, or are filled by weight and converted to volume, the

following shall apply:

2.15.2.1. L1QUEF1EB PETR9LEUM GAS GYfciNBER TARE

WEIGHTS. -Whenever stamped tare weights en cylinders are employed tn the sale of liquefied petroleum gas? the

following shall apply? The tare weight shall be legibly and

permanently stamped or stenciled on the cylinder. All

tare weight values shall be preceded by the letters "TW”

or the words "tare weight". The tare weight shall

Include the weight of the cylinder (including paint),

valve, and other permanent attachments. The weight of

a protective cap shall not be included in tare or gross

weights.

2rl§Tfr(a) ALLOWABLE DIFFERENCE. - The allowable difference

between the actual tare weight and the stamped (or

stenciled) tare weight for a new or used cylinder shall be one percent of the actual tare weight.The fare weighf

shaft iaefude fhe weighf of fhe cylinder (inefud+ng paint)? valve? and ofher permanent attachments? The weight of

a protective eap shall not be -in eluded in tare or gross

weights?

2rl5r2?<b) AVERAGE REQUIREMENT. - The tare weights of

cylinders at a single place of business found to be in error predominantly in a direction favorable to the seller

and near the allowable difference limit shall be

considered to be not in conformance with these

requirements.

2-17
Laws and Regulations Committee

2.15.2.2. ACETYLENE GAS CYLINDER TARE WEIGHTS. - Acetone

in the cylinder shall be included as part of the tare

weight.

2.15.2.3. ACETYLENE GAS CYLINDER VOLUMES. - The volumes

of acetylene shall be determined from the product weight

using approved tables such as those published in NBS

Handbook 133 or those developed using 70 °F and 14.7 cu

ft per pound at one atmosphere as conversion factors.

2.15.2.4. COMPRESSED GASES SUCH AS OXYGEN, ARGON,

NITROGEN, HELIUM, AND HYDROGEN. - The volumes

of compressed gases such as oxygen, argon, nitrogen,

helium, or hydrogen shall be determined using the tables

and procedures given in NBS Technical Note 1079, Tables

of Industrial Gas Container Contents and Density for

Oxygen, Argon, Nitrogen, Helium, and Hydrogen

supplemented by additional procedures and tables in NBS

Handbook 133.

214-7 V SECTION 2.17. BARK MULCH

The Committee discussed broadening the scope of this section from bark

mulch only to all mulch. The present section requires that bark mulch be

sold in terms of volume measure. The reason for broadening the

requirements is that many competing types of mulch, two examples being

"hardwood mulch" and "cypress mulch", are now labeled by weight. The

consumer is not able to make a value comparison between these similar

competing items and bark mulch.

At the Interim Meeting, the National Bark Producers Association supported

the inclusion of all mulch in this section, and recommended a definition to

clarify which products are to be considered as mulch and therefore subject

to a volumetric declaration.

The Committee recommends the following revision to Section 2.17.

2.17. BARK MULCH.

2.17.1.

DEFINITION.

2.17.1.1. MULCH. — Any product or material except peat or peat moss (see Section 2.4.) that is advertised, offered for sale, or sold for primary use as a horticultural, above-ground dressing;

for decoration, moisture control, seed control, erosion control,

temperature control, or other similar purposes.

2.17.1.2. QUANTITY. — All bark mulch shall be sold, offered, or exposed for sale in terms of volume measure: in inch-pound units

in terms of the cubic yard or cubic foot; in metric units in

terms of the cubic meter or liter.

2-18
Laws and Regulations Committee

214-8 SECTION 2.20. LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS

At the 71st Annual Meeting, 1986, the Conference adopted a new section

(2.20) to the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities

requiring that LP Gas be sold on a temperature-compensated basis. The

original proposal for the sale of LP Gas vapor had been to require both

temperature and altitude compensation (using the definition for the standard

cubic foot of vapor taken from Section 3.33. LPG VAPOR-MEASURING

DEVICES of NBS Handbook 44). However, at the Annual Meeting, industry

representatives indicated that atmospheric pressure corrections are not

applied in every state. Therefore, the Committee recommended and the

Conference adopted a "metered cubic foot" standard corrected to 60 °F for

vapor. The purpose of that Committee recommendation was to move ahead

with temperature compensation requirements while providing industry an

opportunity to make recommendations concerning requirements for

atmospheric pressure corrections. The National LP-Gas Association has

conducted a survey on the practice and need for altitude corrections and

reported to the Committee the results of its findings.

Only four states were identified as enforcing requirements to make altitude

adjustments (California, Hawaii, Idaho, and New Mexico).

Although the use of vapor meters for LP Gas sales is not widespread (mainly

in mobile home parks), the Committee believes that weights and measures

officials should be reminded that paragraph UR. 2. 3. of Section 3.33. in

Handbook 44 requires altitude correction in billing. To emphasize the

relative importance of this correction, Table 1 from NBS Handbook 117,

"Examination of Vapor-Measuring Devices for Liquefied Petroleum Gas" is reprinted below. This table shows that a change in elevation of as little as 500 feet may affect the resulting product delivery by 2%, and altitude

corrections as large as 20% would be commonplace in many Western States.

The Committee will not recommend additions to Handbook 130, but

recommends that weights and measures officials enforce existing

requirements in H-44.

Table 1. Altitude corrections factors (customary l (8, 9j

Elevation

Altitude correction

factor

Barometric

pressure Product

pressure

(11 in WC)

feet psi psi - 150 to 400 1.02 14.64 15.04 above 400 to 950 1.00 14.35 14.74 above 950 to 1550 0.98 14.05 14.45 above 1550 to 2100 .96 13.76 14.15 above 2100 to 2700 .94 13.46 13.86 above 2700 to 3300 .92 13.17 13.56 above 3300 to 3950 .90 12.87 13.27 above 3950 to 4550 .88 12.58 12.97 above 4550 to 5200 .86 12.28 12.68 above 5200 to 5850 .84 11.99 12.38 above 5850 to 6500 .82 11.69 12.09 above 6500 to 7200 .80 11.40 11.79 above 7200 to 7900 .78 11.10 11.50 above 7900 to 8600 .76 10.81 11.20 above 8600 to 9350 .74 10.51 10.91 above 9350 to 10100 .72 10.22 10.61 above 10100 to 10850 .70 9.92 10.32 above 10850 to 11650 .68 9.63 10.03 above 11650 to 12450 .66 9.33 9.73 above 12450 to 13250 .64 9.04 9.44

alx>ve 13250 to 14100 .62 8.75 9. 14 above 14100 to 14950 .60 8.45 8 85

2-19
Laws and Regulations Committee

214-9 W MISCELLANEOUS ITEMS: SOUPS SOLD BY VOLUME,

ROOFING SHINGLES

Two items were brought to the attention of the Committee, not as specific

proposals but as problems that needed further clarification and exploration.

(1) Soup is often sold by volume in the salad bar or delicatessen area of

supermarkets. Problems cited were: the stores may not provide measure

containers for the soup; the purchaser may not be able to fill the container

to brim-full even if a measure container is provided; and soup in the salad

bar area may be perceived as competing with canned soup that is sold by

weight. The Committee did not have time to explore this item in any

depth and would like to recommend that the regional weights and measures

associations take up the issue, if they feel it has merit, and further develop

the item. The Committee was of the initial opinion, however, that hot,

ready-to-eat soup sold by volume in the delicatessen does not compete with

canned or boxed soups sold in other parts of the supermarket.

(2) Roofing shingles have labeled designations that would lead purchasers to

believe that they are buying by weight, for example "90-pound shingles." The

question was asked whether this weight designation should refer to an actual

weight, a weight per square, or whether "90-pound" is simply a quality

designation. Section 2. 6. 2. 2. of the Uniform Method of Sale of Commodities

Regulation prohibits the use of weight in the quantity statement or in

supplementary quantity declarations. The Committee will communicate

directly with the weights and measures official who brought this question to

its attention. In the opinion of the Committee, this is an enforcement

problem, not needing new or revised wording to NCWM recommendations.

UNIFORM OPEN DATING REGULATION

217-1 V SECTION 3.4.4. EXPRESSION OF MONTH AND DAY

When the month is indicated by the first three letters of the month in the

"sell by" date, Section 3.4.4. of the Uniform Open Dating Regulation

requires the day of the month expressed as a numeral to follow the month

designation. It has been requested that the Committee consider permitting

the numeral indicating the calendar day to precede the month when the

month is designated by the first three letters of the month. The reasons

for permitting this alternative date presentation are: (a) there is no

confusion on the part of the purchaser if the date is given as "Jan 20" or "20 Jan"; and (b) Section 4.3. of the Open Dating Regulation requires the

day of the month, if used in the "best if used by" date, to appear prior to

the month, for example "30 Jan 81".

The Committee recommends the following revision:

3.4.4. EXPRESSION OF MONTH AND DAY. - Except as provided

for in Section 3.4.1., the date shall be designated by^

2-20
Laws and Regulations Committee

(a) the first three letters of the month preceded or followed by a numeral indicating the calendar day± or destgnated-by

(b) the month represented numerically followed by a numeral designation of the calendar day.

The month and day designation shall be separated by a

period, slash, dash, or spacing. When a numeral

designation of the first nine days of the month is used,

the number shall include a zero as the first digit; for

example, 01 or 03.

The Committee is communicating its recommendation to the Association of

Food and Drug Officials so that they can have the opportunity to make a

parallel change in their recommendations.

HANDBOOK 133

230-1 SAMPLING PLANS AND MAVs

The State of New York proposed smaller MAV's (and a change to the

sampling plans, both Categories A and B, to permit a larger number of

short weight packages in any sample to exceed the MAV). The reason given

for this proposal is that the MAV’s in the present Handbook (Second Edition) are too large. Last year at the 71st Annual Meeting, the Committee set

forth two criteria which the members felt were needed to evaluate proposals

to modify the MAV’s. These are quoted from last year’s report:

1. The MAV's must be evaluated within the context of the average

requirement and the sampling plans they are intended to be used

with. The proposed MAV’s must be compatible with the sampling

plans of Handbook 133. They cannot, for example, be compared

directly with the smaller ’’unreasonable minus errors” of

Handbook 67. The Handbook 67 sampling plan permitted one

unreasonable minus error in a sample of 10 before the lot was

judged out of compliance; Handbook 133 (Category B) permits no MAV’s in a sample of 10.

2. The data supporting recommendations for changing the MAV's

must:

(a) be based on package data that also meet the average

requirement, and

(b) include hard-to-pack as well as easy-to-pack packages, and

standard pack as well as random pack.

Although this year’s proposal from New York is framed within the sampling

plans in Handbook 133, no actual package lot data was submitted to support

the proposal. Therefore, the Committee is not recommending any action on

this item, nor is it carrying the item over. Some Committee members

2-21
Laws and Regulations Committee

expressed the belief that the average requirement is such a powerful tool in

package testing that they cannot understand the need for tightening the

MAV's. Easy-to-pack products, such as sugar, may not need as large limits

to reasonable variations (MAV’s) as hard-to-pack products, such as grapefruit,

but the administrative ease of having one set of limits apply to all products

far outweighs the benefits of setting tighter limits that only apply to a

limited set of products.

230-2 V SECTION 1.9. ALLOWANCES FOR VARIATIONS DUE TO

MOISTURE LOSS OR GAIN

SECTION 2.14. MOISTURE ALLOWANCE

PROPOSED SECTION 3.16. FLOUR

The Executive Committee, based on the work of the Task Force on Commodity Requirements (see Item 104-6A of the Executive Committee

Report) is recommending that (1) the NCWM adopt a policy for weights and

measures officials to use in checking packages of flour subject to moisture

loss, and (2) incorporate the specific procedures that were used during the

Pilot Study conducted in the fall of 1986 into Handbook 133.

Appendix B is provided as a stand-alone document that will be modified

slightly to fit the format of H-133. The Committee recommends that

Appendix B be added to Chapter 3 "Methods of Test for Packages Labeled

by Weight," as "Section 3.16. Flour".

In addition, the following additional revisions are proposed.

Revise Section 1.9. Allowances for Variations due to Moisture Loss or Gain,

second paragraph page 1-11 as follows:

On the basis of technical and regulatory information presently

available, the handbook cannot provide definitive moisture allowances;

however, it does provide or one procedures- ( for flour, see Section

3.16.) for determining compliance with those regulations that allow for

quantity variations due to moisture loss or gain.

Revise Section 2.14. Moisture Allowance, by deleting the last sentence on page 2-29. Replace with:

See also the procedure given for flour in Section 3.16.

230-3 V SECTION 5.43. POLYETHYLENE SHEETING.

Polyethylene sheeting is labeled by length and width, area, thickness, and

weight. The relationship between the three dimensions (length, width and

thickness) and weight is given in Section 2.12.7. of the Uniform Regulation

for the Method of Sale of Commodities. It is:

Weight (W) = Thickness (in) x area (in^) x density (g/cm^) x 0.03613

where 0.03613 is a factor to convert g/cm^ to lb/in^.

2-22
Laws and Regulations Committee

Weights and measures officials’ first check of the label is usually for the

consistency of the labeled declarations, making sure that the declared net

weight would be the weight calculated by the formula given above. The

question arises as to the density of polyethylene to use in this calculation.

The nominal density of polyethylene sheeting and film is 0.92 g/cm 3 for

clear product and 0.93 g/cm 3 for black product. This is the most commonly

found density of thqse products. The State of California uses a minimum

value of 0.915 gVcm 3 and Handbook 133 (page 5-12) recommends a minimum

of 0.914 g/cm . At the Interim Meeting, several polyethylene film

packagers showed letters and product literature from their resin suppliers

that indicated densities of 0.91 g/cm'*, and lower, for the beginning resins

that are used as the basic materials for the film.

At that meeting, no packager could provide a density for the final

polyethylene film coming from his packaging line. Later, data from a

private laboratory was submitted to the Committee. Densities using the

ASTM standard method were determined on 15 different clear polyethylene

products from four different manufacturers; the lowest density measured was

0.9198 g/cm .

The Committee believes that this issue is not significant and may cause

confusion among weights and measures officials, perhaps making them

reluctant to check this product. Every jurisdiction that has tested film

finds weight shortages of 10 and 20%, not minor variations in weight that

might be attributable to using 0.92 g/cm'* for a film that is actually 0.915

g/cm'* in density.

Therefore, the Committee continues to encourage weights and measures

officials to test polyethyelene products and use a density of 0.92 g/cm 3

when calculating product weight. The Committee recommends changing the

minimum density value for sheeting and film in Handbook 133 to 0.92

g/cm 3. The revision to H-133, page 5-12, last line on the page, is as

follows:

Assume a minimum density (D) of 0.92 0r9i4 g/cm 3.

OTHER ITEMS

250-1 TASK FORCE ON COMMODITY REQUIREMENTS

See Item 230-2 and Appendix B. Also see Item 104-6A of the Executive

Committee Report.

2-23
Laws and Regulations Committee

250-2 TASK FORCE ON MOTOR FUELS

As part of the Liaison Committee Report at the 71st Annual Meeting (see

Report of the 71st NCWM 1986, p. 235), the Task Force on Motor Fuels

announced plans to provide specifications for a basic fuels testing

laboratory. Appendix C provides these specifications including types of

tests, equipment, number of personnel, building size, and estimated costs.

A. Nelson, Connecticut, Chairman

T. Brink, Vermont

S. Colbrook, Illinois

K. Simila, Oregon

N. D. Smith, North Carolina

C. S. Brickenkamp, NBS, Technical Advisor

COMMITTEE ON LAWS AND REGULATIONS

2-24
Laws and Regulations Committee

APPENDIX A

UNIFORM MOTOR FUEL INSPECTION LAW

SECTION 1. PURPOSE

There should be uniformity among the requirements for motor fuels of the

several States. This Act provides for the establishment of quality

specifications for all liquid motor fuels, except aviation fuel and liquefied

petroleum gases.

SECTION 2. SCOPE

The Act establishes a sampling, testing, and enforcement program, provides

authority for fee collection, requires registration of motor fuels, and

empowers the State to promulgate regulations as needed to carry out the

provisions of the Act. It also provides for penalties.

SECTION 3. DEFINITIONS

As used in this Act:

3.1.

MOTOR FUEL. — The term "motor fuel" means any liquid

product used for the generation of power in an internal

combustion engine, except aviation fuel and liquefied petroleum

gases.

3.2.

DIRECTOR. — The term "Director" means the of the

Department of .

3.3.

PERSON. — The term "person" means both plural and singular, as the case demands, and includes individuals, partnerships,

corporations, companies, societies, and associations.

2-25
Laws and Regulations Committee

SECTION 4. ADMINISTRATION, ADOPTION OF

STANDARDS, AND RULES

The provisions of the Act shall be administered by the Director or his

authorized agent. For the purpose of administering and giving effect to the

provisions of this Act, the standards set forth in the Annual Book of ASTM

Standards and supplements thereto, and revisions thereof, are adopted except

as amended or modified by the Director. The Director is empowered to

write rules and regulations on the advertising, posting of prices, labeling,

standards for, and identity of motor fuels and is authorized to establish a

testing laboratory.

SECTION 5. GENERAL DUTIES AND POWERS

The Director shall have the authority to:

5.1. Enforce and administer all the provisions of this Act by

inspections, analyses, and other appropriate actions.

5.2. Have access during normal business hours to all places where

motor fuels are marketed for the purpose of examination,

inspection, taking of samples, and investigation. If such access

shall be refused by the owner or agent or other persons leasing

the same, the Director or his agent may obtain an administrative

search warrant from a court of competent jurisdiction.

5.3. Collect or cause to be collected, samples of motor fuels

marketed in this State, and cause such samples to be tested or analyzed for compliance with the provisions of this Act.

5.4. Issue a stop-sale order for any motor fuel found not to be in

compliance and remand said stop-sale order if the motor fuel is brought into full compliance with this Act.

5.5. Refuse, revoke, or suspend the registration of a motor fuel.

5.6. Delegate to authorized agents any of the responsibilities for the

proper administration of this Act.

SECTION 6. REGISTRATION AND CERTIFICATION

OF MOTOR FUELS

All motor fuel must be registered by the name, brand, or trademark under

which it will be sold. Such registration shall include:

(1) Name and address of person registering the motor fuel.

(2) Antiknock index or Cetane number, as appropriate, at which the

motor fuel is to be marketed.

(3) Certification, declaration, or affidavit that each individual grade

or type of motor fuel shall conform to the provisions of this

Act.

2-26
Laws and Regulations Committee

SECTION 7. INSPECTION FEE

There shall be paid a fee of $ per gallon on all motor fuels

marketed within this State for the purposes of administering and effectively

enforcing the provisions of this Act.

SECTION 8. UNLAWFUL ACTS

It shall be unlawful to:

(1) Market motor fuels in any manner that may deceive or tend to

deceive the purchaser as to the nature, price, quantity and/or

quality of a motor fuel.

(2) Fail to register a motor fuel.

(3) Submit incorrect, misleading, or false information regarding the

registration of a motor fuel.

(4) Hinder or obstruct the Director, or his authorized agent, in the

performance of his duties.

(5) Market a motor fuel that is contrary to the provisions of this

Act.

SECTION 9. PENALTIES

Any person who violates any provision of this Act or regulations promulgated

pursuant thereto shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and upon conviction, shall

be punished by a fine of not more than $ , or imprisonment for not

more than years, or both.

SECTION 10. INJUNCTION

The Director is authorized to apply to any court of competent jurisdiction

for a temporary or permanent injunction restraining any person from

violating any provision of this Act.

SECTION 11. SEVERABILITY PROVISION

If any word, phrase, provision, or portion of this Act shall be held in a court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, the

unconstitutionality or invalidity shall apply only to such word, phrase,

provision, or portion, and for this purpose the provisions of this Act are declared to be severable.

i

2-27
Laws and Regulations Committee

SECTION 12. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING LAWS

All laws and parts of laws contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of

this Act are repealed except as to offense committed, liabilities incurred,

and claims made thereunder prior to the effective date of this Act.

SECTION 13. EFFECTIVE DATE

This Act shall become effective on

2-28
Laws and Regulations Committee

UNIFORM REGULATION FOR MOTOR FUEL

SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS

1.1. SPARK-IGNITION MOTOR FUEL. — The term "Spark-ignition

motor fuel" means gasoline and its blends with oxygenates such

as alcohols and ethers.

1.2. GASOLINE-ALCOHOL BLEND. — For labeling purposes, the term

"gasoline-alcohol blend" means any spark-ignition motor fuel

containing one percent or more by volume, of ethanol, methanol,

or any combination of ethanol and/or methanol.

1.3. DIESEL FUEL. — The term "diesel fuel" means any petroleum

liquid suitable for the generation of power by combustion in

compression ignition (diesel) engines.

SECTION 2. FUEL SPECIFICATIONS

2.1. Spark-ignition motor fuel shall meet ASTM P176 "Proposed

Specification for Automotive Spark-Ignition Engine Fuel", except

that volatility standards for unleaded gasoline blends containing

up to 10% ethanol shall not be more restrictive than those

adopted under the EPA Clean Air Act waivers.

2.2. Diesel fuel shall meet current ASTM D975, "Standard

Specification for Diesel Fuel Oils".

SECTION 3. GASOLINE-ALCOHOL BLENDS

3.1. METHOD OF RETAIL SALE. - All motor fuel kept, offered, or exposed for sale, or sold, at retail containing at least one

percent by volume of ethanol, methanol, or a combination shall

be identified as "with," "containing," (or similar wording)

"ethanol," "methanol," or "ethanol/methanol" on the upper fifty

percent of the dispenser front panel in a position clear and

conspicuous from the driver's position, in a type at least 1/2 inch

in height, 1/16 inch stroke (width of type).

3.2. DOCUMENTATION FOR DISPENSER LABELING PURPOSES. —

The retailer must be provided, at the time of delivery of the

fuel on an invoice, bill of lading, shipping paper, or other

documentation, the presence and maximum amount of ethanol,

methanol, or any combination of ethanol/methanol (in terms of

percent by volume) contained in the fuel. This documentation is only for dispenser labeling purposes; it is the responsibility of

any potential blender to determine the total oxygen content of

the motor fuel before blending.

2-29
Laws and Regulations Committee

APPENDIX B

RECOMMENDED TEST METHOD FOR PACKAGES OF FLOUR

3.16. FLOUR

3.16.1. Background for Administrator and Inspector

The test procedure for flour uses the concept of a "gray area", also

known as a "no-decision area". The "gray area" for flour is defined as the spread between the labeled weight and 97% of the labeled weight.

A package lot (at retail and wholesale only) whose average weight is less than the labeled weight but greater than 97% of the labeled

weight is said to be in the "gray area." The gray area is 3% of the

labeled weight. There is no gray area if packages are checked in the

plant, If packages are found in the gray or no-decision area, they do

not automatically pass or fail the test. The gray area is not a

tolerance. If lots are tested and found inside the gray area, they are not necessarily in compliance. The moisture content at the time of

test and time of pack will have to be determined to find out the final

status of the lot.

3.16.1.1. Enforcement action inside and outside the gray area

The overall objective is to test packages as closely as possible to

the way you ordinarily would test them. If the package lots are found short weight, but fall in the "gray area", additional

information will have to be obtained in order to decide whether

the lots are in or out of compliance. Nothing additional will be

needed for lots that fall outside the gray area; ordinary

enforcement action would be taken on packages found short

weight and outside the gray area.

For package lots found short weight but inside the gray area, a

decision must be made as to what to do with the packages while

additional information or data is being collected. It is recommended that a hold or stop sale order be put on these

packages until their status can be determined. If the product

cannot be held, and subsequent tests or information indicates

that the lot is out of compliance, seek the strongest legal

remedy.

2-3 U
Laws and Regulations Committee

3.16.1.2.

Which packages to consider as part of the lot being tested

Ordinarily when taking a sample from retail, an inspector will

record lot codes but will not select the lot for test by sorting

the packages by lot code. He will simply select his sample from

all packages of the same brand and style and size sitting on the

shelf or in the stock room. If short weight is found and the

results are in the gray area, a follow-up test will require sorting

out the lot codes at this point in order to ascertain the moisture

content at the time of pack (this moisture content varies from

lot code to lot code.)

3.16.1.3.

Package Errors

The discussion below is based on recording the package weights

as "package errors" — how much and in what direction the

actual package weight differs from the labeled weight. Thus, if a package labeled 2 lb actually weighs 2. ID lb, it has a package

error of +0.10 lb. The same situation holds for average package

weights. If the average of 10 package weights is 1.994 lb, the

3.16.1.4.average package error is (1.994 lb - 2.000 lb) = -0.006 lb.

Package lots have to meet the average requirement

and the individual requirement

Using H-133 Category B sampling plans* for packages not subject

to possible moisture loss, packages would have to meet two

requirements:

(1) The average net weight of the sample of 10 or 30

packages would have to equal or exceed the labeled net

weight. This is the same as saying the average package

error for the 10 or 30 packages will have to be zero or

plus.

(2) No single package among the 10 or 30 packages in the

sample can be short weight by more than the MAV.

For flour, these two requirements become the upper boundary for

the gray area. 97% of the labeled net weight defines the other

boundary of the gray area. See Figure 3-13. For example, for

5-lb packages of flour, 3% of the labeled weight is 0.15 lb.

For simplicity, only this background discussion presupposes a Category B

sampling plan test.
Laws and Regulations Committee

Therefore, if an average package error for a lot of 5 lb

packages is minus but is some value between zero and -U.15 lb,

the lot is in the gray area. The lot should not be passed or

failed. More information will be needed to decide the disposition

of the lot.

Example: The Gray Area for 5 lb Flour Packages

Average package error

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

1 1

: :-L 0 o o tn o . . in m o in o m o

n in h H O O H H N n n

r r r r

Lot fails

r i

gray area

+' +' + + + +

Lot passes Out of Compliance In Compliance

4

Figure 3-13. An example of the gray area.

If the official is following a Category B sampling plan, a package that is short weight by more than the MAV may put the

lot in the "gray area". The official will have to add on the 3%

gray area to the MAV to find the limits of the gray area for an

individual package. Table 3-3 is provided to help the inspector

determine whether or not the lot is in the gray area for all the

common sizes of flour. This Table is under Section 3.16.3.

The lot doesn't automatically pass or fail if its average package

error is in the gray area. Further information will have to be

collected to determine if the lot complies with the net weight

requirements.

3.16.1.5. How many lots will be in the gray area

The flour survey conducted by the NCWM Task Force on Commodity Requirements printed in the Report of the 71st

National Conference on Weights and Measures 1986, page 70 is the source from which the following results are predicted. It is estimated that if all flour samples are drawn from retail, 5 or 6

out of 10 lots will have a minus average error and will be in the

gray area. This will vary according to the time of year of

testing. Probably only one out of 100 lots found at retail

would be rejected outright because they are beyond the gray

area.

2-32
Laws and Regulations Committee

3.16.2. Field Equipment

Use Scales and Weights recommended in Section 3.1. (H-133) and

Glass canning jars (1/2 pint or larger) and lids.

3.16.3. Procedure

3.16.3.1. Summary Sheet

For convenience in explanation a Flour Summary Sheet is provided on page 2-40 (L&R Report) that can be used together

with the standard pack report form, page A-l (H-133). The

following information can be filled in on the Flour Summary

Sheet when setting up a test:

Brands

Type of flour

Sizes of

packages

Location of

test

Any brand Item 1 on Summary Sheet

all purpose Item 2 on Summary Sheet

self rising

whole wheat, rye, graham, etc.

NO CORN MEAL

NO MIXES

2 lb Item 3 on Summary Sheet

5 lb

10 lb

up to 100 lb

Retail, wholesale, or in-plant (anywhere).

Record location of test on the Summary

Sheet in Item 4. Also record R for retail, W

for wholesale, P for packager's storage area,

or L for on-line at the packaging plant.

3.16.3.2. Selection of Lots

When an inspection lot composed of packages bearing different

lot codes is found in the gray area, sort the inspection lot by

lot code. Redefine the inspection lot to be those packages

bearing the same lot code. Record the lot code in Item 5 on the

Summary Sheet. The lot code is the packer's own identifying

marks, not the universal product code (UPC). The size of the

inspection lot (Item 6 on the Summary Sheet) is the number of

packages with a single lot code available for inspection at one

location.

When there is no lot code, note this on the summary sheet.

Contact packager to determine if there is any identifying lot

code information. (See Section 3.16.3.9. for how to contact the

packager.)

2-33
Laws and Regulations Committee

3.16.3.3.

Sample Size

For convenience, the explanation below follows a Category B

sampling plan. When following a Category A plan, compute T

before determining whether the lot in question falls in the gray

area.

Record the sample size in Item 7 on the Summary Sheet.

3.16.3.4.

Tare

Open the number of packages indicated in the sampling plan to

get an average tare weight of the bag or other packaging

material. (These packages can be in addition to the sample

selected for net weight determination, if you prefer.) Record

the average tare weight in Item 8 on the Summary Sheet. 3.16.3.5.

What a Package Should Weigh

Add the average tare weight to the labeled net weight to get

the weight that the package is supposed to weigh, "nominal gross

weight."

average tare weight + labeled weight = nominal gross weight

Record this value on the standard pack report form.

3.16.3.6.

Package Errors

Use the package checking scale to compare the packages in the

sample with the nominal gross weight. A package that weighs

more than the nominal gross weight is overweight and has a

"plus package error." A package that weighs less than this is underweight and has a "minus package error."

package error = package gross weight - nominal gross weight

Record thess values on the standard pack report form.

3.16.3.7.

The average requirement

Compute the average error for the package lot under test. Sum

all individual package errors and divide by the number of

packages in the sample. Do not throw any individual package

errors out of the calculation. Record the average error on the

standard pack report form and in Item 9 on the Summary Sheet.

If the average error is zero or plus, the lot passes the average

requirement. Accept the lot. Circle "no" in Item 11 on the

Summary Sheet.

2-34
Laws and Regulations Committee

| Consult Table 3-3 to find the limits of the gray area for the

average net weight. (According to the labeled weight in column

1, look up the limits of the gray area in column 2.) Note that

the gray area only applies if you are testing at retail or wholesale. If you are conducting the test at the packaging

plant, there is no gray area.

If the average error is minus by more than the 3% gray area (assuming a category B test), the lot does not comply; it fails

the test. Reject the lot and take whatever enforcement action

you ordinarily take. Circle "no” in Item 11 on the Summary

Sheet.)

If the average error is minus, but by less than 3% of the labeled

weight, the lot is in the gray area. Go to that part of the

procedure headed "What to do when the lot is in the gray area,"

Section 3.16.3.9. (Circle ”yes” in Item 11 on the Summary

Sheet.)

For example, if the average package error for a lot of 2 lb

packages is -0.050 lb, the lot would be in the gray area (the

average error is between zero and -0.06 lb).

TABLE 3-3

Boundaries of the Gray Area for Different Sizes of Flour

The retail or wholesale lot is in the gray area if: Column 1

the

labeled weight

is 2 lb

5 lb

10 lb

20 lb

25 lb

50 lb

100 lb

Column 2 the

average package

error is minus and

between zero and

3% of label weight

-0.06 lb

-0.15 lb

-0.30 lb

-0.60 lb

-0.75 lb

-1.50 lb

-3.00 lb

the MAV

-0.07 lb

-0.14 lb

-0.22 lb

-0.31 lb

-0.37 lb

-0.50 lb

-2.00 lb

Column 4

MAV + 3%

-0.13 lb

-0.29 lb

-0.52 lb

-0.91 lb

-1.12 lb

-2.00 lb

-5.00 lb

Column 3

and

any individual package

error is minus and

is between

and

3.16.3.8. The individual package requirement

Compare the largest individual minus package error on the

standard pack report form with Table 3-3 (columns 3 and 4) to see if the lot is in the gray area. The Flour Summary Sheet

provides a space for recording the largest minus package error in

Item 10, and whether the lot is in the gray area in Item 11.

2-35
Laws and Regulations Committee

For example, if the package size is 2 lb, the MAV is 0.07 lb. (The MAV's are listed in the third column of Table 3-3. For

package sizes not listed there, see pages B-9 and 10 of H-133,

and pages 41 and 42 of the H-133 Field Manual.) The size of the

gray area is 3% of the package net weight; for 2 lb this is 0.06

lb. Therefore, an individual short weight package with a package

error less than zero but not as much as -0.07 lb would not fail

the lot. If the package error was larger than (-0.07 lb +

-0.06 lb) or -0.13 lb, the lot should be automatically rejected and

enforcement action taken. But if the largest individual minus

package error is between -0.07 lb and -0.13 lb, the lot is in the

gray area (see Table 3-3 columns 3 and 4).

3.16.3.9. What to do when the lot is in the gray area

The only way to determine whether flour found short weight at

retail or wholesale is short because of underpacking or because

of moisture loss is to test for moisture content.

Fill a canning jar with flour from one package 1 from the lot in

question. Seal it with a canning lid, label it, and send it to the

laboratory to run a moisture test. The results will be given in

terms of percent moisture content, for example, 10.3%. Record

this in Item 12 on the Summary Sheet.

Contact the packager^ to obtain the moisture content value at

the time of pack for the lot code in question from the contact

person. Record this in Item 13 on the Summary Sheet. The

moisture content at time of pack normally will be between 13.5

and 14.0% for all-purpose and most types of whole-wheat,

graham, etc., flours. Self-rising flour will be about 0.7% lower

in moisture content (between 12.8 and 13.3%). If there is no lot

code, assume a moisture content of 13.75% at the time of pack

for all-purpose and all types of whole-wheat flour; 13% for

self-rising flour.

Both packages opened for tare may be sampled for moisture

determination, if desired.

Each State has been sent this information and the Milling Directory as further sources for packager contacts. Available from NBS, OWM or the Millers' National Federation (600 Maryland Ave., Suite 305 W.,

Washington, DC 20024; Tele: (202)484-2200)

2-36
Laws and Regulations Committee

Subtract the moisture content value that represents the moisture

content at the time of test from the moisture content at time

of pack. This is the amount of moisture lost by the flour during

distribution.

Moisture loss = moisture content at pack - moisture content at

time of test

Record the moisture loss in Item 14 on the Summary Sheet.

For example, if the moisture content at time of pack was

reported to be 14% and the moisture content at time of test is 11%, the moisture loss is 14% - 11% or 3%. A moisture loss of

1% translates directly into a weight loss of 1%. If you are

testing 2-lb packages of flour, a 3% moisture loss is a weight

loss of 2 lb x 0.03 or 0.06 lb. Calculate the weight loss for the

lot under test by multiplying the moisture loss in % by 0.01 (to

convert it to a fraction) and then by the labeled weight (to

convert it to pounds.) See Summary Sheet for calculation.

Record the weight loss in Item 15 on the Summary Sheet.

For example, if a moisture loss of 3% is found for a 2 lb lot of

flour, this is a weight loss of (2 lb x 3% x 0.01=) 0.06 lb.

If the moisture loss (in item 15) is equal to or larger than the

amount of shortage found for the average error (in item 9), then

the lot can be accepted. If the moisture loss is less than the

average shortage, then the lot should be rejected and further

enforcement action taken.

For example, assume the average package error for a 2 lb lot of

packages is 0.050 lb. If a moisture loss of 3% was found, the

weight loss of 0.06 lb (2 lb x 0.03) is more than the amount of

shortage (0.05 lb), therefore, the lot would be accepted. Record

this in Item 16.

Similarly, if there are any individual minus package errors that

exceed the MAV and place the lot into the gray area, add the

amount of weight lost due to moisture loss (Item 15) to the

largest individual minus package error (recorded in Item 10). If the resulting package error is still larger than the MAV (see

Table 3-3, third column), the lot should be rejected. If the

resulting package error is smaller than the MAV, the lot should

be accepted. Record this in Item 17.

For example, if an individual package error for a 2-lb lot of

packages was -0.080 lb, this would put the lot, even if the

average package error was zero or plus, into the gray area. If a moisture loss of 3% was found, the weight loss of 0.06 lb when

added back into the individual package error would make the

package error (-0.08 lb + 0.06 lb) = -0.02 lb. The MAV for 2 lb

package lots is -0.07 lb, so this lot (as long as the average is zero or plus) would pass.

