ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

as adopted by

the 90th

National

Conference on

Weights and

Measures 2005

NIST

Special

Publication1037

2005
Report of the 90th

National Conference 

on Weights and Measures 

Orlando, FL – July 10 through 14, 2005 

as adopted by the 90th National Conference on Weights and Measures 2005 

Editors: 

Kenneth Butcher 

Linda Crown 

Lynn Sebring 

Technical Advisors to the Standing Committees 

National Institute of Standards and Technology 

Weights and Measures Division 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600

U.S. Department of Commerce 

Carlos M. Gutierrez, Secretary 

Technology Administration 

Michelle O’Neill, Acting Under Secretary 

of Commerce for Technology

National Institute of 

Standards and Technology 

William Jeffrey, Director 

NIST Special Publication 1037 

November 2005 

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

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

industry, and consumer organizations. 
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office 

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov – Phone: (202) 512-1800 – Fax: (202) 512-2104 

Mail: Stop SSPO, Washington, DC 20402-0001 

ii 

Abstract 

The 90th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held 

July 10 - 14, 2005, at the Hilton in Walt Disney World, Orlando, Florida. The theme of the meeting was, 

“100 Years of Equity in the Marketplace.” 

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

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

from government and industry. 

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

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

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

Committee. 

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

evaluation; uniform laws; weights and measures. 

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 26-27766. 

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

of its publications. In this publication, however, recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees 

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

units are commonly used in industry practice. Opinions expressed in non-NIST papers are those of the authors and 

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

responsible for the content and quality of their material. 

Natl. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Pub. 1037, 264 Pages (November 2005) CODEN: NSPUE2 

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 

WASHINGTON: 2005 
Table of Contents 

Page

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

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

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

General Session 

President’s Address – Dr. Hratch Semerjian, National Institute of Standards and Technology .......................... GS - 1

Chairman’s Address – G. Weston Diggs, Virginia Product and Industry Standards ........................................... GS - 7 

New Chairman’s Address – Don Onwiler, Nebraska Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures............. GS - 9

2005 Annual Meeting Honor Award Recipients ................................................................................................ GS - 13 

Standing Committee Reports 

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

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

and Regional Legal Metrology Organizations ................................................................... BOD - A1 

Appendix B. Associate Membership Committee Annual Meeting Minutes and Summary Report ........ BOD - B1

Appendix B1. AMC Funds Allocation............................................................................. BOD - B5

Appendix C. NTEP Conformity Assessment Program Update............................................................... BOD - C1

Appendix C1. Initial Verification..................................................................................... BOD - C3 

Appendix C2. Administrative Review of Certificates of Conformance......................... BOD - C11

Appendix C3. Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP) .............................. BOD - C17

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

Appendix A. Item 221-1: Documentary Standards ................................................................................ L&R - A1

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

Appendix A. Item 360-1: Proposed Section 5.59....................................................................................S&T - A1 

Appendix B. Item 360-2: Appendix A Fundamental Considerations ..................................................... S&T - B1 

Appendix C. Item 360-5: Developing Issues .......................................................................................... S&T - C1 

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

Appendix A. Strategic Direction for the PDC..........................................................................................PDC - A1

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

Appendix A. NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Report................................................NTEP - A1

Appendix B. NTETC - GMM and NIR Sector Annual Meetings, Summary of Decisions....................NTEP - B1

Appendix C. NTETC - Measuring Sector Annual Meeting, Summary of Decisions.............................NTEP - C1

Appendix D. NTETC - Weighing Sector Annual Meeting, Summary of Decisions..............................NTEP - D1

Appendix E. Provisional Committee on Participation Review (CPR) Meeting Summary .................... NTEP - E1

2005 Annual Meeting Attendees ...............................................................................................................ATTEND - 1