2-37
Laws and Regulations Committee

3.16.4. Moisture Content Laboratory Test

3.16.4.1. Equipment

Forced-air (or equipment) laboratory convection oven

dessicator and drying agent

analytical balance

drying dishes with covers

calibrated thermometer

tongs or insulated gloves

3.16.4.2. Procedure

1. Set oven to 130 + or - 3 °C. Let temperature stabilize.

2. Weigh at least three empty drying dishes and covers for

each lot of flour being tested (that is, run a triplicate).

3. Weigh covered dishes with about 2 g flour in each one.

4. Uncover dishes, place them in the oven.

5. Start timing for one hour from the time the temperature

returns to 130 °C.

6. Cover the dishes, transfer them to a dessicator, and weigh

after the dishes return to room temperature.

7. Compute the moisture content (%) =

flour weight - flour weight

before drying after drying x iqo

flour weight before drying

8. Average the results on three dishes for each lot.

2-38
Laws and Regulations Committee

FLOUR SUMMARY SHEET

Date Tested

1 . Brand

2. Type of Flour

3. Labeled Weight (lb)

4. Location of Test (RWPL)

5. Lot Code

5a. Location packed

5b. Date packed

6. Lot size

7. Sample size

8. Tare weight (lb)

9. Average package error (lb)

10. Largest minus package error (lb)

11. Is lot in gray area? (see Table 3-3) Yes

No

12. Moisture content at time of test (%)

13. Moisture content at time of pack (%)

14. Moisture loss (%)

(= item 13. - item 12.)

15. Weight loss (lbs)

(= item 14. x .01 x item 3.)

16. Is weight loss (15.) at least as large Yes

as average package error (9.)?

(If Yes, moisture loss compensates for short weight.)

No

17 Is weight loss (15.) + largest minus

package error (10.) equal to or less Yes

than MAV (Table 3-3)?

(If Yes, moisture loss compensates for unreasonable

minus error.)

No

18. Does lot pass?

If either (16.) or (17.) is No, then (18.) is No.

Yes

No
Laws and Regulations Committee

APPENDIX C

A BASIC MOTOR FUELS TESTING LABORATORY

Developed by the

Task Force on Motor Fuels

Introduction

During the 68th National Conference on Weights and Measures, delegates

to the Conference voted to establish labeling guidelines for motor fuels

containing at least one percent alcohol. The delegates deemed this action

necessary since motor vehicle manufacturers were qualifying their

warranties with respect to some gasoline-alcohol blends (oxygenated fuels),

motorists were complaining to weights and measures officials about fuel

quality and vehicle performance, and ASTM was encountering delays

regarding the development of quality standards for oxygenated fuels. While

many argued that weights and measures officials should not cross the line

from quantity assurance programs to programs regulating quality, the

delegates were persuaded that the issue needed immediate attention.

State directors of the several motor fuels testing programs have long

recognized the need for a uniform approach to fuel inspection and

regulation. With the introduction of gasoline-alcohol blends and the rush to

promulgate regulations governing them, this need became even more

apparent. Also, many states without an inspection program were being

urged by citizens to do something about poor fuel quality. However,

states seeking information on fuels testing found that such information

was not readily available nor was there a single organization capable of

providing guidance from a regulatory perspective. In an attempt to fill a

regulatory and information void, the Chairman of the 69th National

Conference on Weights and Measures appointed a Task Force on Motor

Fuels. The task force was given the mission of identifying information and

resources that were available from standards development organizations,

professional organizations, private companies, trade associations, and state

fuels testing programs which could be used by states and other

organizations interested in developing a fuels testing program.

2-40
Laws and Regulations Committee

The value of a motor fuels testing program to a state's citizens can be enormous. However, the program is expensive. Even if a state chooses to

contract fuel testing to a private laboratory, the program is still costly.

Is there a point at which it is cheaper for a state to operate its own

fuels-testing laboratory? The task force considered this question and

arrived at 6,000 samples per year (500 per month) as the minimum level

to justify building and equipping a fuels-testing laboratory. For programs

intended to test less than 6,000 samples, contracting the laboratory

analysis may prove to be more economical. However, consideration must

be given to the time required for a private laboratory to complete the

analysis. The value of any inspection program is diminished if laboratory

turnaround time is so great that the product under inspection is consumed

before the results of an analysis are known.

The information contained in this document is an outline for a minimum

inspection program. Information is given on facility needs, recommended

ASTM test procedures, approximate cost for equipment, and the number

of personnel required to staff the program. Even with this information

there remains many questions and details to resolve. There is no better

way to understand the complexities of a testing program than to visit a state with an active program. Such states as Arkansas, California,

Florida, Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, and South Carolina have

active programs and could host tours of their facilities. Interested

parties are encouraged to make such a visit.

A fuels testing program is of little value unless fuels are tested for

compliance with recognized standards. ASTM standards are universally

recognized and designed to serve the majority of the current vehicle

population. Membership in ASTM is highly recommended as it will prove

to be an invaluable source for establishing contacts with experts in the

field of motor fuels testing. Whether or not the state decides to fund

membership in ASTM, every state motor fuel laboratory should participate

in the National Exchange Group, a quality assurance round robin

administered by ASTM Subcommitte D02.01 on Combustion Characteristics

of Committee D02.

In addition, the task force members are available to answer questions and

provide comprehensive information. Individuals who have served on the

task force are:

N. David Smith, North Carolina, Chairman

Sydney Andrews, Retired, Florida

Barbara Bloch, California

David Karlish, Arkansas

George Mattimoe, Hawaii

Frank Nagele, Michigan

John O'Neill, Kansas

Harwood Owings, Retired, Maryland

Curtis Williams, Georgia

Steven Hasko, NBS, Technical Advisor

2-41
Laws and Regulations Committee

Laboratory Facility

A fuels testing laboratory is a very unique building. The building must be

designed to accommodate laboratory instruments ranging from very

sophisticated atomic absorption spectrophotometers to octane engines

which are capable of producing severe vibrations. In addition, extremely

flammable liquids will be stored and tested throughout the facility.

Obviously, such a facility will require a design that minimizes the chances

of explosion and fire, but in the event of an explosion, is designed to

withstand the forces of an explosion with the aid of special pressure

hatches and explosion panels. To minimize the exposure to other

personnel and facilities, it is recommended that a fuels testing laboratory

be a separate laboratory not connected to other structures.

Special consideration should be given to the following:

1. Sufficient ventilation to ensure that workers are not unduly

exposed to gasoline fumes and other toxic vapors.

2. Fume hoods and exhaust systems in laboratory areas.

3. Drain lines resistant to acid and petroleum products.

4. Traps to prevent petroleum products from entering the sewer

system.

5. Special foundations for American Society for Testing and

Materials and the Cooperative Fuel Research Committee

(CFR) engines. It is recommended that sufficient foundations

for future expansion be installed during initial construction.

6. Necessary safety equipment such as fire blankets, fire

extinguishers, eye baths, etc.

7. Automatic fire extinguisher system for laboratory areas. The

system's design should recognize that some types of laboratory

instruments can be damaged by water and dry chemical

extinguishing systems.

8. An adequate heating, ventilation, and air conditioning (HVAC)

system since many of the testing procedures, particularity

octane testing, generate significant amounts of heat.

9. A properly designed and sized electrical system.

10. Since all fuels testing must be performed in accordance with

ASTM requirements, the laboratory's design must ensure that

these requirements can be met. This consideration is especially

important for the CFR engines. Volume 05.04 of ASTM Annual

Book of Standards contains valuable information regarding the

design of a knock-testing laboratory.

11. Automatic hydrocarbon monitors to prevent the accumulation

of explosive vapors.

2-42
Laws and Regulations Committee

There are several fixed equipment items which are necessary for the

laboratory's operation. These equipment items are:

1. Air compressor and piping of sufficient size to supply the

entire laboratory's needs.

2. Vacuum system for the entire laboratory.

3. Gas and water piped to all areas of the laboratory.

4. Three - 500 gallon tanks for storage of leftover fuels.

(Larger tanks may be needed if the tanks are also used to

supplement the program's vehicle needs.)

The size of the laboratory will vary depending on the needs of the agency

and the scope of the fuels testing program. As previously mentioned, a

fuels-testing laboratory is unique for this reason, the conversion of an

existing structure may prove very difficult to justify. The following space

listing is for a small laboratory capable of testing 6,000 samples per

year. Some space requirements, such as octane testing, may seem large;

but it is strongly recommended that 2 additional engine foundations be

installed during initial construction.

1. offices, toilet facilities, etc. (as required)

No space requirements are listed for offices, conference room,

and personnel requirements (toilets, breakroom, etc.) as this

must be determined by the user based on program needs and

local building codes.

2. octane room - designed for 4 engines (800 sq. ft.)

3. general lab (750 sq. ft.)

4. distillation lab (400 sq. ft.)

5. shipping and receiving (includes preparation area for

empty sample containers) (400 sq. ft.)

6. flash point lab (200 sq. ft.)

7. shop area (225 sq. ft.)

8. storage for supplies (225 sq. ft.)

9. flammable storage (may be a separate building) (225 sq. ft.)

Total square footage (exclusive of Item 1) — 3225 sq. ft..

With the addition of offices, toilet facilities, hallways, etc., the total

building size can exceed 4000 square feet.

2-43
Laws and Regulations Committee

Tests and ASTM Test Procedures*

Spark Ignition Engine Fuel - D 439/P 176

1. Distillation D 86

2. Octane (Anti-knock Index)

Research D 2699

Motor D 2700

3. Reid Vapor Pressure D 323

4. Alcohol Content and Type (P 176 contains analytical

procedures under consideration)

5. Lead Content D 3237

6. Workmanship Section 6, P176

Diesel Fuel - D 975

1. Flash Point D 93 is the preferred method but D 56 may be

used in certain circumstances.

2. Distillation D 86

3. API Gravity D 1298

4. Sulfur Content D 1266 (lamp), D 2622 (X-ray spectrograph), or D 4294 (X-ray fluorescence)

5. Water and Sediment D 1796

NOTE: The API gravity and distillation results can be used to

calculate the cetane index per ASTM D 976.

Kerosene - D 3699

1. Flash Point D 56

2. Distillation D 86

3. Sulfur Content D 1266 (lamp), D 2622 (X-ray spectrograph), or D 4294 (X-ray fluorescence)

4. Color D 156

5. Water and Sediment D 1796

General Note: ASTM test methods listed here and/or test

methods listed in ASTM standard specifications do

not necessarily exclude other ASTM procedures

that are designed for the purpose and that give

comparable accuracy.

2-44
Laws and Regulations Committee

Measurement Assurance and Quality Control

ASTM Subcommittee D02.01, Combustion Characteristics, of Committee

D02 operates a National Exchange Group (NEG). There are three

subgroups: the Motor Fuel Exchange Group, the Diesel Fuel Exchange

Group, and the Aviation Gasoline Exchange Group. There are three types

of participation, only two of which will concern a state laboratory: a "member” laboratory receives monthly samples and agrees to participate in

special methods research; and, a "quarterly participant" receives two sets

of samples every three months and is not bound to run special tests. Cost of participation is currently $150 per year for members or quarterly

participants.

Values for the API Gravity (ASTM D287), Reid Vapor Pressure (ASTM

D323), Distillation (ASTM D86), lead content (ASTM D3237), and

Hydrocarbon Type (ASTM D1319) will be reported for all participants

along with the research and motor octane values for spark ignition fuel

(D2699 and D2700 methods). API Gravity (ASTM D287), Distillation (ASTM

D86), Flash Point (ASTM D93), Aniline Point (D611), Kinematic Viscosity

(ASTM D445), and Sulfur Content (ASTM D129) are reported with cetane

values for diesel fuel.

Operating as a member or quarterly participant in the NEG is the only

means at the national level for assessment of quality in the motor fuel

laboratory. There are also regional groups operating under the NEG.

Since motor fuel and diesel fuel samples are somewhat perishable,

participation in this group is mandatory for internal quality control and

quality assessment. NBS Standard Reference Materials (SRM) 1636a and

1637a (lead in reference fuels) and 1616 (sulfur in kerosene) should be

used to maintain internal quality control for these constituents. SRM

1987 prices are approximately $120 apiece.

Further information on these programs are available from:

ASTM - NEG Program Office of Standard Reference Materials

Box 156 Bldg 222, Room B-311

Plainsboro, NJ 08536 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

609-799-9113 301-975-6776

2-45
Laws and Regulations Committee

Laboratory Equipment and Supplies

Octane Testing Cost

1 CFR Research Method Engine with automatic

compression ratio changer $80,000

1 CFR Motor Method Engine with automatic compression

ratio changer 80,000

1 Fuel blending system 4,000

Humidity controller for CFR engines (either mechanical

or ice tower) 2,000

Reference fuels (Iso Octane, N-Heptane, 80/20 blend,

Toluene) 3,600

Complete set of mechanic tools and other special

tools 5,000

Lift for removing cylinders from engines 2,000

Supplies, spare parts, etc. (see attached list)

Total

24,150

$200,750

Distillation Testing

2 Explosion proof refrigerators (18 cu. ft.) $ 5,000

1 Mercury barometer (will also be used for other

tests) 250

2 Mechanically refrigerated 4 unit distillation

apparatus 30,000

Supplies, thermometers, distilling flasks, graduated

cylinders, spare parts, etc.

Total

4,500

39,750

Note: Because of greater accuracy, automatic

distillation units, at $22,500 each, should be

considered.

RVP Testing

1 5 unit RVP bath $ 2,500

6 RVP bombs 4,200

6 RVP gauges 1,200

1 Mercury manometer for calibrating RVP gauges 700

2-46
Laws and Regulations Committee

1 Small explosion proof freezer 1,900

Supplies, thermometers, etc. 500

Sulfur Testing

1 X-ray fluorescence analyzer $25,000

Supplies, test cups, etc. 2,000

Note: Low sulfur testing will require another instrument

such as a lamp method apparatus.

Alcohol Testing

1 Gas chromatograph $26,000

Supplies, compressed gases, etc. 1,800

Lead Testing

1 Atomic absorption apparatus $20,000

Supplies, flasks, accessories, etc. 1,500

Kerosene-Diesel Testing

2 Tag closed cup flash testers 3,000

2 Pensky-Martens flash testers 5,000

10 Hydrometers for API gravity 200

1 Saybolt chromometer (color test) 1,500

Supplies, spare parts, thermometers, etc.

Total

800

$10,500

Note: To calculate cetane index, a separate

diesel-kerosene distillation unit is desirable ($2,500)

Miscellaneous Items

100 Sample cases to transport samples (construction

must be acceptable for transport via commercial

carrier) $10,000

1200 Sample containers (either one qt. flint glass

(amber since some gasoline additives are light

sensitive) or metal containers with caps) 3,500

1 Oven for drying bottles 3,000

2-47
Laws and Regulations Committee

1 7.6 liter/hour water still 4,000

1 Copy machine 3,000

1 Analytical balance 2,000

Miscellaneous supplies 1,500

Books including ASTM Standards 500

Total $27,500

Office Equipment and Supplies

No listing is given since needs are determined by the

program’s scope. However, the cost of items such as desks,

filing cabinets, typewriters, forms, and miscellaneous office

supplies must be considered when planning an initial budget.

Summary

Octane Testing $200,000

Distillation Testing 39,750

RVP Testing 10,650

Sulfur Testing 27,000

Alcohol Testing 27,800

Lead Testing 21,500

Kerosene-Diesel Testing 10,500

Miscellaneous Items 27,500

Office Equipment and Supplies (as needed)

Total Start Up Needs $365,450

Note: Prices based on 1986 information.

Personnel

Fuels testing must be done in strict conformance with ASTM testing

procedures, and competent laboratory personnel is a necessity. Octane

testing in particular requires individuals with highly specialized talents.

Not only must these individuals exhibit good judgment and exceptional

laboratory skills, but also the talents of a first class mechanic since all engine maintenance and repair is usually the responsibility of the engine

operator. Obviously, experienced octane engine operators are difficult to

find, and industry generally considers it takes 2 to 5 years to properly

train an operator. Other laboratory tests are either not as highly

specialized or follow more closely those analytical procedures familiar to

those with an educational background in the physical sciences.

2-48
Laws and Regulations Committee

For a small laboratory, the following personnel are recommended:

- laboratory supervisor 1 - CFR engine operators 2 - chemist 1 - technicians 2 - clerk 1_ Total 7 No allowances have been made for sample collection since the number of

required personnel depends on the size of the jurisdiction and the

availability of other personnel, such as weights and measures inspectors,

to obtain samples.

Parts and Supplies for CFR Engines

Quantity Item Cost

1 Carbon blaster (Waukesha AA 11 0900) 1,320.00

1 Cylinder overhaul stand assembly

complete (Waukesha 818-1) 1,615.00

1 Valve seat insert tool (Special made by

machinist) 100.00

1 Compressor, piston ring (Waukesha 0106965) 101.00

1 Expander, piston ring (Waukesha 106893) 170.00

1 Gauge, cylinder depth assembly (Waukesha

A109268-B) 275.00

1 Valve lifter (Waukesha 0106777) 102.25

1 Valve grinding tool with suction cup

(Waukesha 075644) 10.00

1 Gauge, cylinder height (Waukesha A 110546-A) 22.30

1 Handle, wrench (Waukesha 105450) 11.90

Wrench, crank gear nut (Waukesha 24088) 32.30

1 Valve seat grinding equipment complete with 3/8

and 7/16 pilots (115V) (Waukesha 106254-A) 934.00

1 Screw Driver, Allen (Waukesha A109802-A) 8.26

1 Pliers, piston pin retaining ring (Waukesha

109885) 12.20

2-49
Laws and Regulations Committee

Quantity Item Cost

1 Valve retainer block (Waukesha 106821) 26.40

1 Valve retainer block with cylinder overhaul

stand (Waukesha 106821-A) 32.10

1 Wrench, spark plug, 7/8 hex

(Waukesha 24088-S) 5.90

1 Tap, spark plug hole, 18 mm

(Waukesha 110904) 58.50

1 Tap, pickup hole, 7/8 - 18 (Waukesha 110905) 74.80

1 Piston pin remover (Waukesha 109023) 15.70

1 Wrench, spring loaded for TDC (Waukesha

AA24088-U) 65.00

1 Button die 11/16 - 24 for pickup connector

(Waukesha 110902) 116.00

1 Valve depressor assembly (Waukesha A110538) 32.60

1 Burette (Waukesha 109221) 215.00

1 Wrench, flywheel nut (Waukesha 24088-T) 37.00

1 Gauge, feeler (Waukesha 109284) 16.84

1 Remover, valve seat insert (Waukesha

0109405) 295.00

1 Piston ring groove cleaner (Waukesha 106950) 14.00

1 Tool, valve guide alignment

(Waukesha 110653) 13.60

1 Venturi, remover (Waukesha 111367) 6.69

1 Adapter, cylinder sleeve torque wrench

(Waukesha 56372) 44.50

1 0"-l" Micrometer (outside) with ratchet

stop and lock nut; carbide faces, graduation

.0001" (Starrett T436RLX-1) 50.05

1 l"-2" Micrometer (outside) with ratchet

stop and lock nut; carbide faces, graduation:

.0001" (Starrett T436RLX-2) 59.65

1 2"-3" Micrometer (outside) with ratchet

stop and lock nut; carbide faces, graduation

.0001" (Starrett T436RLX-3) 66.50

2-50
Laws and Regulations Committee

Quantity Item Cost

1 3"-4" Micrometer (outside) with ratchet

stop and lock nut; carbide faces, graduation:

.0001" (Starrett T436RLX-4) 72.25

1 2"-8" Micrometer (inside) graduation: .001"

(Starrett 124AZ) 83.25

1 0"-6" Micrometer (depth gauge) with ratchet

stop and lock nut, in case graduation: .001"

(Starrett 440Z-6RL) 94.45

1 Magnetic base indicator holder (Starrett

657AA) 60.70

1 0"-1.000" Dial Micrometer (dial gauge)

.001"; One rev.: .100"; dial

reading 0-50-0 (Starrett 25-341J) 58.50

1 0"-1.000" Dial Micrometer (dial gauge)

graduation: .001"; One rev.: .100"; dial

reading 0-100 (Starrett 25-441J) 58.50

1 Crankshaft Distortion, dial gauge 2-3/8" to

18" (Starrett 696Z) 200.00

1 set Set of (6) No. 579A, 579B, 579C, 579D, 579E,

579F in case (Starrett S579HZ) 82.30

1 Standard Amplifier, Range: + .006"; minimum

graduation: .0001" (Comtorgage CM2) 145.00

1 Size range: .344"-.534", ground to nominal

at .3750" with 6" total in-reach

Comtorgage Expansion Plug) 172.00

1 Size range: .365"-.510" (Comtorgage Reference

Ring) 64.50

27 Ring, piston compression, straight (Waukesha

106222-A) 73.71

9 Ring, piston compression, chrome, straight,

top (Waukesha 106222-B) 47.70

9 Ring, piston, oil, straight (Waukesha 23505) 27.00

2 Cylinder, assembled with valve guides, valve

seat inserts, pipe plugs, valves, valve springs,

studs, tray, piston, piston pin and piston rings + valve rotator (Waukesha FA 109355) 4,660.00

2-51
Laws and Regulations Committee

Quantity Item Cost

4 Valve, intake (Waukesha 23436-A) 658.00

4 Valve, exhaust (Waukesha 106625) 210.00

4 Pin, intake valve (Waukesha 26800) .24

4 Insert, cylinder valve seat

(Waukesha 105987-A) 91.20

2 Guide, intake valve (Waukesha 23109-B) 25.80

2 Guide, exhaust valve (Waukesha 23109-A) 20.60

20 Felt, valve stem (Waukesha B-4680) 39.00

1 Sleeve, cylinder assembly (Waukesha 830-3) 510.00

50 Plug, spark (Waukesha 111460) 170.00

1 Carrier, support and rocker arm assembly

(Waukesha 00110159) 570.00

4 Rod, push, assembly (Waukesha OB-5264) 142.00

6 Gasket, valve spring tray (Waukesha 106424) 2.70

20 Gasket, cylinder guide plate, lower (Waukesha

106721) 14.00

20 Gasket, cylinder guide plate, upper (Waukesha

B-2544) 14.00

6 Shim, cylinder worm shaft (Waukesha 105041) 4.20

2 Ignition trigger (Waukesha 111417T) 182.00

1 Valve, oil relief, assembly (Waukesha

A109538-A) 135.00

2 Pickup Detonation, assembly

(Waukesha W-109927) 1,625.00

2 Plunger, oil relief valve (Waukesha 106827) 16.52

2 Spring, oil relief valve (Waukesha B-9107-A) 15.02

2 Screw, oil relief valve adjusting (Waukesha

105593)

14.34

5 Gasket, oil relief valve (Waukesha 109561-A) 7.60

1 Screen, oil assembly (Waukesha 0109552) 97.60

2-52
Laws and Regulations Committee

Quantity Item Cost

10 Gasket, oil screen (Waukesha 109553) 5.80

1 Pump, oil assembly (Waukesha 0110150) 244.00

10 Gasket, oil pump body (Waukesha 109559-B) 29.10

10 Gasket, breather body (Waukesha B-1956-A) 6.20

5 0-ring (Waukesha 157497-M) 4.70

2 Cup, breather valve (Waukesha 110670) 21.60

30 Filter, spin-on (Waukesha 111346) 406.00

5 Gasket, condenser gauge (Waukesha 75552-A) 1.25

2 Glass, condenser gauge (Waukesha B-5094) 7.44

1 Tube, carburetor jet assembly (Waukesha

0-75985-B) 54.30

1 Tube, air bleed carburetor

(Waukesha 75983-B) 55.30

6 Gasket, bleed tube (Waukesha 109778) 2.58

12 Gasket, valve body (Waukesha 75982-A) 5.40

16 Gasket, fiber (Waukesha B-3207) 10.72

2 Glass (Waukesha 75974) 40.60

2 Glass, tank gauge (Waukesha B-5094) 7.44

16 Gasket, gauge assembly (Waukesha 75552-A) 4.00

16 Gasket, carburetor float (Waukesha 105061) 10.56

50 ft. 50 ft.Tygon tubing 3/8 D X 1/4 ID (Waukesha

441011) 152.00

1 Crankcase drawing (Waukesha L46841C) 7.80

12 Exhaust carbon blaster bags

(Waukesha 110901) 70.20

50 Gasket, pickup (waukesha 11342) 20.00

12 Gasket, carburetor, thick, two-bolt

(Waukesha 75748) 24.00

2-53
Laws and Regulations Committee

Quantity Item Cost

24 Gasket, carburetor, thick, four-bolt

(Waukesha 109346) 31.68

24 Gasket, exhaust manifold (Waukesha B 2557) 51.84

12 Gasket, carburetor, thin, four-bolt

(Waukesha 109345) 13.44

12 Gasket, coolant condenser body

(Waukesha 75690) 7.92

24 Gasket, water pipe (Waukesha B5096A) 12.24

12 Gasket, mixture heater housing (Waukesha

105991) 40.44

1 Heater, manifold, flanged, 110 volt

(Waukesha H-106748-C) 321.00

16 Gasket, carburetor, valve body (Waukesha

75982-A) 7.20

12 Washer, carburetor horizontal fuel jet hole

(Waukesha B-3207) 8.04

12 Washer, carburetor tank gauge, lower

(Waukesha B-5052) 3.36

12 Washer, carburetor tank gauge, upper

(Waukesha B-5068) 3.60

12 Washer, coolant condenser gauge, lower

(Waukesha B-5052-A) 3.36

24 Gasket, removable spacer (Waukesha 110523) 41.28

1 Manifold, exhaust, hot (Waukesha 023242-A) 130.20

3 Thermometer, air intake (60 - 160 °F), 1/8"

pipe thread (Waukesha 0106317-A) 159.00

3 Thermometer, intake manifold (200 - 350 °F),

gland type (Waukesha 0110351) 121.30

1 set Belt, induction motor to engine (50 + 60

cycle), set of 2, research

(Waukesha OB-5500) 55.40

1 set Belt, induction motor to engine (60 cycle),

set of 2, motor (Waukesha 027970) 64.40

2-54
Laws and Regulations Committee

Quantity Item Cost

1 Controller, temperature with interconnecting cables for use with console

panel (Waukesha AA111412) 1,203.00

1 Probe, thermistor (125 °F)

(Waukesha 110386) 210.00

2 Bead, glass (replacement 125 °F) (Waukesha

110386A) 115.00

12 Gasket, thermistor probe (Waukesha BD-190) 6.48

1 Generator, signal, assembly, 120 volt

(Waukesha 111605) 860.00

1 Meter, detonation for console panel

(Waukesha A 111263-B) 2,600.00

12 Filter bag carbon blaster (Waukesha 110958) 67.32

1 Pipe, water, assembly (Waukesha 0109 131B) 66.40

1 Probe, thermistor (300 °F) (Waukesha

110389) 210.00

2 Bead, glass (Replacement 300 °F) (Waukesha

110389A) 115.00

2-55

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

INTERIM REPORT OF THE

COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

Fred A. Gerk, Chairman

Director, Division of Standards and Consumer Services

State of New Mexico

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

300 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances submits its Interim Report

for consideration by the National Conference on Weights and Measures. This

report contains the items discussed and actions proposed by the Committee

during its Interim Meeting at the National Bureau of Standards on January

12 through 26, 1987.

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 identified in bold

face print, as well as by the suffix "V." Withdrawn items are identified by

the suffix "W." Items marked with a "WM generally will be referred back to

the regional weights and measures associations because they either need

additional development, analysis, and input, or did not have sufficient

support of the Committee to bring them before the NCWM. If a new item was added, it was assigned the next number in sequence to maintain a

correlation between the Interim Meeting Agenda and the Report.

The Report contains four appendices which are related to specific Reference

Key Numbers as follows:

A. Report of the Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation - Weighing Industry Sector (See page 3-59) (Item 320-27).

B. Report of the Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation - Measuring Industry Sector (See page 3-70) (Item 330-20).

3-1
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

C. Draft Electric Watt-Hour Meters Code (See page 3-75) (Item 360-2).

D. Draft Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices Code (See page 3-81)

(Item 360-3).

Much of the attached Report contains recommendations to revise or amend

National Bureau of Standards (NBS) Handbook 44, 1987 Edition,

"Specifications, Tolerances, and other Technical Requirements for Weighing

and Measuring Devices. Proposed revisions to the handbook are shown in

bold face print by eresstng out what is to be deleted, and underlining what

is to be added. Entirely new paragraphs or sections proposed for addition to

the handbook are designated as such and shown in bold face print.

Table A

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS AND INDEX

Reference Title of Item Page

Key No.

SECTION 1.10. GENERAL CODE

310-1 W G-S.5.2.2. Digital Indication and

Representation 3-6

310-2 G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic

Adjustable Components 3-6

310-3 W G-S.5.1. Indicating Elements - General 3-8

310-4 W Definitions: Analog Type and Digital Type 3-9

310-5 Definition of Security Seal 3-9

310-6 Editorial Changes 3-9

SECTION 2.20. SCALES

320-1 V S.1.1. Zero Indication 3-9

320-2 w S.1.9. Prepackaging Scales 3-11

320-3 w S.1.1 1. Provision for Sealing Adjustable

Components on Electronic Devices 3-11

320-4 V S.2.4.1. Level-Indicating Means: Class n

and m Scales with a Capacity Less than

2000 lb 3-11

320-5A V Marking Requirements for Indicating and

Weighing Elements 3-12

320-5B V Marking Requirements for Load Cells 3-13

320-6 S.6.7. Vehicle Scale Section Capacity

N. 1.3.4. Vehicle Scale Shift Test 3-15

3-2
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference

Key No.

Title of Item Page

320-7 V N.1.3. Shift Test 3-16

320-8 N.1.6. Electromagnetic Interference (EMI):

Scales Code 3-16

320-9 N.3. Recommended Minimum Test Weights

and Test Loads 3-17

320-10 W N.5. Influence Factors Test 3-18

320-11 V T.1.11. Tolerance Values - Grain Test

Scales 3-18

320-12 w Scales Code T.I.2., Table 5 3-18

320-13 V T.2.6. Sensitivity Requirement - Grain

Test Scales 3-18

320-14A V UR.1.1. Design Criteria and Tolerances for

Crane and Hopper Scales (Other than Grain

Hopper) 3-20

320-14B V T.1.3. Tolerance Values for Crane Scales 3-19

320-15 V T.N.3.6.2. in-Motion Weighing Other Than

Monorail Scales 3-20

320-16 V T.1.1. and T.1.2. Tolerance Values - Range

of Errors for Shift or Section Tests 3-20

320-17 w T.N.4.5. Time Dependence Test 3-22

320-18 V T.N.6. Sensitivity as Applicable to Vehicle,

Axle-Load, Livestock, and Animal Scales 3-23

320-19 V T.N.8.2. Humidity 3-24

320-20 w UR.l. Selection Requirement 3-24

320-21 V UR.1.1. Definition of Animal Scales 3-24

320-22 w UR. 2. Installation Requirements 3-24

320-23 w UR.3.1. Recommended Minimum Load 3-24

320-24 V UR.3.7. Minimum Load on a Vehicle Scale 3-25

320-25 V Definition of Decreasing-Load Test 3-25

320-26 Report of the Railroad Advisory Committee 3-25

320-27 V Report of the Technical Committee on

National Type Evaluation - Weighing

Industry Sector 3-26

320-28 V S.l.2.1. Weight Units 3-27

SECTION 2.21. BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS

321-1 V T.4.3. Influence Factors - Radiated

Interference 3-28

321-2 V UR.3.2. Maintenance 3-28

SECTION 2.22. AUTOMATIC BULK WEIGHING SYSTEMS

322 V Editorial Changes 3-29

3-3
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Title of Item Page

Key No.

SECTION 3.30. LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

330-1 Combined LMD Code 3-31

330-2 V Recognize Mass Units for Metering 3-31

330-3 w S.l. Design of Indicating Elements - Provision for Sealing

G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud 3-34

330-4 w S.l. 4. Design of Indicating and Recording

Elements for Retail Devices 3-35

330-5 w S.l. 4. 3. Display of Unit Price and Product

Identity 3-35

330-6 w S.l. 4. 4. 2. Money Value Divisions, Digital 3-35

330-7 V S.l.4.5. Agreement Between Indications 3-35

330-8 Wholesale Meters - Product Vaporization

and Test Procedure 3-36

330-9 V S.2.7.4. Design of Measuring Elements, for

Wholesale Devices Only 3-36

330-10 w S.2.7.1. For Wholesale Devices Equipped with

Automatic Temperature Compensation 3-37

330-11 w S.2.7.3. Provision for Sealing Automatic

Temperature Compensators 3-37

330-12 w S.2.7.4. and UR.3. 5. Location of the

Temperature Probe 3-37

330-13 V N.4.1. Normal Tests 3-37

330-14A V T.2.3. Tolerance Values on Wholesale

Devices 3-39

330-14B V T.2.3.3. Tolerance for Automatic

Temperature-Compensating Systems 3-40

330-15 V UR.1.1. Length of Discharge Hose 3-42

330-16 V UR.2.1. Plumb and Level Condition 3-43

330-17 V UR.2.5. Product Storage Identification 3-43

330-18 V UR.3.5.2. Written Invoice 3-44

330-19 V Definitions: Face and Side 3-45

330-20 Report of the Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation - Measuring

3-45 Industry Sector

SECTION 3.31. VEHICLE-TANK METERS

331 w Ticket Printers 3-46

3-4
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference

Key No.

Title of Item Page

SECTION 3.32. LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS AND ANHYDROUS

AMMONIA LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES

332-1 W S.l.1.5. Money Values - Mathematical

Agreement 3-46

332-2 W S.l. 5.2.2. Money-Value Divisions, Digital 3-46

332-3 V S.2.5. Thermometer Well 3-47

332-4 w S.2.6. Automatic Temperature Compensation 3-47

332-5 V S.4.2. Discharge Rates 3-47

332-6 V UR.2.4. Temperature Compensation 3-48

332-7 V Weight Indications for Anhydrous Ammonia 3-48

332-8 V N.4.1. Normal Tests 3-50

SECTION 5.51. WIRE AND CORDAGE - MEASURING DEVICES

350 W Draft Combined Fabric-Measuring and Wire

and Cordage-Measuring Device Code 3-51

SECTION 5.53. ODOMETERS

353 N.l.3.3. Vehicle Lading

T.2. Tolerance Values 3-51

SECTION 5.56. GRAIN MOISTURE METERS

356-1 S.l. 6. 2. Operating Range 3-52

356-2 S.3. Accessory Equipment 3-54

356-3 w USDA Moisture Handbook 3-55

356-4 w Coordination of New Meter Calibrations 3-55

OTHER ITEMS

360-1 Energy Allocation Systems 3-55

360-2 Electric Watt-Hour Meter Code 3-56

360-3 Carbon Dioxide Liquid Measuring Code 3-56

360-4 OIML Activities 3-56

3-5
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS

(in the order they appear in Table A)

SECTION 1.10. GENERAL CODE

310-1 W G-S.5.2.2. DIGITAL INDICATION AND

REPRESENTATION

A proposal was made to change G-S.5.2.2.(e) to prohibit the use of mixed

measurement units in the digital display of any device. Exemptions would

have been given to some devices in the specific device codes. The

Committee decided not to change the General Code, but to change the

Scales Code instead. (See Item 320-28, page 3-27.)

310-2 G-S.8. PROVISION FOR SEALING ELECTRONIC

ADJUSTABLE COMPONENTS

The Committee received four proposals related to sealing electronic

components. The four proposals addressed the following three items:

1. the potential for adjusting the accuracy of a device from a computer

that may be in a location other than at the site of the measuring

device;

2. the sealing of the operating features of a device selected at the time

of installation, in addition to sealing any adjustment affecting the

accuracy of the device; and

3. the sealing of an automatic temperature compensator that may be part

of a computerized system in loading rack facilities.

The Committee agrees with the concept that access to switches or software

that affect the metrological characteristics of a device should be sealable.

Metrological characteristics are those indications, features, or operations of a device that fall under the regulatory authority of weights and measures

enforcement. Handbook 44 already requires provisions for sealing the

electronic and many mechanical adjustments that affect the accuracy or performance of a device. A requirement that manufacturers provide a

provision for sealing of all metrological characteristics has extensive

ramifications and may involve the redesign of equipment to comply.

3-b
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Industry representatives have cautioned the Committee that such a requirement may be premature and may stifle new technology. Some

devices have their operating features controlled by computer software stored on floppy disks; this situation creates special problems for sealing. The

automatic temperature compensator in a wholesale metering device is required to have a provision for sealing, but if the compensation is performed in a computer, it may be impossible to seal access to the

software performing the calculations for temperature compensation.

The objectives of sealing the metrological characteristics of a device are

to prevent:

1 the fraudulent use of a device by manipulating the metrological

characteristics; or

2. changing the operational features after installation or inspection to

features that are either incorrect or not suitable for a particular

application.

The facilitation of fraud consideration is only applicable if the operational

features can be changed without being obvious to the other party in the

transaction. For example, a gallons-to-liters conversion switch located where

it can be manipulated at any time by a service station attendant may

facilitate fraud. If the switch is located inside a dispenser and requires

removing dispenser panels to gain access to the switch, the switch is not

considered to facilitate fraud because such an action would be apparent to

the customer.

Examples of the types of features that would be affected by requiring a

provision for sealing metrological characteristics are:

1. the gallon-to-liters conversion switch on retail motor fuel dispensers

when the switch is located outside the dispenser;

2. the means for setting the values of pulses sent from a dispenser to a service station console for processing;

3. the selection of the operating range of the automatic zero-setting

mechanism for scales;

4. the selection of the value for a scale or meter quantity division;

5. the update time for a weight display; and

6. the setting of the sensitivity of the motion detection capability.

3-7
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The sealing requirement is not intended to restrict operator access to stored

data that must be maintained as part of normal operation, such as tare

values, unit prices, department totals, or cash/credit unit-price selection. The

requirement is not intended to restrict the selection of weight units via an

external switch or key on a scale provided the weight unit in use is automatically and clearly displayed.

Because of the ramifications of the proposed requirement and the difficulty

in phrasing it precisely with respect to all possible applications, no action on

this issue is planned for the 1987 NCWM. Instead, the Committee

recommends that the issue be addressed by the regional weights and

measures associations with the objective of adopting a requirement or requirements in 1988.

Although the language is very broad, the Committee suggests that the

following be reviewed by the regional weights and measures association as a

starting point for discussion.

Consider adding a new paragraph to the General Code to read:

G-S.9. Provision for Sealing Metrological Characteristics. - A device

shall be designed with provision(s) for applying a security seal that

must be broken before any change can be made to any electronic

mechanism that affects the metrological characteristics of the device.

(Effective and nonretroactive as of January 1, 19 .)

Consider adding the following definition:

Metrological characteristics. Those indications, features,

operations or device design that fall under the jurisdiction of

weights and measures regulation, such as, motion detection

parameters, the range of the automatic-zero setting mechanism,

the selection of quantity-value divisions, and the setting of pulse

values.

The regional associations are requested to develop more precise language to narrow the scope of such a requirement. The practicality from a manufacturing aspect and potential for inhibiting product design must also be

considered.

310-3 W G-S.5.1. INDICATING ELEMENTS - GENERAL

The Committee was requested to study whether or not a test capability of

digital displays ("segment check") should be required on scales and metering

devices. This item was dropped because it was not sufficiently developed.

3-8
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

310-4 W DEFINITIONS: ANALOG TYPE AND DIGITAL TYPE

The Committee was requested to clarify the definitions for analog type and

digital type. The Committee concluded that the definitions were adequate

and that a direct communication from the Office of Weights and Measures

to the jurisdiction submitting the proposal would resolve the issue.

310-5 DEFINITION OF SECURITY SEAL

A request has been received to change the definition of security seal by

deleting the phrase na pressure-sensitive seal sufficiently permanent to

indicate its removal, or a similar device.” This would have the effect of

requiring a lead and wire seal to be used as a security seal.

During the Interim Meeting, support was expressed by both industry and

weights and measures officials for the continued use of the pressure-sensitive

seal. Pressure-sensitive seals have been extremely useful and have

performed well in a wide variety of applications. The Committee supports

the use of both pressure-sensitive and lead and wire seals. Consequently, no change is proposed to the definition of security seal.

310-6 EDITORIAL CHANGES

The effective and nonretroactive statements will be editorially changed to

achieve uniformity in the next printing.

SECTION 2.20. SCALES

320-1 V S.1.1. ZERO INDICATION

At the 1986 NCWM, the vote was split on the S&T Committee

recommendation to amend paragraph S.1.1. Zero Indication. It appears that

some confusion may have existed regarding the proposal, and that there was

a lack of understanding of the technology used to automatically monitor the zero balance condition on a point-of-sale scale.

The Committee has examined the point-of-sale equipment utilizing the

automatic monitoring of zero balance. The Committee concluded that the

system complies with both S.1.1. Zero Balance and G-S.5.2.2. Digital

Indication and Representation as these paragraphs are written. Compliance

with S.1.1. exists because the system provides a zero balance indication of

"Scale Ready” when the scale is at zero balance within its parameters to

automatically monitor zero and it provides an out-of-balance indication on

both sides of zero.

3-9
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

An indication of zero balance is required under S.1.1. but it does not specify

that a continuous indication of a digital zero balance condition is required. A

continuous (dedicated) weight display has been necessary in the past because

the operator had to see the weight display to detect an out-of-zero balance

condition. A dedicated weight display is not considered mandatory provided

that:

1. adequate safeguards exist in an automatic zero monitoring system to

maintain a zero balance condition; and

2. the system inhibits operation when an out-of-zero balance condition is detected.

The point-of-sale system is judged to satisfy these requirements.

Compliance with G-S.5.2.2.(d) exists because, when the digital zero balance

indication is displayed, it complies with the required indications.

Consequently, no change to these paragraphs is necessary to allow this

technology to be used.

The Committee believes that the automatic monitoring of zero can be

beneficial in other applications but that the implementation of this

technology must be controlled. The appropriateness of an automatic means

to monitor zero balance depends upon the checks and safeguards incorporated

into the system. Since the automatic monitoring of zero balance is permitted under the present wording of S.1.1., the Committee proposes that

S.1.1. be changed to limit its use. The intent is to require each new

method of implementation to be reviewed by weights and measures officials

before being placed into service.

To limit the use of this technology to point-of-sale systems, the Committee

recommends that S.1.1. be amended to read:

S.1.1. ZERO INDICATION. - Provision shall be made on a scale

equipped with indicating or recording elements to either indicate or record a zero-balance condition, and on an automatic-indicating scale or balance indicator to indicate or record an out-of-balance condition on both sides of zero. On point-of-sale systems, a zero balance

condition may be indicated by other than a

n0n value, provided that

an effective automatic means is provided to inhibit a weighing

operation when the scale is in an out-of-balance condition.

3-10
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-2 W S.1.9. PREPACKAGING SCALES

A proposal would have required prepackaging scales to take tare to 0.001 lb. This issue requires more development before it can be considered. Factors

to be considered include:

1. the impact on existing scales in use;

2. whether or not the tare value division would comprise a verification

scale division and result in prepackaging scales becoming Class II devices;

3. the ability of scales to store tare weights to the internal resolution

of the scale in price look-up files;

4. the availability of existing prepack scales to take semiautomatic tare

to the internal resolution of the scale; and

5. the benefit of such a requirement considering the variation of tare

within a lot of containers.

320-3 W S.1.11. PROVISION FOR SEALING ADJUSTABLE

COMPONENTS ON ELECTRONIC DEVICES.

This issue has been combined with Item 310-2.

320-4 V S.2.4.1. LEVEL-INDICATING MEANS: CLASS H AND ID

SCALES WITH A CAPACITY LESS THAN 2000 LB

Level bubbles have been the most common level-indicating means used on

portable scales. In some cases, the level bubble has not always been

installed in a manner that accurately reflects the level condition of the

scale. In some instances, the level bubble has been mounted on a bracket

that is easily bent, or the level bubble is installed in a location that does

not facilitate its use when the scale is routinely moved. Additionally, not

all scales have adjustable legs to establish a level condition in the event

that the bench or counter is not level. Occasionally, shims have to be used

to level the scale, but they tend to shift and change the level condition of

the scale.

Consequently, the Committee recommends more specific requirements for the

level-indicating means, its location, and methods for adjusting the level of

the scale. The Committee recommends that a new paragraph S.2.4.1. be

added to read:

3-11
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

S.2.4.1. CLASS H AND HI SCALES WITH A CAPACITY

LESS THAN 2000 LB. -

(a) If the weighing performance of a portable scale is changed by an amount greater than the appropriate acceptance tolerance when the

scale is moved from a level position and rebalanced in a position that

is out of level in any upright direction by five percent

(approximately three degrees), the scale shall be equipped with a

rigidly mounted level - indicating means referenced to the base of

the scale.

(b) The level-indicating means must show a displacement of at least

two millimeters when the scale is tilted five percent.

(c) The level-indicating means on scales with a capacity more than

500 pounds shall be readable without removing any scale parts.

(d) For all other scales, the level-indicating means shall be readable

without removing any scale parts requiring a tool.

(e) Scales without wheels and with a capacity of 500 pounds or less

shall have self-contained adjustable leveling means (e.g., adjustable

legs).

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1988.)

320-5A V MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR INDICATING AND

WEIGHING ELEMENTS

It is a common practice in the United States for manufacturers to produce

indicating elements that can interface with many different weighing

elements and, conversely, for weighing elements to be marketed independent

of a particular indicating element. Indicating and weighing elements may be

evaluated separately in type evaluation and each element may receive a separate Certificate of Conformance. Upon installation, a complete scale

must be marked with an accuracy class as required by S.6.I., but this does

not apply to the separate indicating and weighing elements when they are

not permanently attached to each other. To facilitate the proper mating of

equipment and to inform service representatives and weights and measures

officials of the accuracy class of separate indicating and recording elements,

the Committee recommends that S.6.8. be amended and a new paragraph

S.6.9. be added to require accuracy class markings on indicating and

weighing elements that are not permanently attached to each other. The

Committee recommends the following changes be made.

3-12
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Amend S.6.8. to read:

WEIGHING ELEMENTS. - A weighing element not permanently

attached to an indicating element shall be clearly and permanently

marked with the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer,

the manufacturers designation that positively identifies the pattern of

design, and the nominal capacity, and the accuracy class of I, n, HI,

IP L, or HP, as appropriate.*

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1988.)

Add a new paragraph S.6.9. to read:

S.6.9. INDICATING ELEMENTS. - In addition to the G-S.l. Identification

requirement of the General Code, an indicating element not permanently

attached to a weighing element shall be clearly and permanently marked

with the accuracy class of I, D, EG, IB L, or mi, as appropriate.

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1988.)

320-5B V MARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR LOAD CELLS

To determine the compliance of larger load-cell-based scales (capacities

greater than 2000 lb) with the influence factor requirements, the load ceUs

are tested separately under NTEP since the entire scale cannot be placed in an environmental chamber. The OIML International Recommendation (IR) 60

recommends that load ceUs be marked with specific information. The

Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation has recommended that

load cells tested separately for compliance with the influence factors should

be marked in a manner similar to the requirements of IR 60.

The IR 60 markings requirements track IR 3 class designations and

tolerances. Due to the differences between IR 3 "Metrological Regulations

For Non-Automatic Weighing Instruments" and Handbook 44 class designations

and tolerances, it is recommended that cells tested separately under NTEP

be marked Class I, n, III, HI L, and IIH to correspond with the scale

classifications under Handbook 44. This is not intended to prevent a lower

accuracy ceU from being used in a higher accuracy scale if the scale

corrects the ceU performance to meet the requirements of the higher

accuracy class. Similarly, a scale is not limited to the number of scale

divisions for which the cell has been evaluated if the scale corrects the ceU

performance to meet the requirements imposed by a higher number of scale

divisions. Whenever a scale "upgrades" the load ceU class or increases the

number of scale divisions in a scale above the number of divisions for which

the load ceU was evaluated, the scale must undergo a complete type

evaluation as a unit.

3-13
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

In addition, it was concluded that load cells that are not evaluated

separately are not required to carry an accuracy class marking. It is intended that a manufacturer not be limited to using only the load cell type

that was in the scale at the time of the evaluation. The manufacturer may

use any equivalent or ’’better" load cell in terms of its metrological

characteristics.

A comment was received that since this proposal requires load cells to be

marked with the maximum number of scale divisions for the accuracy class

of the cell, then scales should also be marked with the maximum number

of scale divisions for the accuracy class of the scale. Although the

Committee agrees with this logic, the marking of the maximum number of

scale divisions on scales is not included in OIML IRs. Since such a marking

requirement would be more stringent than the OIML IRs, the Committee is not recommending that the maximum number of scale divisions be marked on

scales.

The Committee recommends that a new paragraph S.6.10. be added to

require that specific information be marked on load cells that are tested

separately under the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP). The

Committee recommends adding a new paragraph S.6.10. to read:

S.6.10. LOAD CELLS. - Load cells that are tested separately to

determine compliance with the influence factor requirements shall be

marked with the following:

(a) the accuracy class of I, n, in, IQ L, or nn corresponding to the

scale accuracy class for which its use is intended;

(b) the maximum number of scale divisions (stated in units of

1000) for which the accuracy class applies;

(c) the direction of loading, if not obvious;

(d) special limits of working temperature, if other than 14 °F to

104 °F (-10 °C to 40 °C);

(e) name and address of the manufacturer or his trademark, model

designation, minimum dead load, maximum capacity, safe load

limit, and load cell verification interval (Vmjn). The required information may be given on a data plate attached to

the load cell or, alternatively, in an accompanying document. Where

a document is provided, the serial number of the load cell shall be

marked on the load cell plate and also given in the document.

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1988.)

3-14
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-6 S.6.7. VEHICLE SCALE SECTION CAPACITY

N.l.3.4. VEHICLE SCALE SHIFT TEST

Reports have been received that some vehicle scales have been rated at high

nominal and section capacities, but that the user has been told to limit

loading to legal highway load limits. In effect, some stated nominal and

section capacities may not reflect the actual amounts that can be accurately

weighed on the scale.

To unify the methods used to rate nominal and section capacities within

the weighing industry and promote accurate ratings, the Committee was

asked to consider that:

1. the nominal capacity of a vehicle scale be a function of the stated

sectional capacity and number of sections;

2. the sectional capacity be stated on the weighing element as well as on

the indicating element;

3. section tests should be required at "mid-span’* between sections as well as over each section;

4. a minimum test load based upon the section capacity should be

specified for the mid-span section test; and

5. definitions should be provided for terminology related to this issue.

An industry task force reviewed the original proposal and submitted a

specific proposal to address these points. The proposal recommends that

scales be marked with the nominal capacity, section capacity, and a "mid-span" (between sections) capacity. The basis of this recommendation is that the actual section capacity of a scale is greater than the mid-span

capacity since the load-bearing points can take larger loads than the

unsupported mid-span areas.

The Committee disagrees with this approach to rating nominal and section

capacities of vehicle scales. It is the Committee’s view that there should

be a single section capacity for a scale. The section capacity should reflect

the maximum load that can be weighed accurately when placed anywhere on

the scale platform over an area that is typical for conducting a section

test. The Committee believes that a scale must be within the applicable

tolerances when tested to its section capacity with the load placed over each section and at "mid-span" between sections.

3-15
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Industry representatives are continuing discussions to develop a recommendation to the NCWM on this issue. The S&T Committee

encourages industry to establish a consensus position, but wishes to advise

interested parties of its views. The Committee believes that:

1. the stated nominal capacity of large capacity, multi-section scales

should be a function of the stated section capacity; and

2. the stated section capacity and the "mid-span" capacity should be

the same.

3. A scale must be accurate when a test load equal to the section

capacity is placed anywhere on the scale platform in a manner

simulating a section test, including at "mid-span" between

sections. The scale must also be accurate when a load equal to

nominal capacity of the scale is distributed over the entire scale

platform.

The SMA is discussing appropriate equipment and procedures for the testing

of vehicle scales. If possible, the S&T Committee would like a recommendation on test equipment before the 1987 Annual Meeting.

The Committee plans to recommend specific changes to the Scales Code in

1988 to address this issue. Until that time, the Committee recommends

that scales may be tested as described above up to the nominal and section

capacities of the scale.

320-7 V N.1.3. SHIFT TEST

As paragraph N.1.3. is written, the shift test applies to hopper scales. Since

hopper scales are not generally subject to significant off-center loads, a

shift test is not appropriate for hopper scales. Consequently, the Committee

recommends that hopper scales be excluded from the shift test by changing

the heading of N. 1.3.7. to read:

N.1.3.7. ALL OTHER SCALES EXCEPT CRANE SCALES, HANGING

SCALES, HOPPER SCALES, WHEEL-LOAD WEIGHERS,

AND PORTABLE AXLE-LOAD SCALES.

320-8 N.1.6. ELECTROMAGNETIC INTERFERENCE (EMI):

SCALES CODE

A recommendation was received that a task force be established to work

with the EMI experts at NBS Boulder to explore the possibility of

establishing an acceptable and affordable NTEP laboratory test procedure to

evaluate the susceptibility of a device to EMI. The NBS Boulder staff have

been contacted and are willing to assist in the development of test

procedures; however, outside funding to support this project would facilitate

the research.

3-16
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

NBS Boulder has provided a two-page summary on this issue. The key

points are listed below.

1. EMI is a complex problem.

2. There may be a need for different requirements for different devices;

consequently, there is a need to characterize the EMI environment for

weighing and measuring devices.

3. Different equipment and techniques are needed for different

frequencies, field-strength levels, and sizes of equipment.

4. The test of a single element is a necessary but not sufficient

evaluation for a weighing or measuring system.

5. The ANSI standard C63.12, "Recommended Practice on Procedures for

Control of System Electromagnetic Capability", should be referenced

for EMI considerations.

The issue was discussed by the Technical Committee on National Type

Evaluation for scales in November 1986, without a clear course of action

being apparent. Unless further recommendations are received, no further

action is anticipated due to the expense involved for both research and test

equipment.

The EMI requirements of Handbook 44 are still applicable to devices

installed in the field. A field test for effects of EMI should be conducted

by operating equipment and other possible EMI sources that are normally

present at the field installation. Hand-held transceivers (walkie-talkies)

should not be brought onto the premises of the device installation unless

hand-held transceivers are normally used in the vicinity of the device. Even

if transceivers are used on the site, efforts should be made to perform the

EMI tests using the transceivers normally operated at the site.

320-9 N.3. RECOMMENDED MINIMUM TEST WEIGHTS AND

TEST LOADS

A proposal was received to remove the word "recommended" from N.3. This

would have required private industry and enforcement officials to have the

amount of weight specified in N.3. The Committee considered the fact

that, several states and service companies do not have the minimum

amount of weight recommended in this paragraph. It is the Committee's

view that based upon economic and other factors, it is inappropriate at this

time to mandate the amount of test weights specified in this paragraph.

The Committee encourages comments on this item for future consideration.

3-17
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-10 W N.5. INFLUENCE FACTORS TEST

The Committee believes the table indicating the devices to be tested for

specific influence factors is more apropriately dealt with as part of the

technical policy in the type evaluation handbook. Consequently, see Item

320-27.

320-11 V T.1.11. TOLERANCE VALUES - GRAIN TEST SCALES

With the adoption of the new Scales Code, the previous Scales Code

tolerances for unmarked grain test scales were combined into Tables 3 and

6. To avoid the possibility of incorrectly applying the tolerances stated in

T.l.2.1. to these scales, the Committee recommends that a new paragraph

T.1.11. be added to read:

T.1.11. GRAIN TEST SCALES. - Unmarked grain test scales shall meet the

accuracy class requirements for Class 1, II, or in devices as

specified in Table 3. The maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall

be as stated in T.N.3.1. and T.N.3.2.

Paragraphs T.1.1. and T.1.2. will be changed editorially to reflect the new

paragraph number of T.1.11.

320-12 W SCALES CODE T.I.2., TABLE 5 A proposal was received to clarify the tolerances for unmarked devices by

expanding Table 5. The Committee concluded that it would be difficult to

expand Table 5 in a manner that would address the many different values of

scale divisions on devices to which Table 5 applies. Expanded tables may be

beneficial to officials, but a simple and general revision of Table 5 was not

apparent and not pursued.

320-13 V T.2.6. SENSITIVITY REQUIREMENT - GRAIN

TEST SCALES

The Committee was requested to review the sensitivity requirements for grain

test scales as stated in T.2.6. and T.N.6. The sensitivity requirement for

unmarked grain test scales is more stringent than for marked grain test

scales. It seems logical that these requirements should be the same, so the

Committee recommends that T.2.6. be changed to read:

T.2.6. GRAIN TEST SCALES: 1 d or (M)6 pereent of the seale eapaetty?

whichever is less.- The sensitivity shall be as stated in T.N.6.

3-18
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-14A V UR.1.1. DESIGN CRITERIA AND TOLERANCES FOR

CRANE AND HOPPER SCALES (OTHER THAN GRAIN

HOPPER)

At the 71st NCWM, 1986, the S&T Committee stated that all crane and

hopper scales shall be designed to meet all criteria of Class III devices with

the exception that Class HI L tolerances should apply. Design criteria of

Class III are necessary because some hopper scales have scale divisions

smaller than five pounds and have less than 2000 scale divisions. (See Table

3 for design limits of Class IE L.) Paragraph T.N.3.4. was amended last

year to allow Class HI L tolerances to apply to all hopper scales except

grain hopper scales. (Class III tolerances and design criteria apply to grain

hopper scales.)

Although the tolerances for hopper scales are clearly stated, there is no

indication that Class IE design criteria apply to aE hopper scales. The

Committee recommends that Table 7a be amended by listing crane and

hopper scales under Class III to indicate that Class III design criteria apply.

Class III L tolerances would still apply to crane and hopper scales (other

than grain hopper) because of T.N.3.4.

The Committee recommends that Table 7a in UR.1.1. be amended to include crane and hopper scales in the listing under Class III. m All commercial weighing not otherwise specified, grain test

scales, retail precious metals and semi-precious gem weighing, crane and hopper scales.

A proposal was received to amend T.N.3.4. to express the tolerances in a manner that would be consistent with Class III and III L tolerances. The

objective of the proposal was to maintain the principle and distinction of the

accuracy classes. However, the proposal deviated from the details of the

tolerances for the accuracy classes, so the Committee was not convinced

that a change to T.N.3.4. was necessary or beneficial.

320-14B V T.1.3. TOLERANCE VALUES FOR CRANE SCALES

Crane scales are not referenced in the Tolerance Section T.l. for unmarked

devices; consequently, the tolerances specified in T.l. 2. would apply. Before

the revision of the Scales Code, the tolerances for crane scales were the

same as for vehicle scales and other large-capacity scales. The tolerances

for unmarked crane scales should be the same as for other large-capacity

scales; hence, the Committee recommends that the heading of T.1.3. be

amended to read:

T.1.3. VEHICLE, AXLE-LOAD, LIVESTOCK, RAILWAY TRACK

(WEIGHING STATICALLY), CRANE, AND HOPPER

(OTHER THAN GRAIN HOPPER SCALES)

3-19
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-15 V T.N.3.6.2. IN-MOTION WEIGHING, OTHER THAN

MONORAIL SCALES

A request has been received to clarify the application of these tolerance

values and to allow a slightly different distribution of errors.

The Committee agrees and recommends that T.N.3.6.2. be amended to read:

T.N.3.6.2. For any group of weighments, the weighment errors shall

not exceed the limits given below.

Percentage-of

Group

Maintenance

Statie-Teleranee

muICIplICT

66 1

30 2

-6 3

No error may exceed three times the maintenance tolerance.

Not more than 5 percent of the errors may exceed two times

the maintenance tolerance.

(c) Not more than 35 percent of the errors may exceed the

maintenance tolerance.

320-16 V T.1.1. AND T.1.2. TOLERANCE VALUES - RANGE

OF ERRORS FOR SHIFT OR SECTION TESTS

The Committee received a request to amend T.N.4.4. Agreement of

Indications - Shift or Section Tests to limit this requirement to multiple

section scales (e.g., to exempt bench, counter, and floor scales). The basis

for the request was that:

(1) the intent of the requirement is to preclude a user's taking advantage

of section errors to weigh vehicles to the benefit of the scale

operator;

(2) the "small" platform size and method of use of bench, counter, and

floor scales are such that the scale user cannot realistically use shift errors to his or her benefit; and

3-20
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(3) the requirement is an unnecessary tightening of the tolerances that

will result in more scale maintenance and higher costs for scale

adjustment.

The Committee believes the principle expressed in T.N.4.4. to limit the

range of errors in the shift and section tests is a good one and should be

maintained. One purpose of this requirement is to prevent a scale from

having shift test errors at the extreme limits of the tolerance. The

tolerance on the range of shift errors would allow the scale accuracy to

deterioriate somewhat without the scale going out of tolerance. Although

this is a more stringent requirement than has been applied to bench,

counter, and floor scales in the past, the Committee believes it is an

appropriate requirement for scales with an accuracy class marking, and

consequently does not recommend any change to T.N.4.4. However, the

Committee did not intend for this requirement to apply to unmarked bench,

floor, and counter scales. To limit the application of this requirement to

unmarked multiple-section scales and all marked scales, the Committee

recommends that the references to T.N.4.4. in paragraphs T.1.1. and T.1.2.

be deleted. The reference to T.N.4.4. in paragraph T.1.3. would still apply

to vehicle, axle-load, livestock, and railway track scales (weighing

statically), as it had in the past.

The Committee recommends that T.1.1. and T.1.2. be amended to read:

T.1.1. GENERAL. - Except for equipment specified in paragraphs

T.1.2. through T.1.10., the maintenance and acceptance tolerances

shall be as set forth in T.N.2., T.N.3., T.N.4.I., T.N.4.2., T.N.4.3.,

TvN^4.4. , T.N.5., and T.N.7.2., for Class m devices.

T.1.2. SCALES WITH LESS THAN 2000 SCALE DIVISIONS OR MORE

THAN 5000 SCALE DIVISIONS. - Except for scales specified in

paragraphs T.1.3. through T.I.9., the maintenance and acceptance

tolerance shall be as shown in Table 5 (next page). Paragraphs

T.N.2.5., T.N.4.I., T.N.4.2., T.N.4.3., T-Nt^, T.N.5., and T.N.7.2. also

apply.

320-17 W T.N.4.5. TIME DEPENDENCE TEST

A proposal was received to exempt Class I and II scales from the time

dependence requirement. There was insufficient justification provided to the

Committee for this proposal.

3-21
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-18 V T.N.6. SENSITIVITY AS APPLICABLE TO VEHICLE,

AXLE-LOAD, LIVESTOCK, AND ANIMAL SCALES

The Committee had received requests to amend T.N.6. to change the

sensitivity requirement for livestock and animal scales back to the

requirements that existed before the revision of the Scales Code. The USDA

Packers and Stockyards Administration (P&S) submitted data indicating that

scales were being rejected at zero load under the current requirement. The

P&S believes these scales were performing satisfactorily and would have

passed under the previous requirements. Additionally, they believed the

higher sensitivity under a load facilitates accurate livestock weighing and

can be achieved routinely, especially when an auxiliary balance indicator is used. Although the statement was made that the sensitivity of a scale will

usually change as a load is applied, and that there are different types of

balance indicators, there was significant support to return to the previous

sensitivity requirements.

The Committee recommends that T.N.6. be amended so that the sensitivity

requirement for both marked and unmarked vehicle, axle-load, livestock, and

animal scales be consistent with the requirement that existed before revision

of the Scales Code. The Committee recommends that T.N.6. be amended to

read:

T.N.6. SENSITIVITY. - This section is applicable to all nonautomatic

indicating scales marked I, II, HI, III L or mi.

T.N.6.1. TEST LOAD.

(a) The test load for sensitivity for nonautomatic-indicating

vehicle, axle-load, livestock, and animal scales shall be

Id for scales equipped with balance indicators, and 2d or

0.2 percent of the scale capacity, whichever is less, for

scales not equipped with balance indicators.

(b) A test toad equivalent to For all other

nonautomatic-indicating, the test load for sensitivity shall

be Id at zero and 2d at maximum test load.

T.N.6.2. MINIMUM CHANGE OF INDICATIONS. The addition or removal of the test load for sensitivity shall cause a minimum

permanent change as follows:

(a) for a scale with trig loop but without a balance

indicator, the position of the weighbeam shall change

from the center to the outer limit of the trig loop;

(b) for a scale with balance indicator, the position of the

indicator shall change one division on the graduated

scale, the width of the central target area, or the

applicable value as shown below, whichever is greater:

3-22
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Scale of Class I or II: 0.04 inch (1 mm).

Scale of Class n or nn with a maximum capacity of 70

pounds (30 kg) or less: 0.08 inch (2 mm).

Scale of Class HI, m L, or HU with a maximum capacity

or more than 70 pounds (39 kg): 0.20 inch (5 mm);

(c) for a scale without a trig loop or balance indicator, the

position of rest of the weighbeam or lever system shall

change from the horizontal or midway between limiting

stops to either limit of motion.

320-19 V T.N.8.2. HUMIDITY

The Committee was requested to review this requirement with respect to its appropriateness, scope, cost, and benefit. There are persuasive arguments

for retaining, modifying, or deleting the requirement. The Committee

considered extensive information and comments. Some of the main points are reported below.

1. Humidity can affect the performance of electronics and load cells.

2. The humidity test reflects the principle of accelerated testing for

environmental influence, which is a well-recognized and accepted

principle.

3. It is generally accepted that the test conditions are not real-world

environments, either natural or induced.

4. Different failures may occur under these severe test conditions than

would occur under normal conditions of use.

5. All load cells must be tested for the humidity requirement because

hermetically-sealed construction does not assure a hermetically-sealed

load cell.

6. There is not a uniform application of the humidity test in OIML

member countries. Some countries perform the test on scales as prescribed, others do not perform the test at all, some test only load

cells, and some run a durability-type of humidity test on load cells.

The Committee concluded that the humidity test does not reflect

’’real-world” conditions, the requirement is not appropriate for the entire

spectrum of scale designs and applications, and that there is a lack of

evidence of measurement problems to support the need for the requirement.

The Committee recommends that the paragraph T.N.8.2. Humidity be

deleted.

3-23
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-20 W UR.l. SELECTION REQUIREMENT

The Committee received a proposal intended to prevent the values of a

scale division from being changed to correct for an out-of-tolerance

condition. The Committee concluded that it would be virtually impossible to

determine that the scale division was changed solely for this reason. If a

scale division is appropriate for an application, its use can not be prevented.

Additional justification and clarification is needed before a change to

Handbook 44 can be considered.

320-21 V UR. 1.1. DEFINITION OF ANIMAL SCALE

Animal scales are intended to be Class III devices, but are presently defined

to be a livestock scale designed for weighing single heads of livestock. In Table 7a, under UR. 1.1., livestock scales are listed as Class III L devices.

This implies that animal scales are Class III L. This, in turn, requires

animal scales to have scale divisions greater than or equal to five pounds

(Table 3), which is inappropriate for the application.

To clearly indicate that animal scales are Class III devices, the Committee

recommends that both the definition and Table 7a be changed. The Committee

recommends that the definition of animal scale be amended to read:

animal scale. A livestock scale designed for weighing single heads

of livestock.

The Committee recommends that animal scales be listed under Class III devices in Table 7a so it will read:

III All commercial weighing, not otherwise specified, grain test

scales, retail precious metals and semi-precious gem weighing, and

animal scales.

320-22 W UR. 2. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS

A request to add a user requirement to the Scales Code indicating that it is illegal to sell an incorrect device was considered by the Committee. The

Committee concluded that this was an issue falling under the purview of the

L&R Committee.

320-23 W UR.3.1. RECOMMENDED MINIMUM LOAD

The proposal to delete the word "recommended" from UR. 3.1. was not

adequately developed to be considered.

3-24
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-24 V UR.3.7. MINIMUM LOAD ON A VEHICLE SCALE

Two regional weights and measures associations have recommended that

UR.3.7. be amended to apply to net loads as well as gross loads. The basis

for U.R.3.7. is that the load weighed on a scale should be sufficiently large

that the resolution of the scale (rounded to the nearest scale division) does

not result in an excessively large error as a percentage of the weighed load.

This principle is even more important when determining net loads because

the rounding to the nearest scale division occurs for both the gross and tare

weight.

The Committee supports this principle, as it has in the past, and recommends

that UR.3.7. be amended to read:

UR.3.7. MINIMUM LOAD ON A VEHICLE SCALE. - A vehicle scale shall not

be used for weighing a net load smaller than 1000 pounds.

320-25 V DEFINITION OF DECREASING-LOAD TEST

Paragraphs N. 1.2.1. and N. 1.2.2. provide specific instructions for the minimum

test loads to be used as part of the decreasing-load test. Some of the

instructions conflict with the definition of decreasing-load test. The

Committee recommends that the last sentence of the definition be deleted:

decreasing-load test. A special supplementary test for

automatic-indicating scales only, during which the performance of the

scale is tested when the load is being reduced. In this test* an

VallUI! T3 ETlOuc WTCfi (eJ. tCHSl t5^0i«E!£ TO OflC Ilall \7T tnC

mfit lumum_ a r-B tCBIIl QJ ICSl IOOLvI»

320-26 REPORT OF THE RAILROAD ADVISORY COMMITTEE

The Railroad Advisory Committee has performed coupled-in-motion tests on

several railway track scales, and is analyzing the effects of the profile of

approach and exit tracks on the data. A preliminary report of the Railroad

Advisory Committee was presented at the Interim Meeting, and copies of the

test data were given to the S&T Committee. By mutual agreement, the

Railroad Advisory Committee will continue the data analysis and provide a

final report and recommendations for consideration by the S&T Committee

before the 1988 Interim Meeting.

3-25
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-27 V REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON

NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION - WEIGHING

INDUSTRY SECTOR

The Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation - Weighing Industry

Sector met on June 25-26 and November 5-6, 1986. The priority issues were

to develop the program and procedures to test load cells for the influence

factors in Handbook 44. Additionally, the technical committee established a

table indicating which devices are to be tested for specific influence factors

based upon which devices are susceptible to the influence factors. The

technical committee also reviewed the type evaluation test procedure for

railroad track scales, discussed the EMI and humidity issues, recommended

marking requirements for load cells, and is currently reviewing an updated

draft of the type evaluation checklist for digital scales.

The recommendations of the technical committee regarding the NTEP

operation of testing load cells have been implemented. The S&T Committee

recommends that the following proposals of the Weighing Industry Sector, as

detailed in Appendix A, be adopted by the NCWM for inclusion in the type

evaluation handbook.

1. Incorporate the table of "Devices to be Tested for Influence

Factors" as technical policy. (The table will be modified if necessary to reflect NCWM action on the humidity requirement.)

2. Incorporate as technical policy the following items under the

heading of "NTEP Load Cell Testing", that is:

a. load cells to be submitted for test,

b. multiple load cell system tolerance, and

c. barometric pressure tests.

3. Incorporate the "NTEP Load Cell Test Procedures" as part of the

criteria and test procedures of the type evaluation handbook.

4. Remove the tentative status of the test procedures for railroad

track scales (used to weigh statically) adopted at the 1986

NCWM, but change the reference to "composite test cars" under

the permanence test to "self-propelled test cars" to be consistent

with the terminology of the Association of American Railroads and

to properly identify the type of test car to be used.

3-26
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-28 V S.l.2.1. WEIGHT UNITS

A digital electronic scale presenting weight values in a combination of units

of pounds, ounces, and common fractions of an ounce, has been introduced

into commercial measurement. Although pounds, ounces, and common

fractions of an ounce are used in analog scales, the Committee feels that

the digital representation in different weight units is confusing and not

necessary. The analog scale is permitted because most consumers are

familiar with the scale, and the combination of the dial face and indicator

provide an additional reference for understanding. The only application for

which a need is perceived for digital indications of pounds and ounces is in

postal scales. In this application, fractions of an ounce are represented as decimal fractions, not as common fractions.

The Committee concluded that the simultaneous use of both pounds and

decimal ounces is appropriate in postal scale applications, but not for other

applications. The term "postal scale" is interpreted in the broad sense to

include digital computing scales used to determine shipping rates for the

U.S. Postal Service (USPS) and private delivery companies. There is some

support in the Committee to limit this exemption to scales used exclusively

by the USPS and scales combining USPS rate-computing with those of

private delivery companies. This would limit scales used exclusively to

compute rates for private delivery companies to indications in a single unit

of weight (e.g., decimal pounds). The justification for this limitation is the

belief that the break points in shipping rates for private companies are based on whole pound increments, so indications in pounds and ounces are

not necessary. Comments are requested on this point.