iii 
Past Chairmen of the Conference 

Conference Year Chairman 

43rd 1958 J. P. McBride, MA 

44th 1959 C. M. Fuller, CA 

45th 1960 H. E. Crawford, FL 

46th 1961 R. E. Meek, IN 

47th 1962 Robert Williams, NY 

48th 1963 C. H. Stender, SC 

49th 1964 D. M. Turnbull, WA 

50th 1965 V. D. Campbell, OH 

51st 1966 J. F. True, KS 

52nd 1967 J. E. Bowen, MA 

53rd 1968 C. C. Morgan, IN 

54th 1969 S. H. Christie, NJ 

55th 1970 R. W. Searles, OH 

56th 1971 M. Jennings, TN 

57th 1972 E. H. Black, CA 

58th 1973 George L. Johnson, KY 

59th 1974 John H. Lewis, WA 

60th 1975 Sydney D. Andrews, FL 

61st 1976 Richard L. Thompson, MD 

62nd 1977 Earl Prideaux, CO 

63rd 1978 James F. Lyles, VA 

64th 1979 Kendrick J. Simila, OR 

65th 1980 Charles H. Vincent, TX 

66th 1981 Edward H. Stadolnik, MA 

67th 1982 Edward C. Heffron, MI 

68th 1983 Charles H. Greene, NM 

69th 1984 Sam F. Hindsman, AR 

70th 1985 Ezio F. Delfino, CA 

71st 1986 George E. Mattimoe, HI 

72nd 1987 Frank C. Nagele, MI 

73rd 1988 Darrell A. Guensler, CA 

74th 1989 John J. Bartfai, NY 

75th 1990 Fred A. Gerk, NM 

76th 1991 N. David Smith, NC 

77th 1992 Sidney A. Colbrook, IL 

78th 1993 Allan M. Nelson, CT 

79th 1994 Thomas F. Geiler, MA 

80th 1995 James C. Truex, OH 

81st 1996 Charles A. Gardner, NY 

82nd 1997 Barbara J. Bloch, CA 

83rd 1998 Steven A. Malone, NE 

84th 1999 Aves D. Thompson, AK 

85th 2000 G. Wes Diggs, VA 

86th 2001 L. Straub, MD 

87th 2002 Ron Murdock, NC 

88th 2003 Ross J. Andersen, NY 

89th 2004 Dennis Ehrhart, AZ 

iv 
Org Chart 

v 

National Conference on Weights and Measures, Inc. 

Organization Chart 

2004/2005

Board of Directors 

Office Representation Name/Affiliation Term Expires 

Chairman: G.W. Diggs, VA* 2005 

Chairman-Elect: D. Onwiler, NE* 2005 

NTEP Committee Chair: J. Truex, OH* 2006 

Treasurer: T. Geiler, MA 2005 

Active Membership/Northeastern: C. Carroll, MA* 2009 

Active Membership/Central: J. Cardin, WI 2005 

Active Membership/Southern: S. Pahl, TX* 2008 

Active Membership/Western: M. Cleary, CA 2007 

At-Large: C. Guay, Proctor & Gamble 2008 

At-Large: M. Pinagel, MI 2006 

Associate Membership: D. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo 2007 

*National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee Member 

Honorary NCWM President: 

NCWM Executive Secretary: 

NCWM Executive Director: 

BOD Advisor: 

NTEP Director: 

NTEP Committee Technical Advisor: 

H. Semerjian, Acting NIST Director 

H. Oppermann, NIST W&M Division 

B. Palys, CAE, NCWM Headquarters 

G. Vinet, Measurement Canada 

S. Patoray, NCWM Headquarters 

S. Cook, NIST W&M Division 

Committees 

Laws & Regulations Committee Specifications & Tolerances Committee 

Position Name/Affiliation (Term Expires) Position Name/Affiliation (Term Expires) 

Chair: J. Gomez, (2005) Chair: J. Kane, MT (2005) 

Members: J. Benavides, TX (2006) 

J. Cassidy, MA (2007) 

V. Dempsey, OH (2008) 

D. Johannes, CA (2009) 

Members: C. Cooney, OR (2006) 

M. Sikula, NY (2007) 

Carol Fulmer, SC (2008) 

Todd Lucas, OH (2009) 

Associate 

Member Rep: 

V. Orr, ConAgra Foods Associate 

Member Rep: 

TBD 

Canadian Tech 

Advisors: 

D. Hutchinson 

B. Lemon 

Canadian Tech 

Advisor: 

T. Kingsbury 

NIST Tech 

Advisors: 

T. Coleman 

K. Dresser 

S. Cook 

NIST Tech 

Advisors: 

R. Suiter 

J. Williams 
Org Chart 

vi 

Committees (continued) 

Professional Development Committee Metrology Committee 

Chair: K. Deitzler, PA (2006) Chair: TBD 

Members: C. Bennett, MI (2006) Co-Chair: TBD 

A. Shields, OH (2008) 

J. Buendel, WA (2009) 

W. Wotthlie, MD (2009) 

S. Strnad, TX (2009) 

Members: TBD 

Safety Liaison C. Gardner, NY 

Staff Liaison B. Levy, NCWM 

Associate Member Rep: TBD NIST Tech Advisor: V. Miller 

Nominating Committee Legislative Liaison 

Chair: R. Andersen, NY Chair: TBD 

Members: W. Diggs, VA 

D. Onwiler, NE 

A. Thompson, AK 

D. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo 

G. Prince, Kroger Company 

L. Straub, Fairbanks Scales 

Members: TBD 

Credentials Committee Appointed Officers 

Chair: R. Johnson, NM (2006) Parliamentarian: A. Thompson, AK 

Members: T. McBride, TN (2005) 