The Committee recommends that digital weight indications be limited to a

single weight unit for all applications other than postal scales and that

digital representations of common fractions be prohibited. Selection of

different weight units from an external key or switch would still be

permitted.

The effective date of this requirement is proposed to be January 1, 1989.

This will provide the manufacturer of the first scale mentioned above to

modify its design to meet the new requirement. This requirement would

apply to commercial devices and would not affect those used in

noncommercial applications.

Consequently, the Committee recommends adding a new paragraph S.l.2.1. to

the Scales Code to read:

S.l.2.1. WEIGHT UNITS. - Except for postal scales, a digital-indicating

scale shall indicate measured values using only a single unit of measure. Measured values shall be presented in a decimal format

with the value of the scale division expressed as 1, 2, or 5, or a

decimal multiple or submultiple of 1, 2, or 5. (Nonretroactive and

enforceable as of January 1, 1989.)

3-27
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

SECTION 2.21. BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS

321-1 V T.4.3. INFLUENCE FACTORS - RADIATED

INTERFERENCE

As reported in Item 320-8, EMI is a complicated issue. A field test should

be performed using only that equipment normally on the site of the scale

installation. Hand-held transceivers should not be brought onto the scale

site for an EMI test unless similar transceivers are normally used in that

vicinity. Since T.4.3. specifies that hand-held communicators be used for

the EMI test, the Committee believes that T.4.3. should be deleted. The

field test of the EMI effects would still be covered by G-UR.1.2.

Environment. Consequently, the EMI test should be conducted at the test

site by operating equipment that is normally used near the scale.

The Committee recommends that T.4.3. be deleted.

321-2 V UR.3.2. MAINTENANCE

The Committee received a request to reconsider the number of materials

tests to be conducted as part of an official test of a belt-conveyor scale.

The Committee concluded that it did not have sufficient information at this

time to recommend a change in the number of materials tests to be

performed.

Related to this issue, paragraph UR.3.2. was discussed with respect to when

a belt-conveyor scale may be adjusted based upon the results of a simulated

test. This paragraph currently states that a belt-conveyor scale is not to be

adjusted based upon a simulated load test unless the error is greater than

0.4 percent. The purpose of this restriction is to discourage frequent

adjustment to a belt-conveyor scale to "correct" small errors indicated by

the simulated load test. Frequent adjustments may result in a loss of the

original materials test calibration value.

Several comments were received stating that prohibiting a scale adjustment

for any errors up to 0.4 percent is to restrictive. While endorsing the

concept of prohibiting frequent adjustments to avoid "correcting" for what

may be normal variations in belt-conveyor scale performance, it was

suggested that the limit should be lowered to 0.25 percent. Considering the

volume of material that passes over a belt-conveyor scale, permitting an

error of 0.4 percent on the simulated test before adjustment results in

unacceptably large measurement errors.

3-28
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee concurs with these comments and recommends that UR.3.2.

be amended by changing the number 0.4 percent to 0.25 percent. The

Committee recommends that UR.3.2.(b) be amended to read:

(b) Simulated load 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 test is as follows:

if the error is less than (L4 0.25 percent, no adjustment

is to be made;

if the error is 0r4 0.25 percent, up to and including 0.6

percent, adjustment may be made if the certifying

authority is notified;

if the error is greater than 0.6 percent, up to and

including 0.75 percent, adjustments shall be made by a

competent service person and the certifying authority

notified. After such an adjustment, if the results of a

subsequent test require adjustment in the same direction, an official test shall be conducted; and

if the error is greater than 0.75 percent, an official

test is required.

SECTION 2.22. AUTOMATIC BULK WEIGHING SYSTEMS

322 V EDITORIAL CHANGES

1. At the 1986 NCWM, the Automatic Bulk-Weighing Systems Code was

changed to apply to all automatic bulk-weighing systems.

Unfortunately, the reference to grain in the application paragraph

A.l. was not deleted. Paragraph A.l. will be editorially changed for

the 1988 edition of Handbook 44 to read:

A.l. GENERAL. - This code applies to automatic bulk-weighing

systems for grain; that is, a weighing system adapted to the

automatic weighing of grain a commodity in successive drafts of

predetermined amounts automatically recording the no-load and

loaded weight values and accumulating the net weight of each

draft.

2. At the 1985 NCWM, paragraph S.1.2. was changed as part of a

rewrite of the code. The value of a scale division was restricted to

be one of several specific values. This change should have been

nonretroactive. Hence, S.1.2. will be editorially changed to be:

Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986.

3-29
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

3. Paragraph N.1.1. addresses the minimum amount of test weights to be

used to test automatic bulk-weighing scales. Because many of the

test weights for automatic bulk-weighing systems are built into the

facility, it is not practical to apply the minimum test weight

requirement to all of these scales on a retroactive basis. Hence, the

minimum test weight consideration of this paragraph is to be applied

to those scales installed after January 1, 1984. Additionally, the term

"buildup test" is intended to reference a combination of substitution

and strain load tests.

The Committee recommends that N.1.1. be replaced with the revised

N.1.1. and N.1.2. shown below, and that the current N.1.2. and N.1.3.

be renumbered as N.1.3. and N.I.4., respectively.

N.1.1. TEST WEIGHTS. - The increasing-load test shall be conducted

using test weights equal to at least 10 percent of the capacity of

the system:

(a) on automatic grain bulk-weighing systems installed after

January 1, 1984, and

(b) on other automatic bulk-weighing systems installed after

January 1, 1986.

N.1.2. INCREASING-LOAD TEST. - An increasing-load test

consisting of substitution and strain-load tests shall be conducted

up to the used capacity of the weighing system.

Add the definition:

strain load test. The test of a scale beginning with the scale

under load and applying known test weights to determine the

accuracy of the scale over a portion of the weighing range of the

scale. The scale errors for a strain-load test are the errors observed for the known test-weight loads only. The tolerances to

be applied are based upon the known test-weight load used for

each error that is determined.

3-30
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

SECTION 3.30. LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES

330-1 COMBINED LMD CODE

The Committee received comments on the draft Combined LMD Code. Based

upon these comments, the Committee concluded that another draft of the

Combined LMD Code is necessary before it is presented to the NCWM for

adoption. A new draft based on the last edited draft is expected by the

next Annual Meeting of the NCWM. All comments for the new draft are to

be submitted to O M by June 1, 1987. The Committee plans to present the

Combined LMD Code for adoption at the 73rd Annual Meeting (1988).

(Copies of the current draft are available from OWM.)

330-2 V RECOGNIZE MASS UNITS FOR METERING

Mass flow meters are used to measure commodities in a variety of

applications. A proposal has been made to recognize the use of mass flow

meters in Handbook 44. New technologies should be recognized and

accepted, provided they can meet the required accuracy and specifications

for each particular application. The Committee is recommending changes to

the LMD Code for wholesale meters and the LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code to recognize mass flow meters. As

experience is gained, the Committee may recommend changes to allow the use of mass flow meters in other applications.

Two areas must be addressed to recognize mass flow meters.

1. Changes must be made to the code to recognize mass units. In addition to changing Handbook 44, some states may have to change

their laws or regulations to permit mass measurement of some

commodities in liquid form.

2. Test procedures are necessary so weights and measures officials can

adequately test a mass flow metering device to determine compliance

with Handbook 44.

It is necessary to specify the basis for the mass measurement; it may be

expressed as "true" mass or apparent mass. There is a difference of

approximately 0.1 percent between the "true" mass and apparent mass values

for a commodity with a density of 1 g/cm 3 . The commercial measurement

system is based upon the apparent mass of an object versus a reference

density of 8.0 g/cm^. To be consistent with the values that would be

obtained by weighing an object on a scale, the quantity measured by a mass

flow meter shall be adjusted to indicate the apparent mass versus 8.0

g/cnrA (See "Units and Systems", Section 3.2).

The changes to Handbook 44 are relatively simple; they entail changing

references to units to allow pounds, and changing "volume" to "quantity".

The tolerances for mass flow meters are expressed in percent and are based

upon existing tolerances for a particular size of test draft. The S&T

Committee is recommending, in Item 330-14A, a change to the LMD Code

to increase the tolerances for wholesale meters. If the tolerance change is accepted, the larger tolerances will also apply to mass flow meters.

3-31
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Some states may have to review their laws and regulations to determine if some liquid commodities may be sold by weight. For example, some states

may require that gasoline and fuel oil be sold by liquid measure. Enforcement officials should be aware that weight is unaffected by

temperature. Hence, a weighed quantity delivered to a customer will be

fixed, that is, it will not vary from summer to winter, in contrast to the

variations with volume meters that do not compensate for temperature.

The Committee believes that the sale of liquids by weight (subject to state

laws and regulations) is appropriate.

Mass flow meters must be tested by weighing the product measured by the

meter. This requires a container to receive the product and a scale with

adequate capacity and resolution to determine the weight of the product.

The container may range from a 50-gallon drum to a tank truck, depending

on the maximum flow rate of the meter. The accuracy of the scale must

be determined since it is the primary limitation on the accuracy of the test

of mass flow meters. A meter can be adjusted to agree with the results

obtained from a particular scale, but the overall accuracy of the test

process may have a "large" uncertainty.

Test to be Run

It is recommended that a mass flow meter be tested at three flow rates:

capacity, one-half capacity, and minimum flow rate. At least two tests

(three are preferred) should be run at each flow rate. All results must be

within tolerance.

Selection of a Scale and Size of the Test Draft

A scale must be tested at least twice before it is used as a transfer

standard. The scale should be tested to the maximum load to be applied

during the test of the meter. The scale errors should be recorded so corrections for the scale errors can be made when testing the meter.

Particular attention should be given to loads near the empty and loaded

weight of the container used in the test of the meter. Shift or section

tests should be performed. The smaller the range in the shift errors, the

less the shift errors will affect the test results. The container should

always be placed in the same position on the scale so the combination of

the shift test errors will not vary during the meter test. The test results on the scale must be repeatable.

The size of the scale division relative to the net load has a significant

effect on the accuracy to which a meter can be tested. It will also affect

the size of the test draft required to evaluate the meter. To keep the

"rounding error" (caused by reading a scale to the nearest scale division) to an acceptably small level for a single weighing, the value of the scale

division should not exceed one-tenth of the tolerance applied to the device.

The rounding error occurs in both the gross and tare weights, so it could

represent as much as two-tenths of the tolerance. Either a high-resolution

scale is needed, error weights should be used, or a larger test draft

selected. A combination of these approaches may be used.

3-32
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

For example, suppose a large-capacity (7000 lb/min) meter is to be tested

with a vehicle scale with a 20-lb scale division used as a transfer standard.

Error weights should be used to increase readability to the nearest 5 lb for

the gross and tare weights. Each weight value is j^2.5 lb (reading to the

nearest 5 lb), but since there are two weighings, gross and tare, the

potential rounding error is 5 lb. The present acceptance tolerance for a wholesale loading-rack meter is approximately 0.11 percent. To limit the

rounding error for each weighing to one-tenth of the tolerance, the test

draft must be

2.5 lb x 10 = 23,000 lb

TOOll)

It is necessary to limit the total error in the transfer standard to less than

one-third of the tolerance of the device under test. Consequently, it is necessary to thoroughly test the vehicle scale used as a transfer standard,

verify that its results repeat very well, and correct for any errors determined during the scale test. This takes considerable time and care under field conditions. For devices with larger tolerances, the requirements

for the test are not as severe. A description of the test procedure is given

below to advise officials of the necessary testing for mass flow meters.

Test Procedure for Field Testing Mass Flow Meters Using a Vehicle Scale

as a Transfer Standard

1. Use error weights to test the scale to the nearest 5 lb.

2. Test each section of the scale to the maximum load to be applied over the section.

3. Distribute the test load over the portion of scale used to weigh the

vehicles. Distribute the load in a manner that approximates the load

distribution of the empty and loaded vehicles. Record the scale

errors.

4. Position each truck, empty and loaded, in the same place on the

vehicle scale. Use error weights to improve readability.

5. Make corrections to the vehicle weights based upon the distributed

load test results.

6. Run several tests at different flow rates.

3-33
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee recommends the following changes to the LMD Code to recognize

mass units for wholesale devices:

S.l.1.2. UNITS. - A liquid-measuring device shall indicate, and record

if the device is equipped to record, its delivery in terms of gallons,

quarts, pints, pounds, or binary-submultiples or decimal subdivisions of

the gallon or pound. The mass shall be expressed as apparent mass

versus a density of 8.0 g/cm .

S.l.5.1. TRAVEL OF INDICATOR. - A wholesale device shall be

readily operable to deliver accurately any quantity from 50 gallons or 500 pounds to the capacity of the device. If the most sensitive

element of the indicating system utilizes an indicator and

graduations, the relative movement of these parts corresponding to a

delivery of 1 gallon or 10 pounds shall be not less than 0.20 inch.

N.3.5. FOR WHOLESALE DEVICES. - Test drafts should be equal to at

least the amount delivered by the device in one minute at its maximum

discharge rate, and shall in no case be less than 50 gallons or 500

pounds.

Add the tolerances for mass flow meters to Table 3 under T.2.3. as shown

below:

TABLE 3 - MAINTENANCE AND ACCEPTANCE TOLERANCES ON

WHOLESALE DEVICES, EXCEPT THOSE DEVICES USED FOR THE

MEASUREMENT OF AGRI-CHEMICAL LIQUIDS -

On normal tests On special tests

Indication Maintenance

tolerance

Acceptance

tolerance

Maintenace

and acceptance

tolerance

For Mass Flow Meters

pounds 0.23% of

indicated

quantity

0.11% of

indicated

quantity

0.44% of

indicated

quantity

330-3 W S.l. DESIGN OF INDICATING ELEMENTS - PROVISION

FOR SEALING G-S.2. FACILITATION OF FRAUD

This item has been combined with Item 310-2.

3-34
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

330-4 W S.1.4. DESIGN OF INDICATING AND RECORDING

ELEMENTS FOR RETAIL DEVICES

The proposal to require customer displays at service station consoles needs

further development and more support before being considered. The impact

of such a requirement is significant and the benefit of such a requirement

must be considered.

330-5 W S.1.4. 3. DISPLAY OF UNIT PRICE AND PRODUCT

IDENTITY

The request to specify how and where unit price and product information

may appear on a dispenser needs more development before it can be

considered.

330-6 W S.1.4. 4. 2. MONEY VALUE DIVISIONS, DIGITAL

The request to require quantity indications of 0.001 gallons or 0.005 liters,

its impact, and benefits needs more development before it can be

considered.

330-7 V S.l.4.5. AGREEMENT BETWEEN INDICATIONS

This paragraph was adopted in 1985, but the wording extends this

requirement beyond the original intent. The purpose of this requirement was

to recognize that when a console receives only the sales price information

from a dispenser and divides by the unit price, the computed quantity may

deviate slightly from the digital quantity displayed on the dispenser. If a

printed receipt is issued to a customer, the printed receipt must be

mathematically correct with respect to quantity, unit price, and sales price.

(See Report of the 70th NCWM 1985, pp. 124-125.)

As S.l.4.5. is currently written, all console indications and recorded values

must be mathematically correct on a retroactive basis. This was not the

original intent. The General Code paragraph G-S.5.5. was amended in 1973

so that a service station console did not have to be in mathematical

agreement, provided it was an auxiliary indication; i.e., the indications are

for the operator’s use only. (See Report of the 58th NCWM 1973, p. 164.)

This allowed the operator to write a credit card receipt from the console,

typically recording the quantity to 0.1 gallon, without leaving the kiosk to

check the quantity on the dispenser. If the console issues a printed receipt

to be given to the customer, the console is no longer an auxiliary device

and the recorded value must be in mathematical agreement.

There was significant support for the position that all consoles (auxiliary

elements) interfaced with dispensers must have indications that are in

mathematical agreement, although on a nonretroactive basis. Consequently,

the Committee recommends that S.l.4.5. be amended by adding the words:

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1988.)

3-35
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

330-8 WHOLESALE METERS - PRODUCT VAPORIZATION AND

TEST PROCEDURE

The Office of Weights and Measures has consulted the American Petroleum

Institute (API) and worked with several oil companies to investigate the

problem of vaporization of gasoline during the test of a meter. The test

results indicate that the design of a prover is a primary factor determining

the amount of gasoline vaporized during a test. The testing also showed

that different designs for the bottom loading inlet were equally effective in

reducing the amount of gasoline vaporized.

The Office of Weights and Measures will continue to work with API, oil

companies, and weights and measures officials to develop a final

recommendation. OWM is considering a performance specification to limit

the amount of gasoline that can be vaporized during a test rather than

specify a specific prover design. The final recommendation will result in a change to NBS Handbook 105-3.

The API has a task force for developing a test procedure for testing

loading-rack meters. The objective is to establish a detailed procedure that

may be used by both industry and enforcement officials when testing

loading-rack meters. The draft procedure is explicit and addresses aspects

of the standard and test procedure not contained in the present Examination

Procedure Outline for Loading-Rack Meters (NBS Handbook 112, EPO No.

25). The draft procedure includes corrections to the prover capacity and the

change in product volume due to temperature. A check of the temperature

probe is part of the procedure. Data sheets and reference tables are

included.

The draft test procedure is being considered as a new EPO. The inspection

and test criteria from the present EPO will have to be incorporated into the

test procedure. (Copies of the current API draft are available from OWM

for review.)

330-9 V S.2.7.4. DESIGN OF MEASURING ELEMENTS, FOR

WHOLESALE DEVICES ONLY

A proposal has been made to allow the use of electronic and liquid-in-glass

thermometers in addition to mercury-in-glass thermometers by deleting the

reference to the mercury-in-glass thermometer in S.2.7.4. It was also

suggested that S.2.7.4. be combined with S.2.6., but this cannot be done

because of the nonretroactive status of S.2.6.

3-36
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Consequently, the Committee recommends that S.2.7.4. be changed to read:

S.2.7.4. THERMOMETER WELL WITH AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE

COMPENSATION. - Means shall be provided for inserting? for test

purposes? a mereury in glass thermometer For test purposes, means

shall be provided to determine the temperature of the liquid either:

(a) in the liquid chamber of the meter, or

(b) in the meter inlet or discharge line and immediately adjacent to

the meter.

330-10 W S.2.7.1. FOR WHOLESALE DEVICES EQUIPPED WITH

AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION

See Item 330-18.

330-11 W S.2.7.3. PROVISION FOR SEALING AUTOMATIC

TEMPERATURE COMPENSATORS

This issue has been combined with Item 310-2.

330-12 W S.2.7.4. AND UR.3.5. LOCATION OF THE

TEMPERATURE PROBE

This issue is addressed in Item 330-14.

330-13 V N.4.1. NORMAL TESTS

The Committee has been requested to rewrite paragraphs N.4.1. and N. 4.1.1.

to clarify that

(1) the first test to be performed on a meter equipped with an automatic

temperature-compensating (ATC) system is in the "as found" condition;

and

(2) tests run at normal flow with and without the ATC system are normal

tests. A comment was received stating that the tolerances for a normal test are too stringent for a metering system equipped with a mechanical ATC

system; hence, the special test tolerances should apply. The Committee

believes that when an ATC system is provided, it reflects a normal

3-37
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

operating condition of the metering system; therefore, normal test tolerances

should apply. However, the Committee believes that the tolerances for

wholesale meters should be increased to recognize variables that limit the

repeatability of testing meters over time using different provers. The

proposed increase in meter tolerances (see Item 330-14) should resolve the

difficulty of metering systems utilizing mechanical ATCs to meet the

tolerances for normal tests.

If a metering system is equipped with a means of indicating or recording

both the gross (uncompensated) and net (temperature compensated) volumes,

only one test is required to test the system with and without the ATC.

Example of these installations are computerized ATC Systems recording both

the compensated and uncompensated volumes, and a meter with two

registers; one compensated and the other uncompensated. In the case of a

single register and a mechanical ATC, it is necessary to run the first full flow test with the ATC operating, and then run a second full flow test with

the ATC deactivated. Both of these tests are normal tests and must be

within the applicable tolerances.

The Committee recommends that paragraphs N.4.1. and N. 4.1.1. be rewritten

to read:

N.4.1. NORMAL TESTS. - The "normal" test of a device shall be

made at the maximum discharge rate that may be anticipated under

the conditions of installation. If a wholesale device is equipped with an automatic temperature compensator* this test should be eondueted

with-the-temperature-eompensator-deactivated^

N.4.1.1. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION ON

WHOLESALE DEVICES EQUIPPED WITH AUTOMATIC

TEMPERATURE-COMPENSATING SYSTEMS. - If a wholesale device

is equipped with an automatic temperature compensator compensating

system, the compensator system shall be tested by comparing the

volume indicated or recorded by the device, with the compensator

connected and operating, with the actual delivered volume corrected

to 60 °F.

(a) The first test shall be performed with the automatic

temperature-compensating system operating.

(b) If the device provides both the uncompensated and

temperature-compensated indications for a single test, the

accuracy of the automatic temperature-compensating system

may be verified from a single test.

(c) If the uncompensated and temperature-compensated indications are not available from a single test, a normal test shall also be

performed with the automatic temperature-compensating system

deactivated.

3-38
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

330-14A V T.2.3. TOLERANCE VALUES ON WHOLESALE DEVICES

Industry representatives and enforcement officials have reported a lack of

agreement between meter test results when different provers have been used

to test the same meter. The Office of Weights and Measures has worked

with several oil companies and found that the quantity of gasoline vaporized

during a meter test may vary greatly from one prover to another. In some

cases this difference could represent more than one gallon of gasoline on a 1500 gallon test. The tests also revealed that the amount of gasoline that

vaporized varied from day to day, probably due to temperature variations

and other factors.

In 1986, the S&T Committee suggested new tolerances for metering devices.

For wholesale devices, the suggested acceptance and maintenance tolerances

would be larger when test drafts are greater than 59 and 130 gallons,

respectively. The Committee believes the larger tolerances for wholesale

meters should be adopted this year, with the others to be addressed in 1988.

Although the larger tolerances may be viewed as permitting more "errors” in

the measurement system, the increase in tolerances actually reflects a

realization of the limitations of repeating measurements over time using

different provers. Variables affecting meter test results include the

uncertainty in prover calibrations, day to day variations in meter accuracy,

variation in the vaporization of gasoline, and the accuracy of the

temperature measurement. Based upon repeated measurements using the

same prover or prover design, oil companies may wish to limit meter errors

to a range smaller than the meter tolerances. The larger tolerances will

reduce the potential for disagreement in test results when different provers

are used.

The Committee recommends that Table 3, under T.2.3.I., be deleted and that

T. 2.3.1. be changed to read:

T.2.3. ON WHOLESALE DEVICES

T.2.3.1. EXCEPT THOSE USED FOR THE

MEASUREMENT OF AGRI-CHEMICAL LIQUIDS. - Maintenance tolerances and acceptance tolerances shall

be as-shown-in-Table- 3s: On normal tests

Acceptance tolerance 0.2%

Maintenance tolerance 0.3%

On special tests

Acceptance and maintenance

tolerance 0.5%

If this change is adopted, the tolerances for mass flow meters would

increase to the values stated above and the change to Table 3 proposed in

Item 330-2 would no longer apply.

3-39
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

330-14B V T.2.3. TOLERANCE FOR AUTOMATIC

TEMPERATURE-COMPENSATING SYSTEMS

The Committee has received a proposal to establish a tolerance on the

temperature probe of electronic temperature-compensating systems. Although

there is a significant amount of support for this proposal, the Committee is reluctant to establish a tolerance for a component of a measuring system.

The Committee supports the establishment of a tolerance on the

performance of the temperature-compensating system that, in effect,

recognizes that an error may be present in the temperature probe. This

tolerance would set a limit on the difference in meter errors when tested

with and without the temperature-compensating system. (See Item 330-13.)

The results of tests with and without the temperature-compensating system

would still have to be within the applicable acceptance and maintenance

tolerances but, in addition, the meter errors could not differ by more than

0.

1.percent of the test draft, which is proposed as the tolerance.

The advantages of a performance approach to the accuracy of the

temperature-compensating system are that:

1. it tests the entire temperature-compensating system;

2. in some cases compliance can be determined from the data obtained

from the meter test, so no additional testing is required;

3. it eliminates the need to establish a separate tolerance for a component (i.e., the temperature probe) in the measuring system;

4. the location of the temperature probe does not have to be specified

since the performance determines the suitability of the system; and

5. it is not necessary to require a thermometer well adjacent to the

temperature probe to determine its accuracy.

If the difference between the meter errors for the tests with and without

the temperature-compensating system exceeds the tolerance, the metering

system would be rejected. It is the user’s responsibility to determine

whether or not the error is in the temperature probe or some other part of

the system and correct it. (See G-UR.4.1. and G-UR.4.2.)

To illustrate the application of this tolerance for loading-rack meters,

consider a system that provides the net and gross gallons for each delivery.

If the system has a mechanical automatic temperature compensator, two

tests would have to be run: one with and one without the temperature

compensator activated.

3-40
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Example

Product: #2 fuel oil

Test Data

1. Flow rate (GPM)

2. Registered gross meter

volume (gal)

3. Registered or recorded net

meter volume (gal)

4. Product temperature at

meter (°F)

5. Table 6B* correction factor

(item 4) 6. Prover reading (gal)

7. Product temperature in

prover (°F)

8. Table 6B* correction

factor (item 4)

9. Correction factor for

prover temperature

10. Gross volume in prover (gal)

(item 6 x item 9)

11. Gross meter error (gal)

(item 2 - item 10)

12. Net volume in prover (gal)

(item 8 x item 10)

13. Net meter error (gal)

(item 3 - item 12)

API Gravity: 35.5

600

798.7

796

67

0.9967

799.0

67

0.9967

1.00013

799.1

-0.4

796.5

-0.5

*API Standard 2540 (ASTM Standard D1250)

The difference between the gross and net meter error is 0.1 gallon. The

tolerance would be 0.1 percent of the test draft of approximately 800

gallons or 0.8 gallon. The automatic temperature-compensating system would

pass.

The tolerance of 0.1 percent is an indirect tolerance on the temperature

probe, but checks the entire automatic temperature-compensating system.

The temperature probe error permitted by this tolerance depends upon the

coefficient of expansion for each product. If the entire error is assumed to

be in the temperature probe, the temperature error permitted by this

tolerance can be computed.

3-41
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Based upon a 1000-gallon test draft and using approximate values for

coefficients of expansion, the temperature probe errors for a tolerance of

0.1 percent of the test draft would be:

Permitted Probe

Product Error in °F

Gasoline 1.7

#2 Fuel Oil 2.0

The temperature errors permitted by a performance tolerance are slightly

larger than suggested in the original proposal to the Committee. since

results will generally not repeat exactly for consecutive tests, so a slightly

larger tolerance is reasonable.

The Committee recommends that a performance tolerance for automatic

temperature-compensating systems be added for wholesale meters. The

Committee recommends that a new paragraph T.2.3.3. be added to read:

T.2.3.3. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATING SYSTEMS. - The difference between the meter error for results determined with

and without the automatic temperature-compensating system

activated shall not exceed 0.1 percent of the test draft. The results

of each test shall be within the applicable acceptance or maintenance tolerance.

(Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1988.)

330-15 V UR.1.1. LENGTH OF DISCHARGE HOSE

Dispensers used to fill trucks are permitted to have two delivery outlets

provided that flow cannot readily be diverted (UR. 2. 4.). Paragraph UR.1.1.

specifies that the discharge hose shall not exceed 18 feet when measured

from the dispenser housing to the inlet of the discharge nozzle. The

"satellite” delivery outlet at a truck dispenser will probably violate UR.1.1.

if the piping is included as part of the discharge hose. Similarly, some

marinas place dispensers on the shore and have piping from the dispenser to

the remote location of the delivery hose.

Such installations are currently in use, the major problem anticipated in

these installations is "computer jump" due to expansion of the pipe between

the dispenser and the delivery hose. One jurisdiction with numerous

installations of the type described above has not experienced any unusual

problems with "computer jump". If "computer jump" occurs, then the

installation must be modified to correct the problem.

To recognize dispensers currently in use at truck stops and marinas, the

Committee recommends the following:

3-42
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Amend UR.1.1. to read:

UR.1.1. LENGTH OF DISCHARGE HOSE. - The length of the

discharge hose on a retail motor fuel device shall not exceed 18 feet,

measured from the outside of the housing of the device its housing or

outlet of the discharge line to the inlet of the discharge nozzle,

unless it can be demonstrated that a longer hose is essential to

permit deliveries to be made to receiving vehicles or vessels. (On a

hose that may be coiled or otherwise retained or connected inside

the housing, the measurement shall be made with the hose fully

extended.) Unnecessarily remote location of a device shall not be

accepted as justification for an abnormally long hose.

Add the following two definitions:

Discharge line. A rigid pipe connected to the outlet of a measuring

device.

Discharge hose. A flexible hose connected to the discharge outlet of

a measuring device or its discharge line.

830-16 V UR.2.1. PLUMB AND LEVEL CONDITION

This requirement apparently was directed to gravity-fill dispensers. According

to device manufacturers, a plumb and level condition is not crucial to the

accuracy of devices currently in use. It is important, however, that a device be secured to a foundation to avoid adverse effects on its

performance.

The Committee recommends that the present paragraph, UR.2.1. Plumb and

Level Condition, be deleted and replaced with a new paragraph to read:

UR.2.1. INSTALLATION. - A device shall be installed in accordance

with the manufacturer's instructions, and the installation shall be

sufficiently secure and rigid to maintain this condition.

330-17 V UR.2.5. PRODUCT STORAGE IDENTIFICATION

The American Petroleum Institute has developed two standards recommending

particular colors and symbols to be used to mark equipment and vehicles for

the product being handled or stored. These standards are:

1. API Bulletin No. 1542, Fourth Edition, April 1986, entitled "Airport

Equipment Marking for Fuel Identification," and

2. API Recommended Practice 1637, First Edition, October 1986, entitled

"Using the API Color-Symbol System to Mark Equipment and Vehicles

for Product Identification at Service Stations and Distribution

Terminals."

3-43
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

A standardized marking system would help prevent the contamination of a product when returning a product to storage after testing a meter. The

Committee considered adding these standards to UR. 2. 5. or referencing these

standards in the paragraph. Because the standards address equipment not

normally under the jurisdiction of weights and measures enforcement, the

Committee believes that including these standards as part of Handbook 44

would exceed the authority of weights and measures officials. Additionally,

requiring specific symbols for identification may be inappropriate since

UR.2. 5. has required product storage identification for some time, and may

create enforcement problems if equipment is clearly marked with a different

code system.

The Committee supports the use of a single system of color-symbol coding

and recommends that any jurisdiction considering regulations in this area

should adopt the standards developed by the API. Industry is encouraged to

utilize the API-recommended color-symbol coding. Although no change is recommended to UR. 2. 5., the Committee believes that the API documents

should be adopted as NCWM recommendations to promote their use.

The Committee recommends that API Bulletin No. 1542 and API

Recommended Practice 1637 be adopted as recommendations of the NCWM.

330-18 V UR.3.5.2. WRITTEN INVOICE

The Committee received a proposal to change the term "automatic

temperature compensator" to "automatic temperature-compensating system"

so that it clearly applies to computerized (electronic) systems as well as the

mechanical compensators. The Committee concurs, and believes that both

mechanical and electronic systems are covered by the term "automatic

temperature compensator." Any reference in the code to automatic

temperature compensators will be editorially changed to automatic

temperature-compensating systems.

The Committee also addressed the information that should be required on an

invoice and to determine if written invoices applied to both handwritten

tickets and printed tickets. The Committee believes the requirement should

apply to handwritten and to printed tickets. Additionally, the Committee

believes that an invoice should also state the API gravity, product

temperature at the time of delivery, and the gross meter reading. In the case of handwritten tickets, the headings and entry spaces can be preprinted

and completed at the time of delivery.

The Committee recommends that UR.3.5.2. be amended to read:

UR.3.2. WRITTEN INVOICES. - Any written invoice based cm a reading

of a wholesale device that is equipped with an automatic

temperature- compensator compensating system shall have shown

thereon that the volume delivered has been adjusted to the volume

at 60 °F. The invoice shall also indicate the API specific gravity,

product temperature, and gross reading.

3-44
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

330-19 V UR.3.2. DEFINITIONS: FACE AND SIDE

The terms "face" and "side" are used in several places in the LMD code. To

clarify these paragraphs, definitions of these terms would be helpful. The

Committee is considering changing the "face” and "side" in the code to

other terminology, such as, "display area" and "customer side". Pending

further review, the Committee recommends the addition of the following

definitions to the code:

face. That portion of a computing-type pump or dispenser which

displays the actual computation of price per unit, delivered

quantity, and total sale price. In the case of some electronic

displays, this may not be an integral part of the pump or dispenser console.

side. That portion of a pump or dispenser console which faces the

consumer during the normal delivery of product.

There is an inconsistency in the use of the terms "face" and "side" in

S. 1.4.3. and UR.3.2. with respect to marking the identity of the product. To

be consistent, the Committee recommends that UR.3.2. be changed

editorially to read:

UR.3.2. UNIT PRICE AND PRODUCT IDENTITY. - On a retail device

there shall be displayed chi each face of the device the price at which

the product is offered for sale and, in the case of a computing-type

or money-operated type, the unit price at which the device is set to

compute and deliver. There shall also be conspicuously displayed on each faee side of the device, in the most descriptive terms

commercially practicable, the identity of the product that is being

dispensed. If a device is designed to dispense more than one grade,

brand, blend, or mixture of product, the identity of the grade, brand,

blend, or mixture which the device is set to dispense shall be

displayed on each faee side of the device at any time the device is in

service.

330-20 REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON

NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION - MEASURING

INDUSTRY SECTOR

The Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation - Measuring Industry

Sector met during the Interim Meeting. The Advisory Committee reviewed

permanence test procedures for different types of meters and discussed the

acceptable operation of card-activated systems, particularly related to the use of bank cards, power loss during a transaction, and the potential for

fraud.

The Advisory Committee is not recommending any changes to the type

evaluation criteria at this time. Instead, the topics discussed are reported

for comment and further study. It was agreed that the permanence test

procedures could be implemented immediately by NTEP participating

laboratories, but adoption by the NCWM will be delayed until experience has

been gained with these procedures.

3-45
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Agreement was not obtained on new checklist criteria and test procedures

regarding power loss on card-activated systems. The concern is that, while

the criteria and tests may be appropriate, there may be conflicts with

requirements for the banking systems. Additionally, time will be required to

incorporate some of these safeguards into the design of current equipment.

The objective of providing these criteria as an information item is to allow

comment, permit inquiries to explore whether or not conflicts with banking

systems exist, and to use the criteria as guidelines in type evaluation to

determine whether or not problems exist, but not to use the guidelines as

,, pass/fail,, criteria.

The Advisory Committee will review the issues over the next year with the

plan of submitting specific recommendations in time for the 1988 Annual

Meeting.

SECTION 3.31. VEHICLE TANK METERS

331 W TICKET PRINTERS

The proposal to clarify the times during which a ticket may be inserted or removed from the ticket printer needs further development before it can be

considered.

SECTION 3.32. LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS AND ANHYDROUS AMMONIA

LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES.

332-1 W S.l.1.5. MONEY VALUES - MATHEMATICAL

AGREEMENT

The proposal to amend the code for stationary devices was developed before

the 1987 edition of Handbook 44 was available. The action taken last year

has addressed and resolved this issue.

332-2 W S.l. 5.2.2. MONEY-VALUE DIVISIONS, DIGITAL

Although the maximum division value for quantity is not specified, a problem

does not appear to exist. Consequently, due to the many items on the

agenda, this item was dropped.

3-46
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

332-3 V S.2.5. THERMOMETER WELL

See also Item 330-9.

To allow the use of electronic and liquid-in-glass thermometers, the

Committee recommends that S.2.5. be amended to read:

S.2.5. THERMOMETER WELL. - Means shall be provided for

inserting? for test purposes? a mereury-in-gtess thermometer For test

purposes, means shall be provided to determine the temperature of

the liquid either:

(a) In the liquid chamber of the meter, or

(b) in the meter inlet or discharge line and immediately adjacent

to the meter.

332-4 W S.2.6. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION

The Committee was requested to propose requiring automatic temperature

compensators on devices with a discharge rate greater than 20 gallons per

minute. Due to the different views on automatic temperature compensation

held by weights and measures officials, the majority of the Committee

believed this issue should be addressed in the regulations of each

jurisdiction, and that it has been addressed in Handbook 130 by the

Conference and the Laws and Regulations Committee.