W. Cobb, WV (2007) 

Chaplain: 

Sergeants-At-Arms: 

M. Belue, Belue 

Associates 

E. Payne, MD 

M. Quisenberry, CA 

 G. W. Diggs, VA 

Coordinator: NCWM Staff Presiding Officers: L. Stump, IN 

V. Massey, TN 

R. Hayes. MI 

J. Flanders, GA 

Associate Membership Committee 

Chair: M. Galletta, CA, Nestlé USA (2006) 

Vice Chair: G. Lameris, Hobart Corporation (2007) 

Secretary/Treasurer: S. Langford, Cardinal Scale (2008) 

Members: R. Murnane, Jr., Seraphin Test Measures (2006) 

W. Sveum, Kraft Foods (2007) 

D. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo (2008) 

C. Frye, International Dairy Foods Association (2008) 

V. Orr, ConAgra Foods (2009) 

P. Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems (2009) 

M. Gaspers, Farmland Foods, Inc. (2009) 
Org Chart 

vii 

Regional Weights and Measures Association Contacts 

Northeastern Weights and Measures Assn. (NEWMA): 

Annual Meeting: May 16-19, 2005 

Best Western Airport Inn - Albany, NY 

William J. Wilson 

Clinton County, New York, Weights & Measures 

(518) 565-4681 

clinton.wts@yahoo.com 

Southern Weights and Measures Assn. (SWMA): 

Annual Meeting: October 23-26, 2005 

Hotel: TBD - Memphis, TN 

Randy F. Jennings 

Tennessee Dept. of Agriculture 

(615) 837-5747 

randy.jennings@state.tn.us 

Central Weights and Measures Assn. (CWMA): 

Annual Meeting: September 18-20, 2005 

The Lodge, Bettendorf, Iowa 

Annual Meeting 2006: April 30-May 3, 2006 

Holiday Inn – Dayton Mall, Miamisburg 

Vicky Dempsey 

Montgomery County, Ohio, Weights &Measures 

(937) 225-6309 

DempseyV@mcohio.org 

Western Weights and Measures Assn. (WWMA): 

Annual Meeting: September 11-15, 2005 

Ritz-Carlton - Phoenix, Arizona 

Debra E. Rader 

Arizona Dept. of Weight & Measures 

(623) 463-9955 

drader@azdwm.gov 
Org Chart 

viii 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committees (NTETC) 

Weighing Sector Measuring Sector 

Chair: D. Flocken, Mettler-Toledo Chair: M. Keilty, Endress & Hauser Flowtec AG

Tech 

Advisor: 

S. Cook, NIST/WMD Tech 

Advisor:

R. Suiter, NIST/WMD 

Public 

Sector 

Members:

R. Andersen, NY 

J. Butler, NC 

G. Castro, CA 

S. Hadder, FL 

T. Kingsbury, Measurement Canada 

J. Makin, Measurement Canada 

S. Malone, NE 

C. Nelson, CA 

W. West, OH 

R. Wotthlie, MD

Public 

Sector 

Members: 

C. Ainsworth, GIPSA 

R. Andersen, NY 

W. Bates, GIPSA 

L. Burtini, Measurement Canada 

A. Buie, MD 

C. Carter, OK 

G. Castro, CA 

T. Davis, KS 

G. W. Diggs, VA 

J. Kane, MT 

D. Onwiler, NE 

D. Parks, CA 

J. Truex, OH 

J. Vanderwielen, GIPSA 

W. West, OH 

R. Wyckoff, OR 

Private 

Sector 

Members: 

D. Biette, Sartorius North America 

J. Elengo, Contractor 

R. Feezor, Norfolk Southern Corp. 

W. GeMeiner, Union Pacific RR 

D. Hawkins, Thurman Scale Co. 

J. Hughes, Avery Weigh-Tronix, Inc. 

R. Jimenez, Association of American 

Railroads 

G. Lameris, Hobart Corp. 

S. Langford, Cardinal Scale Mfg. 

P. Lewis, Rice Lake Weighing Systems 

L. E. Luthy, Brechbuhler Scales, Inc. 

N. Puri, NMB Technologies, Inc. 

D. Quinn, ISWM Consultant 

L. Straub, Fairbanks Scales, Inc. 

J. Wang, A&D Engineering, Inc. 

O. Warnlof, Consultant 

W. Young, Emery Winslow Scale 

Private 

Sector 

Members: 