332-5 V 8.4.2. DISCHARGE RATES

Some stationary LPG dispensers are used exclusively to deliver product to

containers and not to motor vehicles. The dispensers are identical to motor

fuel devices so the requirement for marking should apply to all stationary

LPG dispensers.

The Committee recommends that S.4.2. be amended to read:

S.4.2. DISCHARGE RATES. - A device shall be marked to show its

designed maximum and minimum discharge rates. The marked minimum

discharge rate shall not exceed:

(a) 5 gallons per minute for motor fuel stationary retail devices,

or

(b) 20 percent of the marked maximum discharge rate for other

retail devices and for wholesale devices.

3-47
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

332-6 V UR.2.4. TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION

To permit the owner/user discretion over the placement of

temperature-sensing equipment for the purpose of temperature compensation,

the Committee recommends adding a new user requirement to read:

UR.2.4.4. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE-COMPENSATING SYSTEMS. - Means for determining the temperature of measured liquid in an

automatic temperature-compensating system shall be so designed and

located that, in any "usual and customary" use of the system, the

resulting indications and/or recorded representations are within

applicable tolerances.

332-7 V WEIGHT INDICATIONS FOR ANHYDROUS AMMONIA

Anhydrous ammonia is primarily used as a fertilizer and many state laws

require fertilizer to be sold by weight. The LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code specifies only units of fluid volume to be

used on these devices. Mass-flow meters are available that measure

products directly in mass units and would be suitable for the measurement

of anhydrous ammonia and LPG. The discussion of mass-flow meters in Item

330-2 is applicable here as well.

The Committee recommends that this code be amended to allow mass units

to be used for devices falling under this code. The changes consist

primarily of including appropriate references to weight, and weight values

roughly corresponding to the volume quantities specified in the code. To

permit the tolerances to apply to both volume and mass flow meters, the

tolerances are expressed in percent and are a direct conversion of the

existing tolerances. As a result, these values are not "convenient"

percentage numbers. The Report of the 71st NCWM 1986, page 197,

discusses new tolerances for these devices. The Committee plans to

recommend changing these tolerances in 1988 to:

Underregistration Overregistration

Normal tests

Acceptance

tolerance

0.75% 0.5%

Maintenance

tolerance

1.5% 1.0%

Special tests

Acceptance and 1.5% 1.0%

maintenance

tolerance

3-48
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee recommends amending the following paragraphs to read:

5.1.1.2. UNITS. - A device shall indicate, and record if the device is equipped to record, its deliveries in term of gallons, quarts, pints

pounds, or binary-submultiple or decimal subdivisions of the gallon or pound. The mass shall be expressed as apparent mass versus a density

of 8.0 g/cin^T

5.1.1.3. VALUE OF SMALLEST UNIT. - The value of the smallest unit of

indicated delivery, and recorded delivery if the device is equipped to

record, shall not exceed the equivalent of:

(a) one pint on retail devices, or

(b) one gallon or ten pounds on wholesale devices.

S.l.1.6. PRINTED TICKET. - Any printed ticket issued by a device of

the computing type on which there is printed the total computed

price, shall have printed clearly thereon the total volume of the

delivery in terms of gallons or pounds and the appropriate fraction of

the gallon or pound and the price per gallon or pound.

S.l.6.1. TRAVEL OF INDICATOR. - A wholesale device shall be

readily operable to deliver accurately any quantity from 50 gallons or 500 pounds to the capacity of the device. If the most sensitive

element of the indicating system utilizes an indicator and

graduations, the relative amount of these parts corresponding to a

delivery of 1 gallon or 10 pounds shall be not less than 0.20 inch.

S.2.5. THERMOMETER WELL, EXCEPT FOR DIRECT MASS FLOW

DEVICES. -

N.4.2.3. FOR WHOLESALE DEVICES. - A wholesale device shall be so tested

at a minimum discharge rate of:

(a) 10 gallons per minute or 100 pounds per minute for a device with

a rated maximum discharge less than 50 gallons per minute or 500

pounds per minute.

(b) 20 percent of the marked maximum discharge rate for a device

with a rated maximum discharge of 50 gallons per minute or 500

pounds per minute or more, or

T.2.1. ON NORMAL TESTS. - The maintenance tolerance on "normal"

tests shall be 4 eubie inches per indicated gallon 1.7 percent of

indicated quantity on underregistration and 2 eubie inehes per

indicated gallon 0.87 percent of indicated quantity on overregistration.

The acceptance tolerance on "normal" tests shall be 2 eubie inehes

per indicated gallon 0.87 percent of indicated quantity on

underregistration and 1 eubie ineh per indicated gallon 0.43 percent of

indicated quantity on overregistration.

3-49
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

T.2.2. ON SPECIAL TESTS. - The maintenance and acceptance

tolerances shall be 4 eubie inches per indicated gallon 1.7 percent of

indicated quantity on underregistration and 2 cubic inches per

indicated gallon 0.87 percent of indicated quantity on

overregistration.

Amend the following definition to read:

liquefied petroleum gas liquid-measuring device. A system including a

mechanism or machine of the meter type designed to measure and

deliver liquefied petroleum gas in the liquid state by a definite

volume quantity, whether installed in a permanent location or mounted on a vehicle. Means may or may not be provided to

indicate automatically, for one of a series of unit prices, the total

money value of the liquid measured.

Add the following definition:

mass flow meter. - A device that measures the mass of a product

flowing through the system. The mass measurement may be

determined directly from the effects of mass on the sensing unit or may be inferred by measuring the properties of the product, such as the volume, density, temperature, or pressure, and displaying the

quantity in mass units.

332-8 V N.4.1. NORMAL TESTS

The discussion in Item 330-13 regarding the normal tests for a meter with an automatic temperature-compensating system applies to LPG and anhydrous

ammonia liquid meters as well. The Committee recommends that paragraphs

N.4.1. and N.4.1.1. be changed to be consistent with the changes

recommended in Item 330-13. The tolerance for the automatic temperature

compensator is not included in this change to the LPG/Anhydrous Ammonia

Device Code but is being considered for 1988.

The Committee recommends that paragraphs N.4.1. and N.4.1.1. be amended to

read:

N.4.1. NORMAL TESTS. - The "normal" test of a device shall be

made at the maximum discharge rate that may be anticipated under

the conditions of installation. If the device is equipped with an

automatic temperature compensator* this test should be eondueted

with-the-temperature-compensator-deactivated^

N.4.1.1. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION. - If a device

is equipped with an automatic temperature compensator compensating

system, the compensator system shall be tested by comparing the

volume indicated or recorded by the device, with the compensator

connected and operating, with the actual delivered volume corrected

to 60 OF.

(a) The first test shall be performed with the automatic

temperature-compensating system operating.

3-50
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(b) If the device provides both the uncompensated and

temperature-compensated indications for a single test, the

accuracy of the automatic temperature-compensating system

may be verified from a single test.

(c) If the uncompensated and temperature-compensated indications are

not available from a single test, a normal test shall also be

performed with the automatic temperature-compensating system

deactivated.

SECTION 5.51. WIRE- AND CORDAGE-MEASURING DEVICES

350 W DRAFT COMBINED FABRIC-MEASURING AND WIRE

AND CORDAGE-MEASURING DEVICE CODE

Due to the number of items on the agenda, this item was not considered.

SECTION 5.53. ODOMETERS

353 V N.l.3.3. VEHICLE LADING

T.2. TOLERANCE VALUES

When checking the odometers of rental trucks, it is not always practical to

test with the customer's load or by placing standard test weights in the

truck bed, which may create a safety hazard. A tolerance for checking

unladen trucks is needed. Test data were provided to the Committee

supporting the proposed tolerance for unladen trucks.

The Committee recommends amending N.l.3.3. and T.2., and adding a new

paragraph T.2.1. as follows:

N.l.3.3. VEHICLE LADING. -

(a) Passenger Load - During the distance test of an odometer, the

vehicle may carry two persons.

(b) Truck Cargo Load - Truck odometers shall should be tested

when the truck is loaded with one-half of the maximum cargo

load.

(c) Unladen Test - Truck odometers may be tested when the truck

is unladen if unladen test tolerances are applied.

T.2. TOLERANCE VALUES. - Except for unladen trucks, maintenance

and acceptance tolerances on odometers shall be four percent of the

interval under test.

T.2.1. TOLERANCES FOR UNLADEN TRUCKS. - Maintenance and

acceptance tolerances on truck odometers shall be five percent for

underregistration and three percent for overregistration of the

interval under test.

3-51
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

SECTION 5.56. GRAIN MOISTURE METERS

356-1 S.l.6.2. OPERATING RANGE

This paragraph was addressed at the 1986 NCWM, and the effective date

was delayed until January 1, 1990. The purpose of the delay was to give

device manufacturers sufficient time to incorporate design changes into

models continuing to be manufactured. These devices have a long product

life. The appropriateness of the S.l.6.2. requirement was again questioned

this year.

The Committee also reviewed the USDA/Federal Grain Inspection Service

(FGIS) Grain Moisture Handbook. Based upon a meeting between FGIS,

Maryland, and NBS representatives, a number of changes to the Grain

Moisture Meters Code will be proposed in 1988 and will require significant

changes to the design of grain moisture meters. These changes include a minimum temperature operating range, a "warm-up” requirement, a level

indicator, a minimum moisture division not greater than 0.1 percent, and

several other criteria. Because they are major changes, it is reasonable to

have the new requirements apply to only meters of new designs. The

changes would not apply to models currently in production. Because of the

long production life of models of grain moisture meters and a desire to

incorporate new requirements into the code without unduly disrupting the

manufacture of existing models, the Committee is considering a proposal

that would exempt existing models of grain moisture meters by type. This

would make the new requirements nonretroactive on the basis of type rather

than nonretroactive for all devices after a specified date.

This approach to nonretroactivity is significantly different from what has

been used in Handbook 44 in the past and has been discouraged because of

the difficulty in applying the nonretroactive status to a large number of

devices that may be in use in a wide range of applications. In the case of

grain moisture meters, there are relatively few manufacturers and the

number of models used commercially is also relatively small. This

exemption by type is used in the Scales Code paragraph T.N.8. to phase in

the influence factors requirements on a practical basis.

The Committee requests comments on the proposal to adopt a new set of

criteria for grain moisture meters on the basis of nonretroactivity by device

type. Alternatives to this approach are also requested.

The Committee does not recommend any change to S.l.6.2. this year

because, if the concept of nonretroactivity by device type is considered

appropriate for grain moisture meters, then it may be appropriate to make

S.l.6.1. nonretroactive by device type along with the new requirements that

will be proposed in 1988.

For the purposes of information and review, the Committee reports the

results of the meeting of FGIS, Maryland, and NBS representatives. The

Committee is reviewing the recommendations from this meeting as a basis

for proposing new requirements for grain moisture meters (GMMs) for

adoption at the 1988 NCWM. The Committee requests that comments be

submitted before the Interim Meeting in January, 1988.

3-52
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Report of the FGIS, Maryland, NBS Meeting

of January 6-7, 1987

It was unanimously agreed that the following items be recommended for

consideration for adoption into the Handbook 44 Grain Moisture Meters Code

for GMMs of new design.

1. Minimum Temperature Operating Range

GMMs shall comply with all the appropriate requirements of this code under

the following temperature conditions:

If not specifically marked to the contrary on the device, the

temperature limits shall be 40 °F to 104 °F (10 °C to 40 °C).

2. Sample Temperature Requirements

Moisture content values shall not be determined if the difference in

temperature between the grain sample, moisture meter, and ambient air

temperature exceed 20 °F. Grain sample temperature cannot be less than

10 °C or more than 40 °C.

3. Display Resolution

On moisture meters indicating moisture content values in percent of

moisture content, the maximum value of the moisture content division shall

not exceed 0.1 percent moisture.

4. Electric Power Supply

A. Grain moisture meters that operate using alternating current shall

comply with all appropriate requirements of this code over the line

voltage range of 100-130 volts or 200-250 volts, as appropriate.

B. Battery operated instruments shall comply with appropriate

requirements of this code when battery power output is excessive or deficient.

5. Operating Temperature

A grain moisture meter indicating or recording element shall not display or record any usable values until the operating temperature necessary for

accurate moisture determination has been attained.

6. Level Condition

If the moisture measurement is affected by the level condition of the GMM,

then a level indicator must be provided.

3-53
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

7. Humidity (Type Evluation Test)

If not specifically marked to the contrary on the device, the GMM shall

comply with all appropriate requirements of this code within 10-93 percent

relative humidity, noncondensing. (Action taken at the 1987 Annual Meeting

may determine if the requirement will be proposed).

Summary

All attendees of the meeting felt the above listed recommendations should be

nonretroactive for existing models of GMM and consideration should be given

to making the existing Section S.l.6.2. nonretroactive also.

We realize the timing is inappropriate to request action on the

recommendations at the 1987 Annual Meeting. However, we believe these

recommendations should be considered and published for information and

comment in this year’s S&T annual report.

The following is a list of proposed changes which FGIS still has under

consideration. The intent is to finalize these and forward recommendations

prior to the next Interim Meeting.

1. Review FGIS, OIML, and Handbook 44 tolerances and recommend

tolerances acceptable to all parties concerned.

2. Establish guidelines for obtaining grain samples that can be used by

both FGIS and state weights and measures programs.

3. Consider developing a specification stating that charts must be

reviewed annually and updated as required for any meter currently

being used, and a user requirement stating that the current calibration

chart be used.

4. Establish a minimum operating range for grain moisture. Consider

including graphs of percent moisture versus temperature as a basis for

describing the minimum temperature and grain moisture operating

ranges.

356-2 S.3. ACCESSORY EQUIPMENT

Requests have been received that specifications and tolerances are needed

for accessory equipment addressed in Section S.3. of the Grain Moisture

Meters Code. Specifically, the following topics have been raised.

1. A tolerance is needed on the dry measures used to determine the test

weight per bushel. The tolerance given in the dry measure code are

too large when the measure is used to determine the weight per

bushel of grain.

3-54
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

2. The funnel mechanism and drop height from the dry measure used to

determine the weight per bushel should be specified.

3. Specific tolerances should be stated for scales used to determine

weight per bushel if the indications are in pounds per bushel. It is suggested that a maximum verification scale division should be

established for scales using one pint or one quart sample sizes for

determining the weight per bushel.

4. Develop specifications for the readability of weight per bushel scales.

In particular, this issue addresses the ability of a user to determine

the balance condition of a beam scale when the scales does not have

a trig loop or a balance indicator. This proposal continues with the

suggestion that the hand-held bushel weight scales should be

prohibited. In 1986, the S&T Committee reported that paragraph

UR. 2.2. prohibits the use of hand-held scales because they must be

freely suspended from a fixed support when in use. (See the Report

of the 71st NCWM 1986, page 184.)

5. A tolerance should be specified for thermometers used in grain

moisture testing. A tolerance of +2 °F has been suggested.

The USDA has requirements for weight per bushel equipment, such as, design

of the one-quart dry measure (they only allow a one-quart sample to be used

for weight per bushel determinations), the funnel, test stand, and scale. The

USDA requirements will be the starting point for developing Handbook 44

criteria for this equipment. The Scales Code will be the basis for any

specific scale criteria, if necessary. Comments are requested regarding the

criteria needed and specific recommendations for language. If criteria are adequately developed, the Committee may propose specific criteria for

adoption at the 1988 Annual Meeting.

356-3 W USDA MOISTURE HANDBOOK

This item was combined with Item 356-1.

356-4 W COORDINATION OF NEW METER CALIBRATIONS

A letter was received indicating a need for improved communication among

the USDA/FGIS, the NCWM, and state departments of agriculture in advance

of the USDA/FGIS release of calibrations of grain moisture meters. The

USDA/FGIS took action immediately upon receipt of the original letter and

has taken steps to address the problem.

OTHER ITEMS

360-1 ENERGY ALLOCATION SYSTEMS

Energy allocation systems are appearing in the marketplace and their use is increasing. Courts in Maryland and the City of Seattle, Washington have

ruled that these devices are a weights and measures responsibility. The S&T

Committee believes that a task force should be formed to study energy

3-55
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

allocation systems and make appropriate recommendations. The position of

the S<5cT Committee has been communicated to the Executive Committee.

See Item 101-4 in the Executive Committee Report.

360-2 ELECTRIC WATT-HOUR METER CODE

Interest has been expressed for a code for electric watt-hour meters.

Although there are few states involved with testing these meters, the need

appears to be expanding. The State of California has had a code for a number of years. It is based upon requirements for utility meters and is well established. They have advised the Committee that changes may now

be necessary to recognize electronic versions of electric-watt hour meters.

Appendix C is the California requirements for electric watt-hour meters, and

is included for review and comment. This is an information item, not a tentative code. Comments are requested before the Interim Meeting in

1988.

360-3 CARBON DIOXIDE LIQUID MEASURING DEVICES

Liquid carbon dioxide is measured and sold as a refrigerant to various

segments of the food industry, particularly processing plants and fast food

outlets. Cryogenic metering systems and on-board weighing systems can be

used to measure the commodity, but standards, test methods, and user requirements are needed.

The Committee received a proposal to add a code for carbon dioxide meters

in Handbook 44. A draft code has been developed by the State of California

and is included as Appendix D. This is an information item, not a tentative

code. Comments are requested before the Interim Meeting in 1988.

360-4 OIML ACTIVITIES

OIML Membership has increased significantly in the last several years and

there are now 51 member and 28 corresponding nations. Its output includes

74 International Recommendations and 16 International Documents. It is generally agreed that OIML is becoming truly international in scope and that

it is rapidly fostering international uniformity in technical requirements and

test methods. Most of the participants have expressed the view that their

participation has proven to be most beneficial.

3-56
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Members of the Committee participated in a number of OIML activities during

the past year and will continue to participate in the future. The meetings

attended and those scheduled for the near future, and the documents

reviewed, are as follows:

Meetings:

U.S. National Working Group (USNWG) PS7, August 12-13, 1986, NBS,

Gaithersburg, MD. Reason: Review and develop U.S. position on two second

Pre-draft International Recommendations (IR), Totalizing Automatic Weighing

Instruments (automatic hopper scales) and Automatic Rail Weighbridges

(weighing-in-motion).

International Working Group (IWG) PS7/RS5, September 15-19, 1986, London,

England. Reason: To discuss two second pre-drafts referenced in above

paragraph.

USNWG PS7, October 14-15, 1986, NBS, Gaithersburg, MD. Reason: Review

and develop U.S. position on a proposed pre-draft International

Recommendation combining IRs 3, 28, 74, and other etc. This effort would

result in a single document containing all the requirements for nonautomatic

scales.

IWG PS7/RS4, November 2-6, 1986, Paris. Reason: Discuss documents

referenced in paragraph above.

USNWG PS7, March 3-4, 1987, NBS, Gaithersburg, MD. Reason: Review

and develop U. S. position on two documents — second pre-draft combined

scales document and third pre-draft on automatic hopper scales.

IWG PS7/RS4, June 1-5, 1987, Braunschweig, Germany. Reason: To discuss

second pre-draft combined document on scales.

Documents Reviewed:

Second pre-draft IR on Automatic Rail Weighbridges

Second pre-draft IR on Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing

Instruments

Third pre-draft IR on Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing

Instruments

First pre-draft IR combined document on scales

Second pre-draft IR combined document on scales

Third pre-draft document on test procedures and report forms

3-57
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Future Work;

It is expected that the documents referenced above will be completed by the

IWG's during 1987. They will then become draft IRs and be submitted for

action by the International Conference at its next plenary meeting. Revisions

to IR 50, Belt Weighers, will begin in early 1987 with a first pre-draft

ready for circulation by early 1988. A pre-draft on electronics in

liquid-measuring devices should be circulated for comment early in 1987, and

a meeting of the IWG scheduled for late fall 1987.

F. Gerk, New Mexico, Chairman

R. Andersen, New York

K. Butcher, Maryland

D. Watson, Texas

J. Truex, Ohio

H. Oppermann, NBS, Technical Advisor

COMMITTEE ON SPECIFICATIONS AND TOLERANCES

3-58
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

APPENDIX A

REPORT OF THE TECHNICAL COMMITTEE

ON NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION

WEIGHING INDUSTRY SECTOR

This Appendix has three sections:

1. Devices to be Tested for Influence Factors (page 3-60).

2. NTEP Load Cell Testing (page 3-61)

3. NTEP Load Cell Test Procedures (page 3-63)

3-59
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

0)O

C

<P

a; -o e c

.5 s

t-* <p Q

C\JX

CO

£-o

4-> o

03

U->

<PO

c

<PDd

s

s-o

U-t

•o

a)

(0

cp H

<p CQOH

CO

CPorH>

(P a

c

o

•HP

Q5- ?

<P t

3 CP O £

CLD

IE <d

S-* E

-2 - 3s to3 <P

CPE h

O S) £

<p

t- CQ a-

<u •5 3 P -H 3 6

<p 3

X X

X

X

T- 00 X x

00X

onx

X

o3

oa

CLwH

Z

3

a

E

(D (D L H M O

00X

<p S >>

to o

l. «

<u C

Q. 3

B o

X

00X

Q\

<

0N

S

CO 1L. P CO 7A <p •o

<p co 8

3; 4 3 a

o

c PrH Pr~H

co

t-CP o *0 C

<P

CO 00r*

03 3

E

PI p CP E E 0) (P .5 Cl

<p O

o

o

O

o

o

D

Q. x

.2?

'3>q E 1

3

a> 3 3

o

<p o

CLXt CO p

CO

(P EO PCO

<p oH 00 00 E CP •r-i e, 03 •o b0 C to T O H o H

>

0) a

VI

CO

CP

/s

coCP

O

O

CO

?

1 CO

L.

(P P

O. >2

eg

CP P\£-

(P

c

CPCl

bO

bO

C <D 5 B

n) aj O rH H

8

Loac L

<p P

•3 3

03 b

CP X

p

o

r- oo ro

a! cc P .5 g

>

otJ CP •H <P "O 45 03 X d

o

00 o

co o

QJ

t- CL Q

CP P 3 s a O X <c

3-60
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

NTEP Load Cell Testing

Load Cells to be Submitted for Test

Load cells with essentially the same design will be considered to be part of

the same family. Typically, a ratio of 10:1 in cell capacities will be

covered based upon the test of a single cell. To determine which cell(s)

should be submitted for testing, the manufacturer should submit a drawing

of each capacity load cell to substantiate that they are of the same basic

design. The manufacturer must provide the following information with a request for evaluation.

1. Load cell capacities

2. Quality or accuracy class

3. Number of scale divisions requested

4. Minimum verification scale division

5. Drawings for each cell

6. A complete set of test data on the load cells submitted for

evaluation. (Test data is required for only the cells submitted

for type evaluation; test data is not required for each cell

capacity in the family).

The following factors will be considered when determining which cells and

the number of cells that will be tested.

1. Which cell can be conveniently tested

2. Which cell is expected to be the most popular

3. What the manufacturer or importer has available for test

4. The range of capacities

5. Differences in the cell design within a family

6. The number of scale divisions for which the cell is to be

tested.

General guidelines will be used to determine the number and the capacities

of cells to be tested. These are given below:

1. Single- and multiple-cell applications.

One cell at one capacity will usually be tested for single-cell

applications. For multiple cell applications, two load cells at

the same capacity will be tested.
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

2. Range of capacities.

If the range of capacities is relatively small (e.g. the range of

capacities does not exceed 1G:1), then cells at only one

capacity will usually be tested. If the range of cell capacities

significantly exceeds a 10:1 ratio, an additional capacity load

cell will be tested. The guideline in (1) for single-and

multiple-cell applications applies to each capacity cell that is tested.

3. If a large number of scale divisions is being requested, one more cell capacity or more cells at the same capacity will be

tested.

The actual number of load cells and load cell capacities to be tested will be

decided by NTEP in discussions with the manufacturer.

Companies desiring an OIML test on a load cell must specify this in the

letter of request because the OIML criteria are more stringent than the

NTEP criteria. Test data collected for an OIML test may be used to satisfy

NTEP criteria, but the reverse is not true. The additional scale

classification (III L), the extra tolerance step in the Class III tolerances, and

the tolerances for single and multiple load cell system (0.7 and 1.0 times

the scale tolerance) require additional data analysis. This will result in

additional costs for NTEP load cell tests over OIML tests.

Multiple Load Cell System Tolerances

Load cells tested for multiple-cell scales will be allowed a tolerance of 1.0

of the scale tolerance. This is justified based upon the fact that the random

errors of the load cells will result in some cancellation, so the multiple load

cells will not contribute more than 0.7 of the scale tolerance when actually

in use.

Barometric Pressure Tests

Barometric pressure testing will be limited to one-diaphragm canister load

cells (or scales utilizing those cells). If the barometric pressure test is run,

it is not necessary to vary the pressure over the range of pressures specified

in Handbook 44, but over a relatively small range to see if the cell is affected. The test may be very short in time duration.

The barometric pressure test will not be run on hydraulic load cells because

the effects of barometric pressure cancel. A weighing system using

hydraulic load cells will always have a pressure sensor. Both the cell and

the sensor will be vented to the atmosphere so the effect of barometric

pressure cancels.

3-62
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

NTEP Load Cell Test Procedures

Test Conditions

1. Measurement Standards: The combined measurement uncertainty of

the load generating system and the indicating instrument used to

observe the output of the load cell under test shall be less than 0.3

times the maximum permissible errors for the load cell under test (IR

60 section 8).

2. Before adequate testing and evaluation of load cells can be

performed, careful attention shall be given to the environmental and

test conditions under which such evaluations are to be made.

Significant discrepancies are frequently a result of insufficient

recognition of such details. The following shall be thoroughly

considered prior to any type evaluation testing program.

3. Acceleration of gravity - The acceleration of gravity varies by as much as 0.55% over the surface of the earth. Gravity corrections

shall be introduced when standard masses are used for load

generation. The value of g at the test site should be noted in the

test results.

4. Environmental conditions - Tests shall be performed under stable

environmental conditions. With regard to stable ambient temperature,

the temperature is deemed to be stable when the difference between

extreme temperatures noted during the test does not exceed one

fifth of the temperature range of the considered cell, without being

greater than 5 °C.

5. Loading conditions - Particular attention shall be given to loading

conditions to prevent the introduction of errors not inherent to the

load cell. Factors such as surface roughness, flatness, corrosion,

scratches, eccentricity, etc., should be taken into consideration.

Loading conditions shall be in accordance with the requirements of the

load cell manufacturer. The loads shall be applied and removed along

the sensitive axis of the cell without introducing shock to the load

cell.

6. Reference standards - Periodic (depending on use) verification of

standards should be made.

7. Stabilization - A stabilization period for the load cell under test and

the readout instrumentation shall be provided, as recommended by the

manufacturer of the equipment used.
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

8. Temperature conditions - It is important to allow sufficient time for

temperature stabilization of the load cell to be achieved. Particular

attention shall be devoted to this requirement for large load cells.

The loading system shall be of a design which will not introduce

significant thermal gradients within the load cell. The load cell and

its connecting means (cables, tubes, etc.) which are integral or contiguous shall be at the same test temperature. The indicating

instrument shall be maintained at room temperature. The temperature

effect on auxiliary connecting means shall be considered in

determining results.

9. Barometric pressure effects - Where changes in barometric pressure

may significantly affect minimum dead load output, such changes shall

be considered.

10. Stability - An indicating instrument and a loading means shall be used

which will provide sufficient stability to permit readings within the

limits specified in point 1.

11. Instrument checking - Some indicating instruments are provided with a convenient means for checking of the instrument itself. When such

features are provided, they shall be utilized frequently to ensure that

the indicating instrument is within the accuracy required by the test

being performed. Periodic verification of the instrument calibration

shall also be performed.

12. Other conditions - Other conditions specified by the manufacturer such

as input/output voltage, electrical sensitivity, etc., shall be taken into

consideration during the test.

Tests to be Performed

la. Load cell error with respect to temperature

lb. Repeatability based on results of test la

2. Temperature effect on minimum dead load output

3. Creep (One-hour test per H-44)

4. Barometric pressure effect if the cell is sensitive to barometric

pressure changes as determined by guidelines discussed in the section

titled "Barometric Pressure Tests."

3-64
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Tolerances

The tolerances are minimum load cell

Load Cell Error

Repeatabi 1 ity

Error

Temperature Effect

on Minimum Dead

Load Output

Creep (test at

90-100% of load

Cell Capacity)

Effects of

Barometric

Pressure

expressed in load cell verification intervals, v, and the

verification interval, v mj n, specified by the manufacturer.

Class III Load Cells

H44 Single Cell Multiple Cell

Reference Requirement Requirement

Table 6, 0.7 Factor Applied 1.0 Factor Applied

Class III Load Tolerance Load Tolerance

T.N.3.2. 0-500v 0.35v 0-500v 0.50v

T.N.8.1.1. 501-2000v 0.7Uv 501-2000v l.OOv

2001-4000V 1.05v 2001-4000V 1.50v

4001-10 000 1.75v 4001-10 OOOv 2 . 50v

T.N.5.1. 0.7 Factor Applied 1.0 Factor Applied

T.N.8.1.1. Load Error Load Error

0-500v 0.35v 0-500v 0.50v

501-2000v Q.70v 501-2000v l.OOv

2001-4000v 1.05v 2001-4000V 1.50v

4001-10 OOOv 1.75v 4001-10 OOOv 2.50v

T.N.8.1.3.

T.N.8.1.1.

•7 vmin/5 °C i- 0 vmin/5 °C

T.N.4.4. 1.0 Factor Applied

T.N.8.1.1. Load Error Load Error

0-500v 0.50v 0-500v . 50v

501-2000v l.OOv 501-2000v l.OOv

2001-4000V 1.50v 2001-4000v 1.50v

4001-10 OOOv 2. 50v 4001-10 OOOv 2.50v

in 1 hr. in 1 1hr. in 1 hr. in 1 hr

T.N.8.4. Applicable to only specified load cells.

1 vmin/l kPa

3-65
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Class III L Load Cells

H44 Single Cell Multiple Cell

Reference Requirement Requirement

Load Cell Error Table 6, 0.7 Factor Applied 1.0 Factor Applied

Class IIIL Load Tolerance Load Tolerence

T.N.3.2. 0-500v 0.35v 0-5Q0v 0.50v

T.N.8.1.1. 501-2000v 0.70v 501-2000v l.OOv

(add .35v for each (add .50v for each

500vor fraction of) 500v or fraction of)

9001-9500v 6.65v 9001-9500V 9.50v

9501-10000v 7.00v 9501-10000v lO.OOv

Repeatability T.N.5.1. 0.7 Factor Applied 1.0 Factor Applied

Error T.N.8.1.1. Load Error Load Error

0-500v 0.35v 0-500v 0.50v

501-1000v 0.70v 501-1000v l.OOv

(add .35v for each (add .50v for each

500v or fraction of) 500v or fraction of)

9001-9500v 6.65v 9001-9500V 9.50v

9501-10000v 7.00v 9501-10000v lO.OOv

Temperature Effect T.N.8.1 .3. 0*? vmin/5° C *•0 vmin/ 5° c

on Mininnun Dead T.N.8.1.1.

Load Output

Creep (test at T.N.4.4. 1.0 Factor Applied 1.0 Factor Applied

90-100% of load T.N.8.1.1. Load Error Load Error

Cell Capacity) 0-500v 0.50v 0-500v 0.50v

501-2000v l.OOv 501-2000v l.OOv

2001-4000v 1.50v 2001-4000V 1.50v

4001-10 OOOv 2. 50v 4001-10 OOOv 2.50v

in 1 hour in 1 hour

Effects of T.N.8.4. Applicable to only specified load cells.

Barometric * vmin/l kPa

Pressure

3-66
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Test Procedures

All tests are to be performed according tc the test conditions specified

earlier.

I. Determination of:

Load cell error Repeatability error Temperature effect on minimum dead load output

1. At room temperature, insert the load cell into the force

generating system and exercise by applying a load to maximum

capacity three times, returning to minimum dead load after

each load application.

2. If the indicating element for the load cell is provided with a convenient means of checking itself, conduct the self-test at

this time.

3. Monitor minimum dead load output until stable. Record

instrument indication at minimum dead load.

4. All test load points in a loading and unloading sequence shall be

spaced at approximately equal time intervals. The readings

shall be taken at a time which is as far as possible in

agreement with the following table. These two time intervals

shall be recorded in seconds.

The initial reading shall be taken at a time interval after the

initiation of load applications or removal, whichever is applicable, as specified in the following Table:

Load Time

Greater than To and including

0 kg 10 kg 10 seconds

10 kg 100 kg 15 seconds

100 kg 1 000 kg 20 seconds

1 000 kg 10 000 kg 30 seconds

10 000 kg 100 000 kg 50 seconds

100 000 kg — 60 seconds

The loading loading or unloading unloading time, whichever whichever is applicable, applicable, shall be

approximately one half of the specified time. The remaining time shall be

utilized for stabilization. The test shall be conducted under constant

conditions.

\

3-67
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

5. Apply increasing loads to maximum capacity. Increasing load

points shall be at least 5 in number and shall include loads at

approximately the highest values in the applicable steps of the

tolerances.

6. Record the instrument indications.

7. Remove the test loads to the minimum dead load in the same

manner.

8. Record the instrument indications for the minimum dead load.

9. Repeat the operations described in steps 4 through 8 four more

times for accuracy classes I and II or two more times for

accuracy classes III, IIIL and IIII.

10. Repeat the operations described in steps 2 through 9 at the

high and low temperature limits for the accuracy class or, if

the manufacturer has specified a smaller or larger range, at the

limits marked on the cell, provided the temperature range is at

least the range required for the accuracy class.

11. Repeat the operations described in steps 2 through 9 at room

temperature.

12. At each data point the magnitude of load cell error shall be

determined and compared with the tolerances.

13. From the resulting data the repeatability error may be

determined and compared with the tolerances.

14. From the resulting data, the temperature effects on minimum

dead load output may be determined and compared to the

tolerances.

n. Determination of Creep

1. At room temperature, insert the load cell into the force

generating system and load to the minimum dead load.

2. If the indicating element for the load cell is provided with a convenient means for checking itself, conduct the self-test at

this time.

3. Monitor minimum dead load output until stable.

4. Apply a load equal to 90 to 100% of the maximum capacity of

the load cell and record the indication after 20 seconds.

Continue to record indications periodically thereafter at regular

time intervals over a 1 hour period.

3-68
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

5. Repeat the operations described in steps 2 through 4 at the

high and low temperature limits for the accuracy class or, if

the manufacturer has specified a smaller or a larger range, at

the limits marked on the cell, provided the temperature range

is at least the range required for the accuracy class.

6. With the resulting data, and taking into account the effect of

barometric pressure changes, the magnitude of the creep can be

determined and compared to the tolerance.

IV. Determination of effects of barometric pressure.

1. At room temperature and minimum dead load insert load cell

into pressure chamber at atmospheric pressure.

2. If the indicating element for the load cell is provided with a convenient means for checking itself, conduct the self-test at

this time.

3. Monitor minimum dead load output until stable. Record

instrument indication at minimum dead load.

4. Change barometric pressure to a value of approximately 1 kPa

lower or higher than atmospheric pressure and record

instrument indication at minimum dead load. If it is convenient, the change in barometric pressure may be

significantly more than 1 kPa but cannot exceed 95 and 105

kPa as specified in HB44.

5. With the resulting data, determine the magnitude of the

barometric pressure influence and compare this with the

tolerance.

3-69
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

APPENDIX B

REPORT OF THE

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON NATIONAL TYPE EVLUATION

MEASURING INDUSTRY SECTOR

Permanence Test Procedures for Meters

The Technical Committeeon National Type Evaluation Program - Measuring

Industry Sector is requested to reexamine the test procedure for the

permanence test of retail motor fuel dispensers. This review included the

number of meters to be tested, the number of tests to be run, and to

further define when the subsequent examination (see below) may be

performed. It is believed that the number of 5- and 10-gallon tests specified

in the present test procedure can be reduced. Additionally, clarification of

the number of meters that should be tested is needed to establish

uniformity.

The following is proposed for consideration.

Permanence Test of New-Design Meters

in Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers

All new-design meters are subject to a permanence test. If a meter in a

dispenser is the same as a previously tested dispenser, a permanence test is not required on the meter unless a problem is detected.

Initial Examination

1. All the meters of the new type installed at the type evaluation

location are subject to examination. At least two meters must

be tested.

2. At least one meter will be tested on each of two major products

(e.g., gasoline, and diesel fuel). At least two tests at both the

fast and slow flow rates will be run on each of these two

meters. Only one test at each flow rate need 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. The test

using the other product may be performed at a later date to

result in a full Certificate of Conformance.

3. All the meters must perform within acceptance tolerance.

3-70
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Subsequent Examination

1.

All the meters of the new type installed at the type evaluation

location must perform within acceptance tolerance throughout the

time and volume period specified below.

2.

The examination will be conducted no sooner than 20 days after

the initial examination and not before at least 20 000 gallons

have been measured by at least one meter on each of the two

products. These may be different dispensers than those that had

the two sets of tests run as part of the initial evaluation.

3.

Two tests of both fast and slow rates will be made on the

meters that delivered more than 20 000 gallons. Only one test at each flow rate need be run on any remaining meters.

Permanence Test of Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers

Utilizing Previously Evaluated Meters

Dispensers utilizing a meter that has been type evaluated will be subject to a permanence test. This test will not involve an extensive test of the

meter, although the meter must remain within acceptance tolerance during

the permanence test. A 20-30 day permanence test will be performed. The

meter will not be required to deliver 20 000 gallons during the permanence

test but the dispenser must receive significant use during the 20-30 day

test. Only one dispenser is required for the permanence test although all dispensers of the new type installed at the station may be tested. The

accuracy tests to be performed on the dispenser are the same as those for

new-design meters in retail motor fuel dispensers.

The tests to be run on metering systems as adopted at the 1985 NCWM are considered appropriate for LPG and cryogenic meters.

These are:

Only one meter will be required for the test. After the initial test, the

meter is to be placed into service for the permanence test. A minimum

throughput criterion is needed for these meters. The following is recommended.

For LPG and cryogenic meters:

Maximum rated flow rate x 1500 for meters rated equal to or greater

than 60 gal/min.

Maximum rated flow rate x 500 for meters rated less than 60 gal/min.

Permanence Test for LPG and

Cryogenic Meters

oo

o

o

three tests at the maximum discharge rate

three intermediate flow tests

three slow flow tests

three vapor or air eliminator tests

3-71
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

This corresponds to 30-60 days based upon California weights and measures experience. The time period is considered appropriate because

these meters have a history of becoming inaccurate more frequently

than meters for other fuels.

Following the period of use, the tests listed above are to be repeated. All

results must be within acceptance tolerances.

Permanence Test for LPG Vapor Meters

The tests to be run on an LPG vapor meter as part of the permanence test are:

o three tests at the maximum discharge rate o three slow flow tests o one low flame test

Only one meter will be required for the test. After the initial test, the

meter must have air or product passed through the meter as part of the

permanence test. The amount of air or product to be passed through the

meter shall be at least the maximum flow rate times 1000. California

weights and measures performs this test in approximately 60 days. Although

this is longer than the usual 30-day test, this is considered appropriate

because these meters are usually installed for up to ten years between

tests.

Following the period of accelerated use, the tests listed above are to be

repeated. All results must be within acceptance tolerances.

Card Activated Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers

There is great concern regarding the potential for accidental or intentional

fraud when card activated systems are used in service stations. The

greatest concern involves the use of bank-card activated systems because

these systems give direct access to bank accounts. The following criteria

and test procedures are under review for possible additions to the type

evaluation handbook in 1988.

Card-Activated Systems

A card activated system shall have an upper limit on the authorization

time before dispensing product and properly record transactions on the

appropriate card account.

When a card activated system is subject to a power loss, the dispenser shall

not remain authorized indefinitely. Because systems may be installed with

separate power lines to the console, card reader, and dispenser, tests should

be run with power failures to different parts of the system to evaluate the

potential for accidental or intentional errors. The appropriate device

response depends upon when the power loss occurs during the delivery

sequence.

3-72
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

a. The dispenser must deauthorize in not more than three minutes

if the pump "handle” is not turned on.

Complies? o Yes o No o N/A

b. When a power loss occurs after the pump "handle" is on, the

dispenser must deauthorize immediately.

Complies? o Yes o No o N/A

c. When there is a loss of power but the pump "handle" is not on, the dispenser must deauthorize in not more than three minutes.

Complies? o Yes o No o N/A

d. If the time limit to deactivate a dispenser is programmable, it shall not accept an entry greater than three minutes.

Complies? o Yes o No o N/A

Test Methods

1. Authorize the dispenser and with the pump "handle" on, interrupt power

to any part (or all) of the system. The pump should deauthorize

immediately. Specifically,

a. Authorize with a card and turn the "handle" on.

b. Power down briefly and restore power.

c. Try to dispense product. The dispenser must not dispense since

the power failure should have deauthorized the dispenser.

2. Authorize the dispenser using a card (leave handle off), wait more than

three minutes, and try to start the dispenser. It should not start

because the authorization should have timed out. Specifically,

a. Authorize with a card but do not turn the "handle" on.

b. Power down for more than three minutes and then restore

power.

c. Try to dispense product. The dispenser should have "timed-out"

and not dispense.

3. a. Authorize and dispense with card 1.

b. Allow the system to time out and deauthorize.

3-73
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

c. Authorize and dispense with card 2.

d. The transactions shall be properly recorded for each card.

Note: A mechanical register may accumulate the two deliveries but the

printed record must not have accumulated values.

4. a. Authorize with card 1. Turn the handle on and then off.

b. Authorize with card 2. Dispense product and complete the

delivery.

c. Check the printed receipt to verify that the delivery has been

properly charged to card 2.

5. a. Turn the dispenser "handle” on and then authorize the dispenser

using a card.

b. Turn the "handle" off and then on.

c. Try to deliver product. The dispenser must not dispense.

6. a. Authorize with card 1, turn the "handle" on, and interrupt

power. This should deauthorize the dispenser.

b. Resupply power and authorize the dispenser with card 2 and

complete a delivery.

c. Verify that the transaction is charged to card 2.

7. a. Authorize a dispenser with card 1 but do not turn the dispenser

"handle" on.

b. Try to authorize the same dispenser with card 2. It should not

be accepted until after the three minute time-out.

8. Attempt to override or confuse the card system by

a. varying the length of time the card is in the slot, e.g., vary the

"swipe" times;

b. pushing all other keys on the keypad during each step of the

authorization process.

3-74
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

APPENDIX C

DRAFT ELECTRIC WATT-HOUR METERS CODE

A. APPLICATION

A.l. - This code applies to electrical energy sub-meters used as commercial

measuring devices. Sub-meters are installed in mobile home parks,

apartment houses, shopping centers and similar establishments which purchase

electric service from a serving utility by a master meter and distribute the

service to tenants through a sub-metered service system.

A.2. - See also General Code requirements.

S. SPECIFICATIONS

5.1. CONSTRUCTION AND WORKMANSHIP. - The meter shall be

substantially constructed of good material in a workmanlike manner. Each

meter shall conform to all applicable standards of the National Electrical

Manufacturers Association and the Edison Electric Institute.

5.2. COVER. - The cover of the meter shall be sufficiently strong to

withstand ordinary usage. It shall be dustproof, waterproof, and prevent

access to the interior without destroying the security sea.

5.3. TERMINALS. - The terminals of the meter shall be arranged so that

the possibility of short circuits in removing or replacing the cover, making

connections and adjusting the meter is minimized.

5.4. EQUIPMENT GROUNDING. - Exposed non-current-carrying metal parts

of fixed equipment, metal boxes, cabinets and fittings which are not

electrically connected to grounded equipment, shall be grounded as required

by the National Electrical Code, Article 250.

5.5. PROVISION FOR SEALING.

5.5.1. SEALING. - Provisions shall be made for applying a security

seal to the meter cover, meter sealing ring, and terminal block cover.

5.5.2. METER ENCLOSURE. - Meter enclosures shall be so designed

that the cover may be sealed. Provision shall be made for reading the

meter without destroying the seal.

3-75
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

S.5.3. OVERLOAD PROTECTOR ENCLOSURE. - Thermal overload

protector enclosures shall be designed to facilitate sealing. A provision

shall be made fore resetting circuit breakers or replacing fuses without

destroying the seal.

S.6. METER IDENTIFICATION. - Each meter shall have the following

information legibly marked on the front of the nameplate or register:

(a) manufacturer’s name, type designation, and serial number,

(b) voltage rating,

(c) test amperes (TA),

(d) maximum amperes (CL),

(e) watt-hour or disk constant (kh),

(f) register ratio (Rr) and multiplier (if 10 or larger),

(g) frequency rating (Hz), (h) number of meter elements (polyphase), and

(i) ratio or rating of auxiliary devices.

N. NOTES

N.l. STARTING WATTS. - The rotor for a meter shall rotate continuously

when a load is applied equal to 0.5 amperes.

N.2. METER TESTS. - Meters shall be tested at full load and light load:

(a) Full load test shall not be less than the test amperes (TA) of

the meter.

(b) Light load test amperes (TA) shall be 5 to 10 percent of the

meter TA.

However, it may be 20 percent or 5 amps, whichever is less, of the TA

when testing a 240-volt, 3-wire, single phase meter with an unbalanced load

(energizing a single current coil).

N.3. TEST REVOLUTIONS. - Full and light load tests shall require 8 or more revolutions of the test standard and at least 1 revolution of the meter

under test.

N.4. CREEP TEST. - A meter disk that creeps more than one revolution

shall be removed from service.

N.5. METER REGISTER. - A meter register shall clearly indicate the

number of kilowatt-hours measured by the meter. The register ratio must

be indicated on the front of registers that are not integral parts of the

meter nameplate.

T. TOLERANCES

T.l. APPLICATION TO UNDERREGISTRATION AND TO

OVERREGISTRATION. - The following prescribed tolerances shall be applied

to errors of underregistration and errors of underregistration.

3-76
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

T.2. TOLERANCE VALUES. - Acceptance tolerance shall be applied to new

and rebuilt meters before they have been placed in service. Maintenance

and acceptance tolerances for electric watt-hour meters shall be as follows

for full and light load tests:

(a) Maintenance tolerance shall not exceed 2 percent for full and

light loads.

(b) Acceptance tolerance shall not exceed 1 percent for full and

light loads.

T.3. METERS WITH INSTRUMENT TRANSFORMERS. - Where instrument

transformers are used, the provisions of this section shall apply to the

metering equipment as a whole.

UR. USER REQUIREMENTS

UR.l. SELECTION REQUIREMENTS. -

UR. 1.1. METER CLASS. - The meter class shall equal or exceed the total

capacity in amperes of the thermal overload protectors.

UR.l. 2. SUITABILITY OF EQUIPMENT. - A meter shall be suitable for use on its electrical system. A 3-wire single phase load which is connected to a 120-208 volt network service shall be metered by a two-stator meter.

UR.2. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS. -

UR. 2.1. NON DOMESTIC METER TEST FACILITIES. - All nondomestic

meters shall be provided with the same test facilities that are required

of a similar meter by the serving utility.

UR. 2. 2. TEST BLOCKS. - All three-phase self contained meter

installations shall be equipped with test blocks, that are approved by

the serving utility, for safe meter testing.

UR.2. 3. TEST SWITCHES. - All meter installations that are equipped

with current or potential transformers, or both, shall have test switches

installed that are approved by the serving utility, for safe meter

testing.

UR. 2.4. CIRCUIT-CLOSING DEVICE. - All self-contained meter

installations that cannot accept a short interruption of the electrical

service, for the purpose of the testing meter, shall be equipped with a manual circuit-closing device as approved by the serving utility.

Automatic circuit-closing devices shall not be used on any meter

installation.

3-77
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

UR.3. USE REQUIREMENTS. -

UR.3.1. LOCATION OF METER. - Each meter shall be accessible by an

unobstructed entrance or passageway not less than two feet in width and six

and one-half feet high. A suitable unobstructed standing space of a least

30 inches wide, 36 inches deep and six and one-half feet high shall be

maintained in front of the meter to allow for installation, testing, and

reading.

UR.3. 2. METER HEIGHTS. - Meters shall be located not more than 75 inches

and not less than 30 inches above the ground or standing surface. The meter

height shall be measured to its axis.

UR.3.3. METERED CIRCUITS (LOAD SERVICE). - All electricity used by a

tenant shall be taken exclusively from the load service of one meter. All

electrical circuits from the meter shall serve only one space, lot,

building, room, suite, stall or premise occupies by the tenant and shall be

capable of being used at the discretion of the tenant.

UR.3.4. UNMETERED CIRCUITS (LINE SERVICE). - The tenants’ electrical

circuit shall not be taken from the line terminals of the meter, meter

socket, or line service. The landlord may utilize this service.

D. DEFINITIONS

The terms defined here have a special and technical meaning when used in the

Electric Watt-hour Meter Code.

ampere. The ampere is the practical unit of electric current. It is the

quantity of current caused to flow by a difference of potential of one

volt through a resistance of one ohm. One ampere is one coulomb of

charge per second.

creep. Creep is when the meter disk rotates continuously with potential

applied and load terminals open circuited.

current. Current is the intensity of the electron flow past any one point

the circuit. Its measurement is in coulombs per second or amperes.

kilowatt. A kilowatt is 1,000 watts.

kilowatt-hour (kwhr). A kilowatt-hour is 1,000 watt-hours.

landlord. A corporation and/or the person or persons who own the electrical

energy sub-meters and line service.

line service. The service conductors connecting the master meter to the

tenant’s meter and owned by the landlord.

load service. The service conductors connecting the tenant’s meter to their

electrical loads.

3-78
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

master meter. An electric watt-hour meter owned, maintained, and read for

billing purposes by the serving utility. All the electrical energy served to a sub-metered service system is recorded by the master meter.

maximum amperes (class or CL). The manufacturer's designated maximum

amperes that a meter can measure continuously without damage or exceeding limits of accuracy. Class or the designation CL associated with

its numerical value indicates maximum amperes.

meter. An electric watt-hour meter designed to measure and register the

integral of an electrical quantity with respect to time.

modern meter. A meter whose disk has a magnetic bearing system.

ohm. The ohm is a practical unit of electrical resistance. It is the

resistance which allows one ampere to flow when the impressed potential

is one volt.

percent registration. Percent registration is calculated as follows:

Percent Registration = Kwhr measured by METER

Kwhr measured by STANDARD

X 100

power factor. Cosine of the angle of lag or lead of the voltage and

current.

register ratio. The number of revolutions of the gear meshing with the

worm or pinion on the rotating element for one revolution of the first

dial pointer.

serving utility. Serving utility, as used in this code, means the utility or company who sells electrical energy to landlords for resale.

sub-meter. An electric watt-hour meter owned, maintained, and read for

billing purposes by the landlord. All the electrical energy registered is used by the tenant.

tenant. The person or persons served electrical energy from a sub-metered

service system.

test amperes (TA). The manufacturer's recommended full load test

amperage.

test block. The test block facilitates safe meter testing by disconnecting

the meter from the circuit without interrupting the service to the

tenant.

thermal overload protector. A circuit breaker or fuse which establishes and

limits automatically the maximum current that can be conducted in a

circuit.

unity power factor. Unity power factor exists in alternating-current circuits

when the voltage and current reverse at the same instance.

3-79
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

volt. A volt is the practical unit of electromotive force. One volt will cause one ampere to flow when impressed across a resistance of one ohm.

watt. A watt is the practical unit of active power and is defined as the

rate at which energy is delivered to a circuit. It is the power expended

when a direct current of one ampere flows through a resistance of one ohm. In an alternating-current circuit, the power in watts is volts times

amperes multiplied by the circuit power factor.

watt-hour. The watt-hour is the total or integrated amount of energy

delivered in one hour to a circuit in which the steady or average rate at

which energy is expended is one watt.

watt-hour constant (disk constant). The watt-hour constant of a meter is the registration of one revolution of its disk expressed in watt-hours. The

constant is usually identified by the symbol Kh.

3-80
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

APPENDIX D

DRAFT CARBON DIOXIDE LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES CODE

A. APPLICATION

A.I.- This code applies to carbon dioxide liquid measuring devices used for

the measurement of liquid carbon dioxide.

A. 2. - This code does not apply to devices used soleiy for dispensing a product in connection with operations in which the amount dispensed does

not affect customer charges.

A. 3.- See also General Code Requirements.

S. SPECIFICATIONS

S.l. DESIGN OF INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS AND OF RECORDED

REPRESENTATIONS.

S.1.1. PRIMARY ELEMENTS.

5.1. 1.1. GENERAL. - A device shall be equipped with a primary

indicating element and may also be equipped with a primary

recording element.

5.1. 1.2. UNITS. - A device shall indicate and record, if equipped

to record, its deliveries in terms of pounds or kilograms; gallons

or liters of liquid; or decimal subdivisions or multiples thereof.

5.1. 1.3. VALUE OF SMALLEST UNIT. - The value of the

smallest unit of indicated delivery, and recorded delivery, if the

device is equipped to record, shall not exceed the equivalent of:
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(a) for Small Delivery Devices:

(1) one-tenth gallon,

(2) one liter,

(3) one pound, or

(4) one kilogram.

(b) for large Delivery Devices:

(1) one gallon,

(2) ten liters,

(3) ten pounds, or

(4) ten kilograms.

5.1.1.4. ADVANCEMENT OF INDICATING AND RECORDING

ELEMENTS. - Primary indicating and recording elements shall be

susceptible of advancement only by the normal operation of the

device. However, a device may be cleared by advancing its elements to zero, but only if:

(a) the advancing movement, once started, cannot be stopped

until zero is reached, or

(b) in the case of indicating elements only, such elements are automatically obscured until the elements reach the

correct zero position.

5.1.1.5. RETURN TO ZERO. - Primary indicating and recording

elements shall be readily returnable to a definite zero indication.

Means shall be provided to prevent the return of primary

indicating elements and of primary recording elements beyond

their correct zero position.

S.1.2. GRADUATIONS. -

5.1.2.1. LENGTH. - Graduations shall be so varied in length

that they may be conveniently read.

5.1.2.2. WIDTH. - In any series of graduations, the width of a graduation shall in no case be greater than the width of the

clear interval between graduations. The width of main

graduations shall be not more than 50 percent greater than the

width of subordinate graduations. Graduations shall in no case

be less than 0.008 inch in width.

3-82
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

S.l.2.3. CLEAR INTERVAL BETWEEN GRADUATIONS. - The

clear interval shall be not less than 0.04 inch. If the

graduations are not parallel, the measurement shall be made:

(a) along the line of relative movement between the

graduations at the end of the indicator, or

(b) if the indicator is continuous, at the point of widest

separation of the graduations.

(See also S.l.3.6.)

S.1.3. INDICATORS. -

5.1.3.1. SYMMETRY. - The index of an indicator shall be of the

same shape as the graduations at least throughout that portion

of its length associated with the graduations.

5.1.3. 2. LENGTH. - The index of an indicator shall reach to the

finest graduations with which it is used, unless the indicator and

the graduations are in the same plane, in which case the

distance between the end of the indicator and the ends of the

graduations, measured along the line of the graduations, shall be

not more than 0.04 inch.

5.1.3. 3. WIDTH. - The width of the the index of an indicator in

relation to the series of graduations with which it is used shall

be not greater than

(a) the width of the widest graduation, and

(b) the width of the minimum clear interval between

graduations.

When the index of an indicator extends along the entire length

of a graduation, that portion of the index of the indicator that

may be brought into coincidence with the graduation shall be of

the same width throughout the length of the index that

coincides with the graduation.

5.1.3.4. CLEARANCE. - The clearance between the index of an

indicator and the graduations shall in no case be more than

0.06 inch.

5.1.3. 5. PARALLAX. - Parallax effects shall be reduced to the

practicable minimum.

5.1.3.6. TRAVEL OF INDICATOR. - If the most sensitive

element of the primary indicating element utilizes an indicator

and graduations, the relative movement of these parts

corresponding to the smallest indicated value shall be no less

than 0.20 inch.

3-83
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

S.1.4. COMPUTING-TYPE DEVICES.

5.1.4.1. PRINTED TICKET. - Any printed ticket issued by a device of the computing type on which there is printed the total

computed price shall have printed clearly thereon also the total

quantity of the delivery and the price per unit.

5.1.4. 2. MONEY-VALUE COMPUTATIONS. - Money-value

computations shall be of the full-computing type in which the

money value at a single unit price, or at each of a series of

unit prices, shall be computed for every delivery within either

the range of measurement of the device or the range of the

computing elements, whichever is less. Value graduations shall

be supplied and shall be accurately positioned.

The total price shall be computed on the basis of the quantity

indicated when the value of the smallest division indicated is equal to or less than the value specified in S.l.1.3.

5. 1.4.3. MONEY VALUES, MATHEMATICAL AGREEMENT. -Any

digital money-value indication and any recorded money value on

a computing-type device shall be in mathematical agreement with

its associated quantity indication or representation to within one

cent of money value.

S.2. DESIGN OF MEASURING ELEMENTS.

5.2.1. VAPOR ELIMINATION. - A measuring system shall be equipped

with an effective vapor eliminator or other effective means to prevent

the measurement of vapor that will cause errors in excess of the

applicable tolerances.

5.2.2. DIRECTIONAL FLOW VALVES. - A valve, valves, or other

effective means, automatic in operation, to prevent the reversal of flow

shall be installed in or adjacent to the measuring device.

5.2.3. MAINTENANCE OF LIQUID STATE. A device shall be so designed that the product being measured will remain in a liquid state

during passage through the device.

5.2.4. All liquid carbon dioxide measuring devices of the meter type

shall be equipped with automatic means to correct the volume delivered

to mass units of measure or to volume at 2 degrees Fahrenheit.

Nonretroactive. To become retroactive January 1, 1993.

5.2.5. PROVISION FOR SEALING. - Adequate provision shall be made

for applying security seals in such a manner that no adjustment or interchange may be made of

(a) any measurement element,

(b) any adjustable element for controlling delivery rate when such

rate tends to affect the accuracy of deliveries, and

3-84
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(c) any automatic temperature or density compensating system.

Any adjusting mechanism shall be readily accessible for purposes of

affixing a security seal.

5.3. DESIGN OF DISCHARGE LINES AND DISCHARGE LINE VALVES.

5.3.1. DIVERSION OF MEASURED LIQUID. - No means shall be

provided by which any measured liquid can be diverted from the

measuring chamber of the device or the discharge line therefrom,

except that a manually controlled outlet that may be opened for

purging or draining the measuring system shall be permitted. Effective

means shall be provided to prevent the passage of liquid through any

such outlet during normal operation of the device and to indicate

clearly and unmistakably when the valve controls are so set as to

permit passage of liquid through such outlet.

5.3.2. DISCHARGE HOSE. - The discharge hose of a measuring system

shall be of a wet hose type with a shut-off valve at its outlet end.

5.4. MARKING REQUIREMENTS.

5.4.1. LIMITATION OF USE. - If a measuring system is intended to

measure accurately only liquids having particular properties, or to

measure accurately only under specific installation or operating

conditions, or to measure accurately only when used in conjunction with

specific accessory equipment, these limitations shall be clearly and

permanently marked on the device.

5.4.2. DISCHARGE RATES. - A meter shall be marked to show its

designed maximum and minimum discharge rates.

5.4.3. TEMPERATURE OR DENSITY COMPENSATION. - If a device is equipped with an automatic temperature or density compensator, the

primary indicating elements, recording elements, and recorded

representations shall be clearly and conspicuously marked to show that

the quantity delivered has been adjusted to the conditions specified in

5.2.4.

5.5. TEMPERATURE DETERMINATION. - For test purposes, means shall be

provided to determine the temperature of the liquid:

(a) in the liquid chamber of the meter, or

(b) in the meter inlet or discharge line and immediately adjacent to

the meter.

5.6. LEVEL CONDITION, ON-BOARD WEIGHING SYSTEMS. - Provision

shall be made for automatically inhibiting the delivery of liquid carbon

dioxide when the vehicle is out of level beyond the limit required for the

performance to be within the applicable tolerances.

3-85
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

N. NOTES

N.l. TEST LIQUID. - A meter shall be tested with the liquid to be

commercially measured.

N.2. VAPORIZATION AND VOLUME CHANGE. - Care shall be exercised to

reduce vaporization and volume changes to a minimum. When testing by

weight, the weight tank and transfer systems shall be precooled to liquid

temperature prior to the start of the test to avoid the venting of vapor from

the vessel being weighed.

N.3. TEST DRAFTS. -

N.3.1. GRAVIMETRIC TEST. - Weight test drafts shall be equal to at

least the amount delivered by the device in two minutes at its

maximum discharge rate.

N.3.2. TRANSFER STANDARD TEST. - When comparing a meter with

a calibrated transfer standard, the test draft shall be equal to at least

the amount delivered by the device in two minutes at its maximum

discharge rate, and shall in no case be less than 50 gallons or equivalent thereof. When testing uncompensated volumetric meters in a continuous recycle mode, appropriate corrections shall be applied if product conditions are abnormally affected by this test mode.

N.3.3. VOLUMETRIC PROVER TEST DRAFTS. - Test drafts should be

equal to at least the amount delivered in one minute at its normal

discharge rate.

N.4. DENSITY. - Temperature and pressure of the metered test liquid shall

be measured during the test for the determination of density or volume

correction when applicable. Table 1 shall apply.

N.5. TESTING PROCEDURES. -

N.5.1. NORMAL TESTS. - The "normal’1 test of a device shall be made

at the maximum discharge rate that may be anticipated under the

conditions of installation.

N.5.2. SPECIAL TESTS. - Any test except as set forth in N.5.1. shall

be considered a special test. Tests shall be conducted, if possible, to

evaluate any special elements or accessories attached to or associated

with the device. A device shall be tested at a minimum discharge rate

of:

(a) 50 percent of the maximum discharge rate developed under the

conditions of installation, or the minimum discharge rate marked

on the device, whichever is less, or

3-86
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(b) the lowest discharge rate practicable under conditions of

installation.

"Special” tests may be conducted to develop any characteristics of the

device which are not normally anticipated under the conditions of

installation as circumstances require.

N.6. TEMPERATURE CORRECTION. - Corrections shall be made for any

changes in volume resulting from the differences in liquid temperature

between time of passage through the meter and time of volumetric

determination of test draft.

N.7. AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE OR DENSITY COMPENSATION. - If a device is equipped with an automatic temperature or density compensator,

the compensator shall be tested by comparing the quantity indicated or recorded by the device (with the compensator connected and operating) with

the actual delivered quantity corrected to the volume at 2 degrees

Fahrenheit or to the mass units of measure. Table 1 shall apply.

T. TOLERANCES

T.l. APPLICATION.

T.1.1. TO UNDERREGISTRATION AND TO OVERREGISTRATION. - The tolerances hereinafter prescribed shall be applied to errors of

underregistration and error of overregistration.

T.2. TOLERANCE VALUES.

T.2.1. ON NORMAL TESTS. - The maintenance tolerance on "normal"

tests shall be two and one-half percent (2-1/2%) of the indicated

quantity. The acceptance tolerances shall be one and one-half percent

(1-1/2%) of the indicated quantity.

T.2.2. ON SPECIAL TESTS. - The maintenance and acceptance

tolerance on "special" tests shall be two and one-half percent (2-1/2%)

of the indicted quantity.

T.3. ON TESTS USING TRANSFER STANDARDS. - To the basic tolerance

values that would otherwise be applied, there shall be added an amount

equal to two times the standard deviation of the applicable transfer standard

when compared to a basic reference standard.

UR. USER REQUIREMENTS

UR.l. INSTALLATION REQUIREMENTS.

UR. 1.1. DISCHARGE RATE. - A device shall be so installed that the

actual maximum discharge rate will not exceed the rated maximum

discharge rate. If necessary, means for flow regulation shall be

incorporated in the installation.

3-87
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

UR. 1.2. LENGTH OF DISCHARGE HOSE. - The discharge hose shall be

of such a length and design as to keep vaporization of the liquid to a minimum.

UR. 1.3. MAINTENANCE OF LIQUID STATE. - A device shall be so

installed and operated that the product being measured shall remain in

the liquid state during passage through the meter.

UR.2. USE REQUIREMENTS.

UR.2.1. RETURN OF INDICATING AND RECORDING ELEMENTS TO

ZERO. - The primary indicating elements (visual) and the primary

recording elements shall be returned to zero immediately before each

delivery.

UR.2.2. CONDITION OF DISCHARGE SYSTEM. - The discharge

system, up to the valve at the end of the discharge hose, shall be

precooled to liquid temperatures before a "zero" condition is established

prior to the start of a commercial delivery.

UR.2. 3. VAPOR RETURN LINE. - A vapor return line shall not be

used during a metered delivery unless the quantity of vapor displaced

from the buyer's tank to the seller's tank is deducted from the metered

quantity. Table 2 shall apply.

UR.2.6. TEMPERATURE OR DENSITY COMPENSATION

UR.2.6.1. USE OF AUTOMATIC TEMPERATURE OR DENSITY

COMPENSATORS. - Devices equipped with an automatic

temperature or density compensator shall be connected, operable,

and in use at all times. Such automatic temperature or density

compensator may not be removed.

UR.2. 6. 2. TICKETS OR INVOICES. - Any written invoice or printed ticket based on a reading of a device that is equipped

with an automatic temperature or density compensator shall have

shown thereon that the quantity delivered has been adjusted to

the volume at 2 degrees Fahrenheit or to pounds.

UR.2. 6.3. PRINTED TICKET. - Any printed ticket issued by a device of the computing type on which there is printed the

total computed price, the total quantity of the delivery, or the

price per unit, shall have shown thereon also the other two

values (either printed or in clear hand script).

UR.2. 6.4. TICKET IN PRINTING DEVICE. - A ticket shall not

be inserted into a device equipped with a ticket printer until

immediately before a delivery is begun, and in no case shall a

ticket be in the device when the vehicle is in motion while on a

public street, highway, or thoroughfare.

3-88
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

UR.2. 7. SALE BY WEIGHT OR VOLUME. - A quantity determination

of weight or volume by means of an approved and sealed weighing or measuring device shall be made on all sales.

D. DEFINITIONS OF TERMS

The terms defined here have a special and technical meaning when used in

the Code for Carbon Dioxide Liquid-Measuring Devices.

automatic temperature or density compensation. The use of integrated or ancillary equipment to obtain, from the output of a volumetric meter,

an equivalent mass, or an equivalent liquid volume at 2 degrees

Farenheit, or an equivalent gas volume at a normal temperature and

absolute pressure.

carbon dioxide liquid measuring device. A system including a mechanism or machine of (a) the meter or mass-flow type, or (b) a weighing type of

device mounted on a vehicle designed to measure and deliver liquid

carbon dioxide. Means may be provided to indicate automatically, for one of a series of unit prices, the total money value of the quantity

measured.

wet-hose type. A type of device in which it is intended that the discharge

hose be completely filled prior to each commercial delivery.

large-delivery devices. Devices used primarily for single deliveries greater

than 200 gallons, 2,000 pounds, 2,000 liters, or 2,000 kilograms.

liquid volume correction factor. A correction factor used to adjust the

liquid volume of carbon dioxide at the time of measurement to the

liquid volume at 2 degrees Fahrenheit.

small-delivery device. Any device other than a large-delivery device.

transfer standard. A measurement system designed for use in proving and

testing carbon dioxide liquid-measuring devices.

3-89
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

TABLE 1 LIQUID CARBON DIOXIDE DENSITIES

Vapor Pressure

op lb/gal lb-oz/gal

-30 9.117 9 1.9 163.3

-29 9.100 9

- 1.6 166.8

-28 9.080 9

- 1.3 170.2

-27 9.061 9 - 1.0 173.8

-26 9.042 9 - 0.7 177.4

-25 9.023 9 - 0.4 181.2

-24 9.003 9

- 0 184.9

-23 8.984 8 - 15.7 188.7

-22 8.965 8

- 15.4 192.5

-21 8.946 8

- 15.1 196.4

-20 8.926 8 - 14.8 200.3

-19 8.906 8 - 14.5 204.5

-18 8.886 8

- 14.2 208.4

-17 8.866 8

- 13.9 212.5

-16 8.846 8

- 13.5 216.6

-15 8.826 8 - 13.2 219.4

-14 8.806 8 - 12.9 225.1

-13 8.785 8 - 12.6 229.5

-12 8.764 8 - 12.2 234.0

-11 8.744 8 - 11.9 238.5

-10 8.723 8 - 11.6 242.9

- 9 8.702 8 - 11.2 247.6

- 8 8.680 8 - 10.9 252.2

- 7 8.659 8 - 10.5 256.9

- 6 8.638 8 - 10.2 261.6

- 5 8.616 8 - 9.9 266.4

- 4 8.594 8 - 9.5 271.1

- 3 8.572 8 - 9.2 276.1

- 2 8.550 8 - 8.8 281.0

- 1 8.528 8 - 8.4 286.1

0 8.506 8 - 8.1 291.1

1 8.484 8 - 7.7 296.4

2 8.462 8 - 7.4 301.6

3 8.440 8 - 7.0 307.0

4 8.418 8

- 6.7 312.3

5 8.396 8

- 6.3 317.8

6 8.374 8 - 6.0 323.2

7 8.351 8

- 5.6 328.8

8 8.328 8

- 5.2 334.3

9 8.308 8

- 4.9 340.1

10 8.287 8 - 4.6 345.8

11 8.267 8 - 4.3 351.7

12 8.247 8 - 3.6 357.5

13 8.222 8 - 3.6 363.6

14 8.197 8

- 3.2 369.6

15 8.177 8 - 2.8 375.7

16 8.157 8 - 2.5 381.8

3-90
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

TABLE 2

CARBON DIOXIDE VAPOR DENSITIES AND PERCENT OF VAPOR DISPLACEMENT

ON METERED DELIVERIES UTILIZING A VAPOR EQUALIZING LINE

Vapor CO2 Vapor C02 Vapor Percent

Temp Pressure Density Density Vapor Disop PSIG lb/cu ft lb/gal placement

-30 163.3 1.988 .266 2.9

-29 166.8 2.026 .271 3.0

-28 170.2 2.064 .276 3.0

-27 173.8 2.104 .281 3.1

-26 177.4 2.144 .287 3.2

-25 181.2 2.185 .292 3.2

-24 184.9 2.226 .298 3.3

-23 188.7 2.269 .303 3.4

-22 192.5 2.312 .309 3.4

-21 196.4 2.356 .315 3.5

-20 200.3 2.400 .321 3.6

-19 204.5 2.446 .327 3.7

-18 208.4 2.491 .333 3.7

-17 212.5 2.538 .339 3.8

-16 216.6 2.585 .346 3.9

-15 219.4 2.633 .352 4.0

-14 225.1 2.680 .358 4.1

-13 229.6 2.730 .365 4.2

-12 234.0 2.779 .371 4.2

-11 238.5 2.830 .365 4.3

-10 242.9 2.880 .385 4.4

-9 247.6 2.932 .392 4.5

-8 252.2 2.984 .399 4.6

-7 256.9 3.039 .406 4.7

-6 261.6 3.093 .413 4.8

-5 266.4 3.150 .421 4.9

-4 271.1 3.206 .429 5.0

-3 276.1 3.263 .436 5.1

-2 281.0 3.320 .444 5.2

-1 286.1 3.310 .442 5.3

0 291.1 3.441 .460 5.4

1 296.4 3.503 .468 5.5

2 301.6 3.565 .477 5.6

3 307.0 3.630 .485 5.7

4 312.3 3.694 .494 5.8

5 317.8 3.761 .503 6.0

6 323.2 3.827 .512 6.1

7 328.7 3.900 .521 6.2

8 334.3 3.964 .530 6.3

9 340.1 4.035 .539 6.5

10 345.8 4.105 .549 6.6

11 351.7 4.178 .559 6.8

12 357.5 4.250 .568 6.9

13 363.6 4.325 .578 7.0

14 369.6 4.399 .588 7.2

15 375.7 4.477 .598 7.3

16 381.8 4.554 .609 7.5

3-91

Education Committee

INTERIM REPORT OF THE

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION,

AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS

Thomas F. Geiler, Chairman

Sealer of Weights and Measures

Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

400 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs submits

its Interim Report for consideration by the National Conference on Weights

and Measures. This Report highlights the major items discussed and major

actions proposed by the Committee during its Interim Meeting at the

National Bureau of Standards on January 12 through 16, 1987. All

communications received by the Committee prior to and during the Interim

Meeting were considered and are noted in this Report.

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS CONTAINED IN THE REPORT

Table A identifies all of the items contained in the Report by Reference

Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. Item 402-5 is a voting item.

All other items are informational and require no formal action by the

membership.

Table A

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS AND INDEX

Reference Title of Item Page

Key No.

401 REGIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTIVITIES 4-2

402 NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM (NTP) 4-2

402-1 NTP Status Report 4-2

402-2 Future Funding for the NTP 4-4

402-3 Certification Program Implementation 4-4

4-1
Education Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference

Key No.

Title of Item Page

402-4 Registry Summary 4-5

402-5 V Criteria for NTP Instructors 4-5

402-6 Module Revisions 4-5

402-7 Review of LPG Module 4-6

402-8 Review of NTP Production Schedule 4-6

402-9 NTP Implementation 4-6

In addition,

Reference

the Report contains two appendices that

Key Numbers as follows: are related to specific

A. NTP Registry Summary of Activity (Page 4-9) Item 402-4

B. NTP Criteria for Instructors (Page 4-11) Item 402-5

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS

(in order of Reference Key Number)

401 REGIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTIVITIES

The Committee reviewed and discussed the following reports:

1. The Final Report of the Education and Consumer Affairs Committee to the

29th Annual Technical Conference of the Western Weights and Measures

Association (August 1986).

2. The Final Report of the Education Committee to the 41st Annual

Conference of the Southern Weights and Measures Association (October

1986).

The Committee would like to thank the regional weights and measures

associations for their expressions of support for the National Training

Program and the input they provided on the criteria for NTP instructors.

402 NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM (NTP)

402-1 NTP STATUS REPORT

The status of all training modules published or under development as of

December 31, 1986, is given in Table B.

4-2
Education Committee

Table B

TRAINING MODULE STATUS REPORT

Module

No. Subject Status

1 Mechanical Computing Scales Project completed.

2 Electronic Computing Scales Project completed.

4 Medium-Capacity Scales The contract for completing

this module was awarded to

Landvater Associates.

5 Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales Project completed.

6 Monorail Scales The corrected final copy of

the module is expected from

the contractor within the

next few weeks.

7 Livestock and Animal Scales The contractor is preparing

the final copy of this

module.

8 Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers Project completed.

10 Package Checking Project completed.

13 Hopper Scales The working group draft is being reviewed by the

Federal Grain Inspection

Service.

19 Loading-Rack Meters New test procedures were

sent to the working group

for review.

20 Vehicle-Tank Meters Project completed.

21 LPG Liquid Meters The field test of this module

will be completed by Arizona

in February.

23 Weights and Measures Admin. OWM is rewriting portions of

this draft module.

27 Electronic Weighing and

Measuring Systems

Project completed.

4-3
Education Committee

402-2 FUTURE FUNDING FOR THE NTP

It was reported that the status of the National Training Program grant from

the National Bureau of Standards was as follows (as of December 31, 1986):

Total Amount of Funds Authorized: $465,189.00

Net Outlays to Date: $362,876.22

Total Unliquidated Obligations: $32,001.35

Outlays Plus Unliquidated Obligations: $394,877.57

Unobligated Balance of Funds: $70,311.43

The NCWM has requested a funded extension of the grant in the amount of

$50,000 for 1987. NBS has informed the Conference that, if approved, this

extension will be the last one granted.

With the funded extension, the NCWM would have an unobligated balance of

funds totaling $120,311.43, which the Education Committee estimates would

be enough to develop up to four more training modules. To date, seven modules have been published, two are close to publication, and three are scheduled for publication later in 1987. Consequently, the maximum number

of modules expected to be developed with grant funds is 16. The number of

modules originally proposed for development under the National Training

Program was 37.

During a joint session with the Executive Committee on Wednesday, January

14, the Education Committee summarized the status of the National Training

Program and expressed concern over the need for future funding for the

development of new modules and implementation of published modules. Se

the Report of the Executive Committee, Item 101-2, for actions planned.

402-3 CERTIFICATION PROGRAM IMPLEMENTATION

As of January 16, 1987, the following 31 states and the District of Columbia

had signed Letters of Agreement with the NCWM and had been accepted as participants in the NTP Certification Program:

Alabama

Alaska

Arizona

Arkansas

Connecticut

Florida

Georgia

Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Kansas

Louisiana

Maine

Massachusetts

Michigan

Minnesota

Missouri

Montana

Nebraska

New Hampshire

New Mexico

North Carolina

North Dakota

Ohio

Oklahoma

Oregon

Pennsylvania

South Dakota

Utah

Vermont

Virginia

4-4
Education Committee

States that have not signed a Letter of Agreement form are encouraged to

do so. The forms are available from the NBS Office of Weights and

Measures. States participating in the Certification Program were sent

annual report forms and asked to complete them for calendar year 1986 and

return them to the Education Committee prior to the Interim Meeting. The

Committee's review of responses received prior to and during the Interim

Meeting indicated that there were some misunderstandings concerning the

certification process. The Education Committee plans to revise portions of

NCWM Publication No. 11, National Training Program, to clarify the

process.

402-4 REGISTRY SUMMARY

A summary of the information in the NTP Registry, as of December 31, 1986,

is provided in Appendix A. The Registry serves as a permanent record of

NCWM courses successfully completed and Continuing Education Units (CEUs)

earned under the NTP. As of December 31, 1986, NTP participants had been

awarded 1,812.1 CEUs (one CEU is defined as 10 contact hours of

participation in an organized continuing education experience).

402-5 V CRITERIA FOR NTP INSTRUCTORS

As part of its study of the need for certification of NTP instructors, the

Education Committee requested input from the regional weights and measures

associations on minimum qualifications for instructors. A review of the

input received prior to and during the Interim Meeting indicated that many

states do not want a mandatory certification program for instructors at this

time; however, they would appreciate some guidance regarding the selection

of instructors. The Committee, therefore, developed the criteria contained

in Appendix B.

The Committee proposes that the Conference adopt the criteria contained in

Appendix B as a guideline for voluntary use by individuals responsible for

selecting or preparing instructors to teach NCWM training modules.

The Committee will continue to evaluate the need for more stringent,

mandatory requirements.

402-6 MODULE REVISIONS

Revisions to Module 27, Introduction to Electronic Weighing and Measuring

Systems, have been completed and distributed to the states and all purchasers of the module. Proposed revisions to Module 1, Retail Computing

Scales - Mechanical, were reviewed and approved by the Committee during

the Interim Meeting. Revisions to Module 2, Retail Computing Scales - Electronic, are in process.

I

4-5
Education Committee

As part of the revision process, all of the Examination Procedure Outlines

(EPOs) currently published in the training modules will be updated. The

Committee plans to publish the revised EPOs in a separate NCWM

publication.

The Committee reaffirmed the importance of annual module revisions to the success of the National Training Program and expressed its appreciation for

the NBS Office of Weights and Measures' support of the revision process.

402-7 REVIEW OF LPG MODULE

The Committee discussed the field test draft of Module 21, Liquefied

Petroleum Gas Liquid Meters, and noted a number of corrections that need to

be made. The Committee also reviewed and commented on the slides for the

module. The Committee's comments and those received from the field test

participants will be sent to the contractor for his use in developing the

final copy of the module.

402-8 REVIEW OF PRODUCTION SCHEDULE

The selection of the four additional modules to be developed with grant

funds (see Item 402-2) was discussed. Because of the uncertainty over the source of future funding for module development, the Committee felt it was

particularly important that the remaining funds be used to develop those

modules that are most needed and will serve the largest number of people.

The Committee plans to seek the assistance of the states in setting

priorities for future modules. A survey will be prepared and distributed to

state weights and measures offices before the NCWM annual meeting.

402-9 NTP IMPLEMENTATION

(This item was not listed in the Interim Meeting Agenda. It was added at

the meeting.) Since the initiation of the NTP, Education Committee

members have had many discussions with state weights and measures

directors about implementation of the program in their states. It became

clear to the Committee that some states desiring to use the NTP were

having problems with program implementation. It also became apparent that

in cases where the program had been implemented, the NBS Office of

Weights and Measures had played a significant role. Specifically, an analysis

of NTP Registry records, as of December 31, 1986, indicated that 46

percent (436) of the 940 entries were the result of classes conducted by

OWM staff. Over 90 percent of the entries for Module 10, Checking the

Net Contents of Packaged Goods, and over 80 percent of the entries for

Module 8, Retail Motor Fuel Devices and Consoles, resulted from classes

taught by OWM staff.

4-6
Education Committee

The Committee commends OWM for the important part it has played in

implementing the National Training Program. It is the Committee's belief

that OWM's continued participation in training is vital to the long-term

success of the NTP; consequently, it is hoped that OWM will at least

maintain the current level of training and, if possible, expand its role to

include more training for course instructors. The Committee feels that

OWM's policy of providing training on a regional basis is a good one and

should be continued.

It is recognized that OWM does not have the resources to provide continued

training on all of the modules that are published. Priorities must be

established. To assist in this effort, the Committee has developed the

following system of categorizing modules according to level of assistance

needed from OWM in order to implement them.

Category 1 - Includes modules that the states should be able to

implement without assistance from OWM because of the

relative simplicity of the modules and the fact that the

devices they cover are examined by most states on a regular basis, making it more likely that good instructors can be found within the states. Examples are modules 1 and 2 on retail computing scales and Module 8 on retail

motor fuel dispensers. OWM's only role with regard to

modules in this category should be to provide

train-the-trainer courses for state instructors.

Category 2 - Includes modules that are more complex and thus more

difficult to teach or that cover devices that are examined

less frequently by a smaller number of people, making it more difficult to find instructors. Examples are modules 5,

6, and 7 on large-capacity scales and module 10 on

checking the net contents of packaged goods. OWM should

conduct training on these modules on a regional basis until

the states are familiar with how the modules should be

taught.

Category 3 - Includes those modules that should be taught by OWM on a continuing basis either because of safety considerations or because of unique expertise within the office. Examples

are module 21 on liquefied petroleum gas liquid meters and

module 23 on weights and measures administration.

The training that OWM provides in support of the National Training Program

(as outlined above) should be in addition to the training it provides in areas of new technology and for state metrologists.

4-7
Education Committee

To ensure that the resources contributed to the development of the National

Training Program by NBS and the states are not wasted, all concerned

parties must now work together to fully implement the program.

T. Geiler, Town of Barnstable, MA, Chairman

C. Greene, New Mexico

S. Malone, Nebraska

T. Scott, North Carolina

P. Stagg, Louisiana

J. Koenig, NBS, Technical Advisor

COMMITTEE ON EDUCATION, ADMINISTRATION, AND

CONSUMER AFFAIRS
APPENDIX A

National Training Program Registry

Summary of Activity

(As of December 31, 1986)

No. of Individuals Trained:

Module No.

State 1 2 8 10 27 Total

AR 20 20 12 52

CT 18 18

DC 4 4 FL 4 5 40 49

HI 14 4 18

IL 7 7 IN 56 48 104

KS 9 9 8 8 34

KY 19 19

LA 1 1

MA 3 3

ME 8 4 12

MI 2 29 52 83

MO 2 22 24

MT 8 8

NE 3 1 4 NH 6 6 12

NJ 114 114

NM 13 13

ND 12 12

NY 8 8

OK 19 2 21 OR 16 16

P&S 3 3

PA 1 72 73

SD 10 10

UT 15 14 29

VA 38 38

VI 7 1 5 13

WA 16 16

WI 56 63 1 19

WY 3 3

Totals 108 32 117 176 507 940

4-9
Appendix A (Continued)

Courses Listed :

Module 1 , Retail Computing Scales - Mechanical

Module 2, Retail Computing Scales - Electronic

Module 5, Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales

Module 8, Retail Motor Fuel Dispensers and Consoles

Module 10, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

Module 20, Vehicle-Tank Meters

Module 27, Introduction to Electronic Weighing and Measuring Systems

OWM 0201 , Basic Metrology I OWM 0202, Basic Metrology II OWM 0203, Intermediate Metrology

4-10
APPENDIX B

NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM

CRITERIA FOR INSTRUCTORS

The following criteria were developed by the National Conference on Weights and Measures Committee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs as a guideline for individuals responsible for

selecting instructors to teach NCWM Training Modules. It is recognized

that it might be difficult for an individual to meet all of the

criteria listed; consequently, the list should be viewed as a model or goal -- not as a set of requirements. Also, it should be noted that

this is not intended to be an exhaustive list of the knowledge, skills, or personal characteristics needed to be a good instructor; rather, it

is the Committee's attempt to identify some of the key characteristics

that should be considered in selecting or training instructors.

Knowledge Required

Knowledge of the subject matter

Knowledge of the module to be taught

Knowledge of NCWM requirements

Knowledge of State requirements

Knowledge of the mechanical and

electronic concepts embodied in

weighing and measuring systems

Knowledge of the National Training

Program

Knowledge of instructional techniques

Source

Experience in the field,

device manufacture, or servicing

Participation in a course on the module or thorough review of the

module

Thorough review of NCWMapproved handbooks such

as H-44 and H-1 30

Thorough review of State

laws and regulations

Experience and study of

manufacturer's literature

Participation in a Train

the Trainer session or review of NCWM No. 11

A degree in education or participation in at

least 1 6 hours of instructional techniques

training provided by an educational group

4-11
Appendix B (Continued)

Skills

Ability to communicate orally in a logical manner

Ability to focus on significant information

Ability to select and use various types of training aids

Ability to demonstrate the examination procedures described in the

module

Ability to handle problem participants

Ability to motivate

Ability to create an atmosphere of trust and respect

Ability to assess the level of knowledge of the participants and

adjust the content and pace of the course accordingly

Personal Characteristics

Patient

Calm, even in stressful situations

Enthusiastic

Strong, pleasant voice

Neat appearance

Organized

Friendly

Positive attitude

Sensitive

No annoying mannerisms

Sincere

4-12
Liaison Committee

INTERIM REPORT OF THE

COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

Peggy H. Adams, Chairman

Chief Sealer, Bucks County

Pennsylvania Department of Consumer Protection

REFERENCE

KEY NO.

500 INTRODUCTION

The Committee on Liaison submits its Interim Report for consideration by

the National Conference on Weights and Measures. This report results from

consideration of all communications received by the Committee prior to and

during its Interim Meeting at the National Bureau of Standards, January

12-16, 1987.

Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number are identified in

Table A. All items are informational. The Report contains one appendix:

| Appendix A is related to Item 514 (page 5-13).

Table A

REFERENCE KEY ITEMS AND INDEX

Reference

Key No.

Title of Item Page

501 FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES

501-1 Federal Grain Inspection Service 5-2

501-2 Aerosol Net Weight Labeling 5-3

501-3 Milk Meters 5-3

501-4 Credit Card Surcharge 5-4

501-5 Federal Role in Net Content Compliance 5-4

501-6 Interaction with Federal Agencies Such as the U.S. Postal Service and DOD

(Commissaries, Gas Stations), etc. 5-5

501-7 Labeling of Turkey with Gravy 5-6

502 PUBLIC LIAISON 5-7

503 OIML ACTIVITIES 5-7

504 OWM STATUS REPORT 5-7

5-1
Liaison Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Title of Item Page

Key No.

5U5 RAILROAD FREIGHT CAR STENCILED

TARE WEIGHTS 5-8

506 THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE OFFICE

OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 5-8

507 TASK FORCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS 5-9

508 THE ROLE OF THE WEIGHING AND INSPECTION

BUREAU IN WEIGHTS AND MEASURES 5-11

509 LIAISON WITH REGIONAL ASSOCIATIONS 5-12

510 PROMOTION OF TRAINING MODULE PROGRAM 5-12

511 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK 5-13

512 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LEGAL CASES 5-13

513 INTERACTION WITH PRIVATE SHIPPERS SUCH AS

UPS, FEDERAL EXPRESS, ETC. 5-13

514 PROMOTION OF HANDBOOK 133 5-14

515 LABELING OF NONALCOHOLIC MALT BEVERAGES 5-15

DETAILS OF ALL ITEMS

(in order of Reference Key Number)

FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES

501-1 FEDERAL GRAIN INSPECTION SERVICE

Richard R. Pforr, Acting Chief, Equipment Branch, Field Management

Division, Federal Grain Inspection Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture,

reported the following activities for 1986.

1. All 14 master railroad track scales were tested. Weights and

Measures jurisdictions at all locations were cooperative. FGIS

provided a copy of the test to the concerned state.

2. An estimate has been received to repair the Los Angeles master

scale, which is still out of service. The prohibitive cost probably will

mean that it will not be repaired. FGIS will review this matter.

5-2
Liaison Committee

3. FGIS conducted 82 scale tests on 41 railroad track scales used for the

official weighing of grain. In addition, four railroad-owned track

scales and four railroad track scales owned by industry were tested.

4. In 1986, FGIS adopted the 1985 edition of Handbook 44. As the Federal

process is long and includes a 60-day hearing period, Handbook 44 will

only be approved every few years.

FGIS will participate with NTEP in railroad track scales and bulk weighing

systems.

FGIS is working toward uniformity with NCWM recommendations. They are working with NBS and the NCWM S&T Committee on moisture meters and

grain test scales.

501-2 AEROSOL NET WEIGHT LABELING

Last year, Howard Pippin of the Food and Drug Administration indicated

that the NCWM petition for aerosol labeling on a net weight only basis was

in his office in preparation to going to the Office of the Associate

Commissioner for Regulatory Affairs. The Liaison Committee will contact

Mr. Pippin to inquire whether there has been any change in the status of

the petition.

501-3 MILK METERS

The Liaison Committee received a letter from Tanks, Inc. of Kansas,

concerning the use of a truck-based milk metering system that has received

a Certificate of Conformance from NBS/NTEP. Mr. Noble Metz, president

of Tanks, Inc. of Kansas, believed that the Market Administrator for the

Texas Milk Marketing Area would not let the meter be used for milk pooled

under Federal Order 1126. He quoted an article in Dairyman’s Digest, dated

December 1985, in which the administrator, Mr. Dunham, is quoted as saying, "I would like to see a lot more testing and experience before we

move too far toward depending on meters mounted on trucks with the jolting

and vibrating caused by rural roads.” In addition, Mr. Metz felt that a November 8, 1985 memo, subject ’’Verification of Individual Producer

Weight,” from Mr. Dunham was unclear in indicating if a truck-mounted

metering system could be used to measure milk.

The Committee contacted Mr. Dunham in Texas to discuss his views on the

issue. He replied to the Committee through a letter dated December 31,

1986. In this letter, Mr. Dunham stated that his office is not responsible

for meter approval, but is responsible for the verification of the accuracy of

weights received at dairy plants from dairy farmers. Mr. Dunham cited the

following paragraph from the November 8, 1985 letter as stating his

position.

”We will accept weights determined by any approved measuring and

weighing device so long as such weights are verifiable by our office.

If individual farm tank calibration is abandoned and milk

5-3
Liaison Committee

measurements for individual farms are determined via a meter on farm

pickup trucks, such milk will only be treated as producer milk if such

measurements are verifiable as to the amount of milk marketed by

each individual producer. If the meter fails or otherwise fails to

properly measure marketings from each individual farmer, such milk

would not be treated as producer milk."

Mr. Metz and other members of the Tanks, Inc. of Kansas firm addressed

the Committee. A videotape of the operation of the meter was presented,

along with a discussion of the approval system that the meter has already

been through. Mr. Metz presented information on the interest in using a truck-based metering system and on the fact that there is confusion over what exactly is meant by "verification.”

After discussing Mr. Metz’s presentation and Mr. Dunham's letter to the

Committee, it was decided that the Committee would write Mr. Dunham

asking him if the Tanks, Inc. of Kansas meter is accepted by his office as an "approved measuring and weighing device" as defined in his letter of

November 8, 1985. Also, it was decided that the issue could be clarified if Mr. Dunham would write the Committee further stating what his office

defines as "verifiable by our office." In this regard, Mr. Metz proposed that

the current on-farm, dip-stick measuring system be maintained as a backup.

501-4 CREDIT CARD SURCHARGE

California, Colorado, Connecticut, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New York,

Oklahoma, and Texas have imposed state bans on credit card surcharges.

Eight additional states may be passing bans this year. They include Florida,

Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and

Washington.

There is no action contemplated at the national level at this time.

In Kansas, which passed their law in 1986, the Attorney General stated that

the law, which prohibits companies from charging extra money on purchases

involving credit cards, does not preclude offering a cash discount on gas

purchases. According to the Attorney General, cash discounts for the

purchase of gasoline are not the same as a surcharge for credit card use.

501-5 FEDERAL ROLE IN NET CONTENT COMPLIANCE

The Liaison Committee has, in the past, invited the Federal Trade

Commission (FTC) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) to

present their net content compliance programs to the Committee. At those

times, the FTC indicated that their staff has conducted studies in the net

weight area when there was concern about particular products, that

compliance is achieved in cooperation with state weights and measures

agencies, and that the procedures in NBS Handbook 133, Second Edition, are

consistent with the FTC’s requirements. The NMFS stated that they conduct

a voluntary inspection service on a fee basis which follows the average

concept but does not include individual container limits such as the MAVs in

Handbook 133.

5-4
Liaison Committee

The Committee was asked by the U.S. Borax Company to assist in obtaining

the FTC's position on reasonable net content variations. U.S. Borax has

continued to receive citations from the state of New Jersey after obtaining

approval from the NCWM on the use of alternative volumetric compliance

testing procedures and has asked the Committee to pass along its letter to

the Committee to the FTC substantiating the need for clarification of the

reasonable allowances.

The NMFS will be sent a letter by the Committee requesting it to clarify

its position on the use of Handbook 133 MAVs for compliance tests. It is hoped that the NMFS will issue a comment similar to that issued by the

FTC in the Federal Register to support and/or incorporate the use of the

MAVs.

The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) affirmed its position that it would not adopt the procedures and compliance requirements contained in

Handbook 133 without going through rule making procedures for its in-plant

inspection program. (See also Item 514 and Appendix A.) However, when the

Task Force on Commodity Requirements completes its proposal on moisture

loss allowances for red meat and poultry (the gray zone approach), the USDA

may be willing to amend its program at that time.

501-6 INTERACTION WITH FEDERAL AGENCIES

The Liaison Committee's procedures for maintaining an ongoing Conference

relationship with appropriate Federal agencies were reviewed.

Representatives from the Federal Trade Commission, U.S. Postal Service,

Food and Drug Administration, U.S. Department of Agriculture, National

Marine Fisheries Service, and Department of Defense were invited to meet

with the Committee and discuss their programs pertaining to net weight

labeling and other responsibilities interfacing with those of state and local

weights and measures officials.

The Department of Defense was represented by Lt. Col. Jungus Jordan, who

coordinates the Department's military commissary, base service station, and

department store-type programs service-wide. Lt. Col. Jordan expressed lack

of awareness and concern that prior technical memorandum agreements

available to military base and installation commanders were no longer in

place. He requested that NBS provide him with current NBS handbooks and

Conference information for dissemination to the officers responsible. The

Committee will improve on DOD contacts during the next year.

Steve Eckland, Bureau of Consumer Protection, Federal Trade Commission,

offered to prepare a summary of his agency's program responsibilities for

review by the Conference.

Committee attempts to contact appropriate U.S. Postal Service

representatives responsible for maintenance and calibration of that agency's

scales will continue. The Committee will also continue its efforts to

establish ongoing contact with the National Marine Fisheries Service and will

review their role in net contents compliance and support for Handbook 133.

5-5
Liaison Committee

John Lacy, Chief, Scales and Weighing Branch, Packers and Stockyards (P&S)

of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, presented a very complete overview

of his agency’s responsibilities, including those dealing with weight fraud

investigation. P&S now has agreements with 40 states to share information

and 20 of these agreements have provisions to allow the state to test

livestock scales.

The Committee recommends that the Conference Chairman invite Dr.

Kenneth Gilles, Assistant Secretary of Agriculture, to address the 72nd

National Conference in Little Rock. Dr. Gilles supervises many programs

(FGIS, AMS, FGIS, P&S) which are of direct concern to the activities of the

NCWM.

501-7 LABELING OF TURKEY WITH GRAVY

Kristie Anderson, a weights and measures inspector in Everett, Washington,

wrote to the National Conference to request that the Liaison Committee

petition the Food Safety and Inspection Service, USDA, to require that

consumer packages of turkey with gravy packets be labeled with a joint net

weight declaration — one for the total net weight of the combination

package, and a separate net weight declaration for the gravy packet.

Current regulations permit the packer to either declare a single net weight

for the entire combination package, or the packer may separately declare

the weight of the gravy packet in addition to the total net weight. It appears that some packers only label the single combination net weight.

A presentation was made by Kristie Anderson via telephone and a discussion

was held with the Committee. Some weights and measures officials of

Washington and California pointed out that the turkey gravy packet may not

be visible in some combination packages. Therefore, the consumer has no way of determining how much turkey is being purchased relative to the

amount of gravy. Others indicated that there is no evidence that the

consumer is being deceived, since the package does indicate that the product

is a combination product, but he or she is not able to determine how much

turkey is actually in the package. The Committee also feels that uniform

labeling will enable the consumer to comparison shop.

The Committee is asking all weights and measures officials and consumer

groups to let the Committee know of any evidence that consumers are being

deceived by these packages. If such information is sufficient, the

Committee will petition the USDA to amend its regulations to require a

joint net weight declaration. In the meantime, the Committee will notify

the National Turkey Federation and the National Broiler Council that concern has been voiced over labeling of combination products. These

organizations will be asked to notify their members of this concern, and

possibly more firms will voluntarily label the packet with both weights, since

the current regulations do permit net weight labeling of both turkey and the

gravy packet, but do not require it.

All weights and measures officials and consumer organizations are requested

to send complaints and data to the Liaison Committee.

5-6
Liaison Committee

502 PUBLIC LIAISON

The Committee continues to support an effort to improve awareness and

understanding of weights and measures problems and issues by directing

weights and measures announcements and issues of concern to consumer

leaders, trade associations, and other agencies. A member of the

Committee and the Executive Secretary of the National Conference on Weights and Measures will continue to select the information and

publications and contact these groups.

503 OIML ACTIVITIES

Mr. David Edgerly, U.S. representative to OIML, reviewed OIML activities of

possible interest to the NCWM. See Item 104-4 and Appendixes of the

Executive Committee Report.

504 OWM STATUS REPORT

Mr. Albert Tholen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures (OWM), reported on the status of the program in terms of staffing and program changes.

Staffing Changes. Three personnel changes present temporary difficulties in

completing all of the work scheduled for the next few months.

Mr. Louis Barbrow, who was on contract to the NCWM, died suddenly last

November. He did much of the editorial review of publications and

coordinated the printing of most Conference documents. Additionally, he did

much of the detailed record maintenance of the membership files, including

the updating of mailing lists and recording of mailings to the members.

Rather than replace him with a full-time contractor, we have made

arrangements to hire temporary help to assume most of the work formerly

performed by Mr. Barbrow. These temporary hires will be brought in to

work as needed.

Mr. Stephen Hasko retired at the end of December after a 34-year

government career, much of it in the Office cf Weights and Measures. OWM

is attempting to negotiate a contract for his services to formally document

some of his training seminars and train current OWM staff members to

deliver this training.

Mr. Otto Warnlof transferred from OWM to the Standards Management

Program, where he will work on OIML activities full time rather than part

time (as he did as a member of the OWM staff). Mr. Henry Oppermann has

assumed Mr. Warnlofs former assignment as technical advisor to the

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances. Mr. Karl Newell has been

assigned to assist Mr. Oppermann in selected NTEP tasks, including putting

much of the NTEP record keeping on the computer system and conducting

evaluations. Mr. Paul Krupenie works for Mr. Oppermann in carrying out

various tasks of the state Laboratory Program, including conducting training

seminars, supporting the Regional Measurement Assurance Programs, and

management of the laboratory certification activities.

5-7
Liaison Committee

OWM plans to replace both Mr. Hasko and Mr. Warnlof through national

recruiting in the next few months.

Program . OWM will continue to carry out its plan to provide all of the

staff with the latest computer capability. The current CompuCorp system

will be replaced with IBM-compatible equipment. During calendar year

1987, the new IBM-compatible equipment will be procured, staff trained, and

records transferred from the CompuCorp system. All files will then be

compatible with the Bulletin Board.

The Bulletin Board will be improved and its use promoted.

505 RAILROAD FREIGHT CAR STENCILED TARE WEIGHTS

John J. Robinson, Senior Assistant Vice President, Association of American

Railroads (AAR), reported the following to the Committee.

1. Due to the drop off of smokestack industries, the railroad business

has dropped. Railroad cars not in use for an extended time have

been stored. It is impractical and expensive to restencil these cars. Approximately 10 percent of the fleet is out of service due to

repairs.

2. A total of 87,610 non-exempt cars, or about 12.1 percent, of the

serviceable fleet of general service freight cars were restenciled in

1986.

3. There were 53,491 so-called "exempt" cars (not subject to the basic

60-month reweighing rule), or 6.5 percent, of the serviceable specially

equipped car fleet. There were 20,684 covered hoppers reweighed.

4. AAR is continuing to explore procedures for streamlining the

weighing/restenciling process.

5. The current trend in railroad industry freight rates continues to be

quotations per car rates based upon weight agreements.

6. The organization continues towards computerization through the

computerized program called UMBLER, which is operational. This

system contains vast amounts of information which shippers and rail car owners can access.

The Committee will send a letter to AAR urging them to continue to do

tare weights.

506 THE 150TH ANNIVERSARY OF THE OFFICE OF WEIGHTS

AND MEASURES

The Committee urges NCWM to focus on the 150th anniversary of the

amendment in 1838 of the Joint Congressional Resolution of 1836 which

directed the Secretary of the Treasury to make and deliver one standard

balance to the governor of each state. This direction concluded the first

attempt at national uniformity in weights and measures.

5-8
Liaison Committee

The celebration would include a special commemorative membership

certificate to be distributed to each member attending the 73rd Conference

in Grand Rapids; a dinner featuring a speaker who would be of interest to

the Conference; articles in various publications; and possibly, historic

exhibits and videotapes.

The Committee urges members to continue to support the effort for a commemorative stamp in 1989. The focus for that year can be the fact

that each customhouse received a set of standards in 1839. Letters should

be sent to Belmont Faries, Citizen’s Stamp Advisory Committee, 475

L’Enfant Plaza, Southwest, Washington, D. C. 20260-6300, and Dickey B. Rustin, Manager, Stamp Information Branch, Marketing Department, United

States Postal Service.

Since there does not seem to be a possibility for a weights and measures commemorative stamp in 1988, the Committee suggests that the NCWM

issue a special weights and measures stamp in conjunction with the 150th

anniversary celebration in 1988.

507 TASK FORCE ON INFORMATION SYSTEMS

At its interim meeting in Sacramento, California on February 19, 1987, the

Task Force continued its discussions on the use of computerized information

systems in field, office, and laboratory applications. Specific

recommendations and conclusions of the Task Force to the Conference

follow.

Item 1 - Funding alternatives for the NCWM’s WAMIS (Weights

And Measures Information System) Electronic

Bulletin Board

Task Force discussions on this item revolved around the various ways that

the costs (e.g., telephone link connection charges) to the user jurisdictions

could be equalized across the country. As it now stands, those computer

users most geographically remote from Gaithersburg, Maryland pay a

substantial "penalty" to receive the same service those within 350 miles of

the National Bureau of Standards receive for approximately one-tenth the

cost. Possibilities range from NCWM-subsidized (by an annual user fee or addition to the NCWM membership fee) 800 (toll free) or 900 (50£ per call)

leased lines to an FTS incoming Federal tie line. As a first step, however,

the Task Force requested the possibility that a National Bureau of Standards

Western United States link be opened up, if possible, by means of a Boulder,

Colorado (area code 303) connection directly through to Gaithersburg. Such

a link would substantially reduce WAMIS access costs to those jurisdictions

west of the Mississippi.

Item 2 - Regional weights and measures association "user

groups" — a task force recommendation

The Task Force recommends that each of the four regional weights and measures associations (SWMA, WWMA, NEWMA, and CWMA) provide time

(and space) for convening a computer users group meeting in conjunction

with their annual conferences. It has been amply demonstrated that,

5-9
Liaison Committee

perhaps, the most effective way to share information about computer

applications, answer technical questions, educate new users, pick up on new

programs, pass on successful approaches, and otherwise get information from

"those who have it" to "those who want it" is by means of a computer users group. Within regions, program similarities among jurisdictions are usually

greatest, travel costs and approval difficulties are usually lower, and the

likelihood of participation by the smaller jurisdictions (or users) usually

greater, the Task Force recommends a regional format for weights and

measures users groups. While this activity might some day lead to a formal

"standing committee"-type arrangement, a "bull-session"-type format among

the interested would initially be sufficient. As interest and the need to

organize the material expands, agenda, officers, subgroups (by hardware type

and/or operating system, etc.) can evolve as desired.

Item 3 - WAMIS security and accessibility considerations

The WAMIS Bulletin Board is currently open to all computer users interested

in the activities of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. As a

basically "open" bulletin board, WAMIS information (except protected

messages sent between specific identified users) can be accessed and used by

anyone who logs onto the system. The system has the capability, however, of

being redefined in up to 10 different security levels in the future if it becomes desirable. Currently, all users are at the level five security

level. Individual users can presently transmit protected messages to other

authorized users simply by keying in the "P" command and a password at the

time the message is posted. The messages so sent can then only be read and

subsequently deleted by either the SYSOP (System Operator, Karl Newell) and

persons who can give the password.

General information posted for the use of weights and measures

jurisdictions, such as results of inspections, listings of shortmeasure products,

etc., is accessible to all who log onto the system. Users who post (or use)

such information are reminded to heed the WAMIS disclaimer and user's responsibility listing as published in the WAMIS User's Guide Book and as

also flashed onto the screen at log-on, which declares (in part):

1. Discussion of information, ideas, and opinions ... (shall not)

compromise the national security of the United States; violate

proprietary rights, personal privacy, or applicable

state/Federal/local laws and regulations affecting

telecommunications; or constitute a crime or libel.

2. You must use your real name and fully disclose an personal,

financial, or commercial interest when evaluating any specific

product or service.

3. Further, every user explicitly acknowledges that all information

obtained from WAMIS is provided "as is" without warranty of

any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but not limited

to, the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a

particular purpose, and that the entire risk of acting on information obtained from WAMIS, including the entire costs of

all necessary remedies, is with those who choose to act on such

information and not the NCWM, NBS, or the SYSOP (Karl

Newell, OWM).

5-10
Liaison Committee

Item 4 - Recommendations for Conference handling of

information systems issues, the WAMIS Bulletin

Board, and related subjects in the future

Recommendation 4. A. - The Task Force recommends that NCWM

supervision over the WAMIS Bulletin Board and all related subjects be

assigned to the NCWM Committee on Liaison. The Liaison Committee

technical advisor is the WAMIS SYSOP, so this is a logical,

appropriate place for these subjects to be considered.

Recommendation 4.B. - The Task Force recommends that the

Committee on Liaison either appoint or function by itself on an

interim basis as a WAMIS Advisory Committee of interested users of

the system. Where possible, WAMIS Advisory Committee members

should come from the ranks of regional computer users groups (see

ITEM 2 of this report). The purpose of the WAMIS Advisory

Committee would be to advise and consult with the NCWM and

OWM/NBS on operational issues and concerns relating to the bulletin

board on an ongoing basis, including areas such as system capacity,

security, access needs, changes in ground rules, etc.

Recommendation 4.C. - The Task Force recommends that it go out of

existence with the presentation of this final report. While much

remains to be done with respect to computer-based information

systems out in the weights and measures community, those tasks and

functions can and will be addressed outside of the NCWM Task Force

format.

In Conclusion -

The Task Force members believe that the era of the computer in weights and measures is just beginning. Furthermore, it is felt that this whole field

of computers in weights and measures offers more opportunity for improving

the productivity of the limited resources available (of equipment,

personnel, and time) in the jurisdictions than anything else that is now

available (or will be) until the end of this century.

Members of the NCWM Task Force on Information Systems are Kendrick

Simila (Oregon), Chairman; James Lyles (Virginia); Joseph Rothleder

(California); Jerry Hanson (San Bernadino County, California); Robert Bruce

(Canada); and Karl Newell (National Bureau of Standards), Technical Advisor.

508 THE ROLE OF THE WEIGHING AND INSPECTION BUREAUS

IN WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

Mr. Jimmy Willis, regional manager of the Western Weighing and Inspection

Bureau (WWIB), Kansas City Service Center, reported on WWIB activities.

WWIB originated in 1881 as a small railroad carload weighing bureau and now

provides transportation services to carriers and shippers in all sections of the

country.

5-11
Liaison Committee

WWIB is a private national organization providing transportation auditing,

contract compliance, and inspection services to the rail freight transportation

industry. They help to establish, maintain, and update weight agreements

between carriers and shippers. This includes compliance audits and

certifications of rail traffic moving subject to weight agreements, and

investigation and adjustment of shippers' weight or classification claims.

WWIB offers inspection of scale facilities and bulk weighing system material

tests. Testing of platform and hopper scales up to 5000 pounds capacity is available in Kansas, Missouri, and Oklahoma, and hopper scale testing of any

scale capacity is available in Colorado.

In grain weight inspection and supervision, the railroads have charged WWIB

with the surveillance as to scale performance, accuracy of weights, and

related procedures. AAR is responsible for the overall administration of

their grain market classification program.

Weight agreements involve, among other things, the use of shipper's weight

for shipping costs, rather than the railroads taking the time to weigh the

cars. There are approximately 6300 weight agreements in effect, of which

about 1000 are in-bound shipments to cosignees who have proper facilities

for weighing.

WWIB inspectors work with states weights and measures departments when

necessary, and those WWIB inspectors testing scales are familiar with

Handbook 44.

509 LIAISON WITH REGIONAL ASSOCIATIONS

Dick Smith, NCWM regional coordinator, met with the NCWM Committee on

Liaison for the purpose of updating the Committee on activity with the four

regional associations during the past year.

Mr. Smith reported that he has continued the practice of exchanging the

NCWM Interim Reports and the regional association reports of the S&T,

L&R, and Education Committees. In addition, he has attended each of the

regional conferences and worked with their respective committees in an

effort to bring to them items of national significance and to provide

background information from the NCWM to aid in their deliberations of the

various items.

He also reported that the regional associations ar now promptly supplying him

with current lists of officers and committee members, which are being made

part of WAMIS for ready reference. He will continue to be alert to areas where the assistance of the NCWM Committee on Liaison would be

beneficial.

510 PROMOTION OF TRAINING MODULE PROGRAM (NTP)

The Committee supports promotion of the National Training Program (NTP)

Training Module Program for use by industry and Federal agencies in

addition to weights and measures officials. The Committee will write an

article for industry trade journals informing them of the availability of the

training modules and how they might be used to train industry personnel.

5-12
Liaison Committee

511 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK

The Weights and Measures Week theme is "Consumer Involvement for

Progress." An informational packet, including the logo, ideas, news articles,

NBS Publication 447, "Weights and Measures Standards in the United States,"

and a pamphlet for consumers, "The Weights and Measures Inspector," was

mailed to all coordinators. VHS videotapes of "Equity in the Marketplace"

are available for $10.

The emphasis for the 1987 Weights and Measures Week activities is the

200th anniversary of the celebration of the Constitution. The power to "fix

the standards," part of Article 9, Paragraph 4, is found in the Articles of

Confederation. Article 8 of the Constitution gives Congress the power to

"fix the standards."

Weights and measures coordinators are requested to include Weights and

Measures Week activities during National Consumer Week — "Consumers

Celebrate the Constitution." (April 19-25, 1987)

NCWM Publication #7, "Weights and Measures Week Guide," is available on a very limited bases. In 1987, the guide will be reprinted and revised. The

Committee reminds weights and measures officials to use the guide for

year-round publicity. Weights and Measures Week articles and activities and

year-round information and brochures should be mailed to Peggy Adams,

Bucks County Consumer Protection and Weights and Measures, Broad and

Union Streets, Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901.

512 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LEGAL CASES

A survey form was mailed to all weights and measures jurisdictions and was

included in the 71st National Conference Report. Some jurisdictions

responded. The Committee will request each jurisdiction to send information

about one interesting case. Information will also be requested through the

WAMIS Bulletin Board.

John Lacy of the Packers and Stockyards offered to send information on

cases concerning weights and measures problems. It is noted that state and

Federal decisions are available through a commercial computerized

information system called LEXIS. There is still a need to receive

information on hearings at the administrative and local court level.

513 INTERACTION WITH PRIVATE SHIPPERS SUCH AS UPS,

FEDERAL EXPRESS, ETC.

In recent years, both the volume of shipments, and the number of private

shipping companies that charge for services on the basis of package weight,

have grown significantly.

5-13
Liaison Committee

To determine what ongoing role the Liaison Committee should play in

interacting with the private shipping industry, the Committee first made

contact with representatives of the Interstate Commerce Commission (ICC)

and the private shipping companies.

The ICC responsibility for regulating interstate commerce, by way of tariff

approval and certificate of authority, raises the question of concurrent

jurisdiction. John Fristoe, ICC compliance officer, indicated his agency

would probably back weights and measures officials’ decisions pertaining to

weighing devices. Air freight firms apparently do not now fall under ICC

jurisdiction, and the Committee will determine where oversight responsibility

falls in future contacts with Federal certifying agencies such as ICC.

The proliferation of so-called "commercial counters," i.e., private enterprises

providing pick-up points for private shippers such as UPS, was also reviewed.

The Committee will explore and recommend means for advising individuals

contemplating entering the "commercial counter" business as to requirements

for use of type-approved scales.

Mr. Robert Potter, National Customer Relations Representative, United

Parcel Service, reviewed his company’s procedures for assuring compliance

with type-approval and Handbook 44 requirements with the Committee.

UPS checks their own equipment in-house. However, UPS does not have

scales for their agents or commercial counters. Mr. Potter stated that

commercial counters are independent small businesses and are under state

and local weights and measures jurisdiction. He stated that they are not

agents of UPS. The Committee will continue to communicate with UPS in an effort to set some guidelines for UPS to distribute, on a voluntary basis,

to commercial counters so that scales that are purchased are appropriate for

their use and approved.

514 PROMOTION OF HANDBOOK 133

The Committee on Liaison recommends the adoption of NBS Handbook 133

by all state and local weights and measures agencies. The Committee

expresses its willingness to work with each tate that has not already

adopted Handbook 133. The purpose for Committee involvement would be to

help identify information or resources necessary for adoption wihtin a given

state and recommend ways and means for obtaining identified information or resources. Appendix A contains a letter from the Department of

Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service, explaining their position

concerning Handbook 133. This should reassure weights and measures

agencies that package lots called off sale using Handbook 133 Category A

will not be challenged by USDA.

5-14
Liaison Committee

515 LABELING OF NONALCOHOLIC MALT BEVERAGES

Sections 8.1.1. and 8.1.5. of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation

require the quantity declaration to appear within the bottom 30 percent of

the principal display panel(s) and generally parallel to the base on which the

package rests as it is designed to be displayed. Nonalcoholic malt

beverages, under the Federal requirements of the Bureau of Alcohol,

Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF) are not required to show the quantity

declaration parallel to the base or in the lower 30 percent of the principal

display panel. When registering these products for the required BATF

permit, the agency has allowed these nonalcoholic beverages to be labeled in

accordance with BATF regulations, resulting in violative labeling in every

state that has adopted the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation. The

Committee has responded to a Federal Register announcement for comments

to these BATF regulations. The response requested that BATF (1) recognize

that tate requirements also cover nonalcoholic malt beverages and (2)

require these declarations to be placed in accordance with the Uniform

Packaging and Labeling Regulation.

P. Adams, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Chairman

J. Akey, Kansas

P. Engler, California

C. Kloos, Beatrice

J. McCutcheon, USDA

K. Newell, NBS, Technical Advisor

COMMITTEE ON LIAISON

5-15
APPENDIX A

Food Safety

and Inspection

Service

Washington, D.C.

20250

i

Ms. Peggy H. Adams

Bucks County Consumer Protection/

Weights and Measures

Broad and Union Streets

Doylestown, PA 18901

Dear Ms. Adams: <~on:u~lgr pr={

This is in response to the request made at the National

Conference on Weights and Measures in Albuquerque concerning

endorsement of f

;3S Handbook 133.

The Food Safety ;nd Inspection Service (FSIS) of the U.S.

Department of Agriculture is restrict d frcrn adopting Handbook

133 as t. e statistical basis for determining accuracy of net

content labeling of federally inspected meat and poultry

products. To adopt provisions of Handbook 133 would require FSIS

to revise existing net content regulations in accordance with the

Administrative Procedures Act prior to implementation of revised

regulatory requirements.

FSIS presently enforces procedures for net content control in

federally inspected meat and poultry plants that are very similar

to those detailed as Category B in Handbook 133. These

procedures are used to determine if a production lot is correctly

labeled f c

** net content.

If a State or jurisdiction elect to implement Handbook 133 and

use the sampling plan Category A to determine accuracy of the net

content statement of 'ederally inspected meat and poultry

products, FSIS would not object and should the results of

applying Category A sampling plan reveal underweight product,

FSIS would assume that the product is truly mislabeled as to the

net content statement.

If additional information is needed, feel free to contact me at

Area Code (202) 447-3521.

nrorsl sy

J/eputy Administrator

Meat and Poultry Inspection

Technical Services

5-16
NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

INTERIM MEETING REGISTRATION LIST

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

JANUARY 12-16, 1987

Adams, Peggy

PA Bureau of Weights

and Measures

Bucks County Consumer Protection

Broad and Union Streets

Doylestown, PA 18901

2 15/348-7442

Akey, James H. KS Office of Weights

and Measures

2016 SW 37th St.

Topeka, KS 6661 1 -2570

91 3/267-0278

Andersen, Ross

NY Bureau of Weights and Measures

Bldg. 7A State Campus

Albany, NY 12235

518/457-3449

Anderson, Robert

Up North Plastics, Inc.

9480 Jamaica Ave., N. Cottage Graf, MN 55016

61 2/459-7339

Awbrey, Jack C. Southern Co. Services

1036 2nd Street, N.E.

Alabaster, AL 35007

205/877-7675

Austin, Bernard H. Regulations Division

Maine Dept, of Agriculture,

Food and Rural Resources

State House, Station #28

Augusta, ME 04333

207/289-3841

Barkley, Karen L. Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A6l

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4004

Bammel, Frank A. Ethyl Corporation

VisQueen Film Products Div.

P.0. Box 2448

Richmond, VA 23218

804/788-6222

Bartfai, John J. NY Bureau of Weights and Measures

State Office Campus Bldg., 7A

Albany, NY 12235

518/457-3452

Baumann, Richard

Chilton Metal Products

Div. Western Inds.

300 Breed Street

Chilton, WI 53014

41 4/849-2381

Begley, Kevin C.

General Electrodynamics Corp.

8000 Calender Road

Arlington, TX 76018

817/572-0366

Belue, F. Michael

Southwest Pump Co.

P.0. Box 280

201 E. First St.

Bonham, TX 75418

214/583-3134

Bognar, Roger B. American Paper Institute

260 Madison Ave.

New York, NY 1001

212/340-0618

R-l
Boyd, Darry L. Industrial Weighing

21711 W. Ten Mile Rd.

Southfield, MI

313/351 -4302

Bradley, Chet

A. H. Emery Co.

Route 2, Box 179

Heathsville, VA 22473

804/580-4305 or 871

4

Brasher, W. D. Southern Company Services, Inc.

P.0. Box 2625

Birmingham, AL 35202

205/877-7653

Braswell, Glenn

Flex Packaging Assoc.

1090 Vermont Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20005

202/842-3880

Braun, William H. Procter & Gamble

6100 Center Hill Rd.

Cincinnati, OH 45224

513/659-5233

Brewer, John F. Jr.

Fina Oil & Chemical Co.

P.0. Box 2159

Dallas, TX 75221

214/750-2642

Brickenkamp, Carroll S.

Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A6l 7 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301 /975-4005

Brink, Trafford

Vermont Dept, of Agriculture

1 1 6 State Street

Montpelier, VT

802/828-2483

Brumbaugh, R. T. Systems Associates, Inc.

205 Peterson Road

Libertyville , IL

312/367-6656

Brydon, Dawn

International Ice Cream Assn.

888 16th Street, N.W.

Washington, DC

202/296-4250

Burger, Gerald R. Consumers Power Company

1945 W. Parnall Rd.

Jackson, MI 49201

517/788-2387

Butterbaugh, W. H. National LP Gas Assn.

1301 W. 22nd Street

Oak Brook, IL 60521

31 2/573-4800

Butcher, Kenneth S.

Weights and Measures Section

MD Dept, of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy.

Annapolis, MD 21401

301/841-5790

Callaghan, Patrick

Pepperidge Fram, Inc.

595 Westport Ave.

Norwalk, CT 06856

203/846-7000

Carleton, G. E. Procter and Gamble Co.

One P&G Plaza

Cincinnati, OH 45202

51 3/983-2721

Chohamin, John M. Middlesex County

841 Georges Road

North Brunswick, NJ 08902

201/745-3298

R-2
Clark, Gilliam Jr.

Powertrain Engineering

Chrysler Corporation

P.0. Box 1118

Detroit, MI 48288

31 3/956-4777

Clegg, LaVar

Transducers, Inc.

1 4030 Bolsa Lane

Cerritos, CA 90701

71 4/739-1991

Cockrell, Daniel J.

Weighing and Control Systems, Inc.

P.0. Box 1483

Brandon, FL 33511

81 3/681-5733

Colbrook, Sid

Illinois Dept, of Agri.

801 E. Sangamon

Springfield, IL 62706

21 7/785-8315

Conrad, Carl P. Jr.

State of New Jersey

187 West Hanover St.

Trenton, NJ 08625

609/292-461 5

Conti, Richard E. Turner (Cooper Group)

821 Park Ave.

Sycamore, IL 60178

815/895-4545

Daniels, 0. Ray

NCR Corporation

1700 S. Patterson Blvd.

Dayton, OH 45479

51 3 / 4 5

- 1 310

Davis, Richard L. James River Corp.

1915 Marathon Ave.

Neenah, WI 54956

41 4/729-8174

DeCheco, Thomas 0.

Summit County Ohio

522 E. Cuyahoga Falls Ave.

Akron, OH 44310

21 6/923-9546

DeGrange, Lacy H. Weights & Measures Sec.

MD Dept, of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy.

Annapolis, MD 21401

301/841-5790

Deisley, Mike

NE Weights and Measures

301 Centennial Mall South

Lincoln, NE 68509

402/471 -4292

Diggs, Wes

Virginia Weights and Measures

P.0. Box 1 1 63

Richmond, VA 23209

804/786-2476

Donaldson, John L. Office of Product Stds. Policy

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A603

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4003

Draghetti, Louis D. Dept. Weights & Measures

Consumer Advisory Comm.

Town of Agawam

36 Main Street, Town Hall

Agawam, MA 01001

413/786-0400

Edgerly, David E. Office of Product Stds. Policy

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A625

Gai thersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4024

R-3
Elengo, John

Revere Corp. of America

P.0. Box 56

Wallingford, CT 06410

203/284-5102

Elliott, Ray

Oklahoma Dept, of Agri.

2800 N. Lincoln Blvd.

Oklahoma City, OK 73105

405/521 -3864

Engler, Paul

CA Div. of Measurement Standards

Los Angeles County

3400 LaMadera

El Monte, CA 81732

818/575-5451

Ethridge, Mark A. American Petroleum Institute

1220 L Street, N. W. Washington, DC 20005

202/682-8146

Evans, Alfred C. Veeder-Root Company

28 Sargeant St.

Hartford, CT 06102

203/527-7201 Ext. 508

Feinland, Sy

Pitney Bowes, Inc.

Norwalk, CT 06852

203/854-7007

Fonger, Robert

Bennett Pump Co.

P.0. Box 597

Muskegon, MI 49443

61 6/733-1302

Furber, Scott S.

Shell Oil Company

One Shell Plaza

P.0. Box 2463

Houston, TX 77252-2463

713/241-2843

Furey, Robert L. General Motors Res. Lab.

30500 Mound Rd.

Warren, MI 48090

31 3/986-1927

Gardner, Charles

Suffolk County, NY

County Center N., Bldg. 3^0

Hauppauge, NY 11788

51 6/360-4621

Geiler, Thomas F. Dept, of Weights and Measures

Town of Barnstable

397 Main Street

Hyannis, MA 02601

617/775-1 120

Gerdom, Walt

Tokheim Corp.

1600 Wabash Ave.

Fort Wayne, IN 46801

219/423-2552

Gerk, Fred A. NM Dept, of Agriculture

P.0. Box 3170

Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/646-1 61

6

Giannina, Joe

TX Weights and Measures

Port of Corpus Christi

P.0. Box 1541

Corpus Christi, TX 78403

512/850-9125

Gilbert, Tom

American Western

P.0. Box 5019

Sioux Falls, SD 57104

605/334-0334

Golden, Charles

Seraphin Test Measures

30 Indel Ave.

Rancocas, NJ 08073

609 / 267-0922

R-4
Gray, Max

Florida Dept, of Agri.

and Consumer Services

3125 Conner Blvd.

Tallahassee, FL 32301

904/488-9140

Greene, Charles, H. NM Dept, of Agri.

P.0. Box 3187

Las Cruces, NM 88003

505/646-5340

Griffin, T. Scott

U.S. Borax Corp.

412 Crescent Way

Anaheim, CA 92801

71 4/774-2670

Grimes, Terry L. Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A61 7 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301 /975-4004

Guensler, Darrell

CA Div. of Measurement Standards

8500 Fruitridge Road

Sacramento, CA

91 6/366-51 19

Haker, Khalil

BLH Electronics

75 Shawmut Industrial Park

Canton, MA 02021

61

/ 821 -2000

Halverson, John C. USDA - FGIS

10383 N. Executive Hills Blvd.

Kansas City, M0 64153

816 / 891-6506

Hamilton, Jeff

General Processing Corp.

100 Fuller Rd.

Hinsdale, IL 60521

312/323-301

Hankel, Melvin C.

Liquid Controls Corp.

Wacker Park

North Chicago, IL 60064

312/689-2400

Hardcastle, John

Sunbelt Plastics

4611 Central Ave.

Monroe, LA

800-551-5036

Harrington, Robert J. Marathon Petroleum Co.

539 South Main St.

Findlay, OH 45840

419/422-2121

Harshman, Jack

Daniel Industries

9720 Katy Rd.

Houston, TX 77224

71 3/827-51 31

Hasko, Stephen

Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A61 7 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4006

Heckrodt, Frank H. Presto Products, Inc.

617 No. Perkins

Appleton, WI 54913

414/738-1202

Heffernan, Ann P. Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A61 7 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4012

Helms, Durwood E. USDA - P&SA

828 Livestock Exchange Bldg.

Kansis City, M0 64102

81 6-374-2368

R-5
Herman, Marilyn J. Herman & Associates

2300 M St. NW, Suite 800

Washington, DC 20037

202/775-1 630

Hoover, Brian

Micro Motion, Inc.

7070 Winchester Circle

Boulder, CO 80301

303/530-8534

Herstein, Jeffrey

Polytech

1401 W. 9th Street

Minneapolis, MN 55431

61 2/544-1 119

James, T. J. Food Marketing Institute

1750 K Street, N.W.

Washington, DC 20006

202/452-8444

Hescox, Mitchell C. Thayer Scale

Route 139

Pembroke, MA 02359

61 7/826-8101

James, W. Terry

Cardinal Scale Mfg. Co.

P.0. Box 151

Webb City, MO 64870

417/673-4631

Hine, D. J.

AEM Corporation

452 W. Tenth

Elyria, OH 44035

216/323-2041

Hock, Lee

Jeffries, Jack

Division of Standards

FL Dept, of Agriculture

3125 Conner Blvd.

Tallahassee, FL 32 30

1

904/488-9740

The Standard Oil Co.

4850 East 49th St.

Cleveland, OH 44125

216/271-821

1

Johnson, Spencer A. Paperboard Packaging Council

1101 Vermont Ave., N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

202/289-4100

Hockmuth, Richard L. PMP Corporation

25 Security Dr.

Avon, CT 06001

203/677-9656

Hoffman, Donald

Johnson, Ted

Sensortronics

677 Arrow Grand Circle

Covina, CA 91722

818/331 -0502

Cilton Metal Products

Div. Western Inds.

300 Breed Street

Chilton, WI 53014

414/849-2381

Katterheinr ich, Fred

Hobart Corporation

Tray, OH 45374

51 3/332-2037

Holt, John

Weights and Meas. Lab.

570 West MacCorkle

St. Albans, WV 25177

304/727-5781

Keeley, Eugene

Deleware Weights and Measures

2320 S. Dupont Highway

Dover, DE 19901

302/736-481

1

R-6
Key, William D.

Tokheim Corp.

1600 Wabash Ave., Box 360

Ft. Wayne, IN 46801

219/493-2554

Klevay, Tom

Millers' National Federation

Suite 305 West

600 Maryland Ave., SW

Washington, DC 20024

202/484-2200

Kloos, Chip

Beatrice/Hunt- Wesson

1 645 W. Valencia Drive

Fullerton, CA 92634

71 4/680-1098

Koenig, Joan A. Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A6l 7 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4007

Kramer, Paul J. Poly-America Inc.

2000 W. Marshall Dr.

Grand Prairie, TX 75051

800/527-3322

Krupenie, Paul H.

Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A6 1 7 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4015

Kupper, Walter

Mettler Instrument Corp.

Box 71

Hightstown, NJ 08520

609/448-3000

Kushnir, Dan

Seraphin Test Measure Co.

30 Indel Ave.

Rancocas, NJ: 08073

609/267-0922

Lacy, John T. USDA Packers and Stockyards Admin.

14th and Independence

Washington, DC

202/447-31 40

LaGasse, Robert C.

National Bark Producers Assn.

13542 Union Village Circle

Clfiton, Virginia 22024

703/830-5367

Latimer Wayne A. Mapco Inc.

1800 S. Baltimore Street

Tulsa, OK 74101-0645

918/599-3635

Lee, Vickie

395 W. Holland, #104

Clovis, CA 93612

209/292-9045

Letey, Leo

State of Colorado (Retired)

8240 Lamar Dr.

Arvada, CO 80003

303/420-0159

Lloyd, Raymond J. Scale Manufacturers Assoc.

152 Rollins Ave., Suite 208

Rockville, MD 20852

301/984-9080

Loyd, F. Joe Jr.

Scales and Weighing

CSX Transportation

500 Water Street

Jacksonville, FL 32202

904/359-1024

R-7
Lyles, J. F. VA Weights and Measures

P.O. Box 11 63

Richmond, VA

804/786-2476

MacArthur, Malcolm

Flex Packaging Assoc.

1090 Vermont Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20005

202/842-3880

Malone, Steve

NE Weights and Measures Div.

P.O. Box 94757

Lincoln, NE 68509

402/471-4292

Marshall, Terry

Ikea Inc.

Plymouth Commons

Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462

215/834-0180

Matthys, Allen W. National Food Processors Assn.

1 401 New York Ave. , N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

202/639-5960

Maxon, Roger L. BernzOmatic

One BernzOmatic Dr.

Medina, NY 14103

716/798-4949

McCarthy Charles

Pepperidge Farm, Inc.

595 Westport Ave.

Norwalk, CT 06856

203/846-7000

McCuthcheon, John

USDA

11761 Split Tree Circle

Potamac, MD 20854

301/340-1420

McPherson, John R. Exxon, USA

P.O. Box 4414

Houstohn, TX 77210-4415

713/656-7757

Metz, Noble

Tanks, Inc.

7820 Pan American

Albuquerque, NM 87109

505/822-0796

Meteuer, Marc

American Petroleum Institute

1220 L St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

202/682-8227

Michell, C. W. Jr.

Shell Oil Co.

Room 2272 O.S.P.

P.O. Box 2463

Houston, TX 77001

71 3/241-0455

Mitchell, Patty

Food Chemcial News

1101 Penna. Ave., S.E.

Washington, DC 20003

202/544-1980

Morrow, Thomas L. TEC America, Inc.

19250 Van Ness Ave.

Torrance, CA 90501

21 3/320-8900

Murdock, Timothy S.

Bruce P. Murdock, Inc.

3815 Leo St.

Baltimore, MD 21226

301/355-7788

Murray, Larry

Dresser-Wayne

124 W. College Ave.

Salisbury, MD 21801

301/546-6690

R-8
Musser, Ran

VA Weights and Measures

P.O. Box 738

Wytheville, VA 24382

703/228-5501

Nagele, Frank

MI Dept, of Agriculture

P.O. Box 30017

Lansing, MI 48909

517/373-9778-1060

Nelson, Allan M. CT Weights and Measures

1 65 Capitol Ave

Hartford, CT 06106

203/566-5230

Nelson, Robert

General Mills

9000 Plymouth Ave.

Minneapolis, MN 55427

61 2/540-2729

Newell, Karl G. Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A6l 7 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301 / 975— 40 1

Niebergall, Bruce R. Weights and Measures

ND Public Service Comm.

State Capitol Bldg.

Bismarck, ND 58505

701/224-2400

0'dea, Richard

NCR

1700 S. Patterson Blvd.

Dayton, OH

513/445-5254

Oppermann, Henry V.

Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A6l 7 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4008

Osborne, Mickey

Adams Industries

P.O. Drawer 4360

Monro, LA 71211

800/551 -4896

Patch, Irwin, J. Compressed Gas Assn.

1235 Jefferson Davis Hwy.

Arlington, VA 22202

703/979-0900

Paugstat, John F. NCR Corporation

P.O. Box 728

Cambridge, OH 43725

61 4/439-0571

Pauli, Bill

Hobart Corporatio

World Headquarters

1700 S. Patterson Blvd.

Troy, OH 45374

513/332-2651

Perino, Pete

Transducers, Inc.

14030 Bolsa Lane

Cerritos, CA

714/739-1991

Perry, Stephen C.

Toledo Scale

350 W. Wilson Ridge Rd.

Worthington, OH 43085

61 4/438-4600

Petersen, Robert J. American Natl. Metric Council

1010 Vermont Ave., NW #320

Washington, DC 20005-4960

202/628-5757

R-9
Peterson, Paul L. USDA Packers and Stockyards Admin.

Room 3^1^ So. Bldg.

Washington, DC

202/447-5841

Pforr, Dick

USDA-FGIS

Room 0623, South Bldg.

1400 Independence Ave., SW

Washington, DC 20250

202 / 382-0262

Picton, Thomas

Conrail

6 Penn Center

Philadelphia, PA 19104

215/977-161 7

Pichard, Doug

Packers and Stockyards Admin.

14th and Ind.

Washington, DC

202/447-31^0

Pyle, Nicholas A. Independent Bakers Assn.

1 701 K. St. , N.W. #1004

Washington, DC 20006

202/223-2325

Randall, D. Howard

Esselte Meto, Inc.

39 Teed Drive

Randolph, MA 02367

617 / 986-6200

Rardin, Jim

WV Dept, of Labor

570 W. MacCorkle Ave.

St. Albans, WV 25177

304/727-5781

Reinfried, Bob

Scale Manufacturers Assoc.

152 Rollins Ave., Suite 208

Rockville, MD 20852

301/984-9080

Rhoads, Austin

Northeast Ice Cream Assoc.

P.0. Box 0510

Fulton, MD 20759

301/953-9117

Robertson, Gage

Southwestern Public Service Co.

6th and Tyler

P.0. Box 1261

Amarillo, TX 79170

806/378-2722

Robins, Ken

Worthington Cylinders

1085 Dearborn Dr.

Columbus, OH 43085

61 4/438-3047

Robinson, John J. Assoc, of American Railroads

50 F Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001

202/639-2204

Robinson, Marnia L. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.

595 Westport Ave.

Norwalk, CT 06856

203/846-7000

Roelofsen, Willem A. J.

Koppens Automatic/Schlumberger

3601 Koppens Way

Chesapeake, VA 23323

804/487-0077

Rogers, Alan F. First Brands Corp.

88 Long Hill St.

E. Hartfort, CT 06033

203 / 728-6086

Rogers, J. Alan

Virginia Weights and Measures

1100 Bank Street

Richmond, VA 23209

804/786-2476

R-10
Rosenthal, Stuart A. Department of Consumer Affairs

City of New York

80 Lafayette Street

New York, NY 10013

212/566-3042

Rosfelder, Terry

Sun Refining & Marketing

1801 Market St.

Philadelphia, PA 19103

215/977-6502

Ross, Jonathan

Department of Consumer Affairs

City of New York

80 Lafayette Street

New York, NY 10013

212 / 566-5026

Ross, Robert M.

Amerada Hess Corp.

218 W. 6th Street

Tulsa, OK 74102

918/599-4205

Ross, Steven E. Poly-America Inc.

2000 W. Marshall Dr.

Gran Prairie, TX 75051

800/527-3322

Sadler, James W. VA Weights and Measures

1 1 00 Bank Street

Richmond, VA

804/786-2476

Schaffer, Dennis

TEC America, Inc.

19250 Van Ness Ave.

Torrance, CA 90501

213/320-8900

Schaible, Mike

Marathon Oil Co.

539 South Main St.

Findlay, OH 45840

419/422-2121

Schnitzler, Jim

Accurate Metering Systems, Inc.

1705 Carmen Drive

Elk Grove Village, IL 60007

312/640-0670

School, Byron

USDA - FGIS

1400 Indep. Ave.

Washington, DC 20250

202 / 382-0262

Schroeder, Melvin W. Suburban Propane

P.0. Box 206

Whippany, NJ 07981

201/887-5300

Schumacher, H. E. Kerr-McGee Coal Corp.

123 Robert S. Kerr Ave.

Kerr-McGee Center MT-2206

Oklahoma City, OK 73102

405/270-3735

Schwalenberg, Dallas

Chilton Metal Products

Div. Western Inds.

300 Breed Street

Chilton, WI 53014

414/849-2381

Scott, Tom

NC Dept, of Agric.

Standards Div.

P.0. Box 26056

Raleigh, NC 27611

919/733-3213

Seitz, Richard L. Veeder-Root Company

28 Sargeant Street

Hartford, CT 06102

203/527-7201 Ext. 222
Shockley, M. Richard

Weights and Measures Section

MD Dept, of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy.

Annapolis, MD 21401

301/841-5790

Simila, Ken

Oregon Weights and Measures

635 Capitol Street, N.E.

Salem, OR 97310

503/378-3792

Skuce, John

Smith Meter, Inc.

1602 Wagner Ave.

Erie, PA 16514

814/899-0661

Smith, Douglas C.

Vim. M. Wilson’s Sons Inc.

8th St. & Valley Forge Rd.

Lansdale, PA 19446

215/855-4631

Smith, N. David

NC Dept, of Agric.

P.0. Box 26056

Raleigh, NC 27611

919/733-3313

Smith, Richard N. Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A6l 7 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4014

Soltes, John E. Hyponex Corp.

4501 Circle 75 Parkway

Atlanta, GA 30339

404/955-5910

Stabler, Thomas M. Toledo Scale

P.0. Box 658

Worthington, OH 43085

61 4/438-4548

Stagg, Don E. Dept, of Agriculture

and Industries

P.0. Box 3336

Montgomery, AL 36193

Stagg, Phillip A.

LA Dept, of Agri.

P.0. Box 44456

Baton Rouge, LA 70804

504/925-3780

Straub, Louis E. Weights and Measures Sec.

MD Dept, of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy.

Annapolis, MD 21401

301/841-5790

Stroobants, Marv

Chilton Metal Products

Div. Western Inds.

300 Breed Street

Chilton, WI 53014

41 4/849-2381

Tholen, Albert D. Office of Weights and Measures

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A6 1 7 Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4009

Thompson, J. Edward

Kraft, Inc.

1 Kraft Court

Glenview, IL 60025

31 2/998-2492

Thompson, Richard L. Weights and Measures Sec.

MD Dept, of Agriculture

50 Harry S. Truman Pkwy.

Annaplis, MD 21401

301/841-5970

R-12
Tierney, John E. Pepperidge Farm, Inc.

595 Westport Ave.

Norwalk, CT 06856

203/846-7000

Tonini, Daryl

SMA

152 Rollins Ave., #208

Rockville, MD 20852

301/984-9080

Truex, Jim

OH Div. of Weights and Measures

8995 E. Main St.

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068

61 4/866-6361

Tucker, Rich

Tokheim Corp.

1600 Wabash Ave.

Fort Wayne, IN 46801

219/423-2552

Walker, Robert W. State of Indiana

1330 W. Michigan St.

Indianapolis, IN 46206

317/633-0350

Walters, James K. American Petroleum Inst.

1220 L St. , NW

Washington, DC 20005

202/682-8145

Warnlof, Otto K. Office of Product Stds. Policy

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A625

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4026

Warp, Harold G. Warp Brothers

4647 W. Augusta Blvd.

Chicago, IL 60651

312/261 -5200

Warshaw, Stanley I. Office of Product Stds. Policy

National Bureau of Standards

Administration A603

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301/975-4000

Watson, David

City of Ft. Worth

TX Weights and Measures

1800 University - Rm. 208

Ft. Worth, TX 76107

817/870-7570

Weary, S. F. Flex Packaging Assoc.

1090 Vermont Ave., NW

Washington, DC 20005

202/842-3880

Weiland, Robert

M. A. Garrett

P.0. Box 70

Menomonee Falls, WI 53051

414/251-7860

Wells, Raymond R. Sensitive Measurements Inc.

P.0. Box 72

Pemberton, NJ 08068

609/894-2292

Whipple, Richard L. Gilbarco, Inc.

3511 West Market St.

919/292-3011 xt. 3042

Willis, Jimmy J. Western Weighing & Insp. Bur.

3435 Broadway, Suite 201

Kansas City, M0 64111

816/753-2101

Wilson, George D. American Meat Institute

P.0. Box 3556

Washington, DC 20007

703/841-2400

R-13
Wyse, Gary

Michigan Peat Co.

2243 Milford St.

Houston, TX 77266

713/522-071

1

Young, James W.

A. H. Emery Co.

70 Pine St.

New Canaan, CT 06840

203/966-4551

J>U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICEl I 9 8 7- I 8 I * » 0 0/ 6 2 4 8

S

R-14
NBS-I14A (REV. 2-80

U.S. DEPT. OF COMM. 1. PUBLICATION OR 2. Performing Organ. Report No. 3. Publication Date BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA

REPORT NO.

SHEET (See instructions) NBSIR 87-3543 APRIL 1987

4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE

72nd Annual Meeting: National Conference on Weights and Measures,

Program and Committee Reports

5. AUTHOR(S)

A. D. Tholen; C. S. Brickenkamp; A. P. Heffernan - editors

6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION (If joint or other than NBS, see instructions) 7. Contract/Grant No.

NATIONAL BUREAU OF STANDARDS

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

GAITHERSBURG, MD 20899

8 . Type of Report & Period Covered

NBS IR

9. SPONSORING ORGANIZATION NAME AND COMPLETE ADDRESS (Street. City. State. ZIP)

10. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

_J Document describes a computer program; SF-185, FIPS Software Summary, is attached.

11. ABSTRACT (A 200-word or less factual summary of most significant information. If document includes a significant

bibliography or literature survey, mention it here) These are the Interim Reports of the Standing Committees of the National

Conference on Weights and Measures. These Reports result from the Interim

Meetings held at NBS, Jan. 12-16, 1987. These are used as the basis for

voting at the Annual Meeting, July 19—24, 1987. As a result of the voting

sessions, the Committees will prepare final reports that will appear as Report

of the 72nd National Conference on Weights and Measures 1987" and printed as an

NBS Special Publication.

Also contained in this document is information about the conduct of the Annual

Meeting and its program. Both the Interim Meeting and Annual Meeting are attended by State and local weights and measures officials, and representatives

of the Federal Government, business, industry, and consumer organizations.

12. KEY WORDS (Six to twelve entries; alphabetical order; capitalize only proper names; and separate key words by semicolons)

legal metrology; specifications and tolerances- uniform laws and regulations;

weights and measures

13. AVAILABILITY 14. NO. OF

PRINTED PAGES

| | Unlimited

[xf~| For Official Distribution. Do Not Release to NTIS

PH Order From Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402.

Q3] Order From National Technical Information Service (NTIS), Springfield, VA. 22161

USCOMM-DC 6043-P80

>
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE

National Bureau of Standards

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

OFFICIAL BUSINESS

Penalty for Private Use, $300

SPECIAL FOURTH-CLASS RATE

POSTAGE & FEES PAID

NBS

GAITHERSBURG, MD

PERMIT No. G195