F. M. Belue, Belue Associates 

J. Beyer, Liquid Controls 

M. Buttler, Emerson Process Management - 

Micro Motion 

J. Buxton, Daniel Measurement & Control 

R. Cooper, Actaris Neptune 

M. Forkert, Tuthill Transfer Systems 

M. Gallo, Clean Fueling Technologies 

P. Glowacki, Murray Equipment 

M. Hankel, MCH Engineering Assoc. 

D. Hoffman, TopTech Systems 

G. Johnson, Gilbarco, Inc. 

Y. Katselnik, Dresser Wayne, Inc. 

R. Kretzler, Dresser Wayne, Inc. 

D. Long, RDM Industrial Electronics 

W. Mattar, Invensys/Foxboro 

R. Miller, FMC Measurement Solution 

R. Murnane, Jr., Seraphin Test Measure 

A. Noel, Neptune Technology 

J. Parrish, Brodie Meter Company, LLC 

D. Rajala, Veeder-Root Company 

O. Warnlof, Consultant 
Org Chart 

ix 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committees (NTETC) (cont’d) 

Belt Conveyor Scales Sector Grain Analyzer Sector 

Chair: TBD Chair: C. Eigenmann-Pierson, DICKEY-john 

Corp.

Tech 

Advisor: 

S. Cook, NIST/WMD Tech 

Advisors:

G. Diane. Lee, NIST/WMD 

J. W. Barber, J. B. Associates

Public 

Sector 

Members:

A. Buie, MD Public 

Sector 

Members:

R. Burns, AR 

T. Butcher, NIST 

A. Gruneisen, CA 

D. Onwiler, NE 

R. Pierce, GIPSA 

E. Szesnat, Jr., NY 

C. Tew, NC 

R. Wittenberger, MO

Private 

Sector 

Members: 

R. Jimenez, Association of American 

Railroads 

L. Marmsater, Merrick Industries 

B. Ripka, Thermo Electron 

P. Sirrico, Thayer Scale - Hyer 

Industries, Inc. 

T. Vormittag, Sr., SGS Minerals 

Services 

O. Warnlof, Consultant 

Private 

Sector 

Members: 

J. Bair, NA Miller’s Association 

H. Biermann, Bizerba GmbH & Co KG 

M. Clements, The Steinlite Corp. 

V. Gates, Shore Sales Company 

A. Gell, Foss North America 

C. Hurburgh, Jr., Iowa State University 

D. Krejci, Grain Elevator & Processing 

Society 

T. O'Connor, National Grain & Feed Assn.

T. Runyon, Seedboro Equipment 
Org Chart 

x 

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 
General Session 2005 Final Report 

President’s Address 

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Orlando, FL 

July 12, 2005 

Dr. Hratch Semerjian 

Acting NIST Director 

Thank you for that fine introduction. I welcome this opportunity to address the National Conference on Weights and 

Measures’ 90th Annual Meeting, a meeting that celebrates the NCWM’s 100th anniversary. 

It’s an honor to be part of this centennial celebration. I feel right at home. At home—not only because I am, as the 

Acting NIST Director, the Honorary President of the National Conference on Weights and Measures—but also 

because everyone in this room, including this speaker, shares the same vision. 

The theme of our conference is “100 Years of Equity in the Marketplace.” Certainly, the quest for honest weights 

and measures and all that this entails for competitiveness, commercialization, innovation and open markets are the 

heart and soul of both our organizations. It is our way of life. It is our mission. It is the way we serve our nation, its 

people and, increasingly, the world. 

It is a pleasure to recognize at the outset of my remarks one very special person — Henry Oppermann. Henry was, 

until his retirement two weeks ago, chief of NIST’s Weights and Measures Division. He is, in a very real sense, one 

of the authors of this feast, a weights and measures person who has devoted 30 years to nurturing the NCWM-NIST 

bond. Henry is a long-time friend and tireless champion of our work and has had a hand in virtually all the joint 

programs I will talk about today. His technical expertise and vision are without compare, and he is widely respected 

in all arenas of the weights and measures community. His contributions have spanned the spectrum of the legal 

metrology system, from laboratory metrology to type evaluation to field inspection to weights and measures 

administration. 

Thank you, Henry, for a lifetime of service and contributions to the people and the nation. We are grateful for your 

promise to be available for consultations and advice to both NIST and the NCWM. 

 

Weights and measures have been a national concern from the birth of our republic. Article I, Section 8 of the 

Constitution declares, “The Congress shall have the power to ...fix the standard of weights and measures.” In 1901 

the federal government established the National Bureau of Standards (now NIST). Within four years – 1905 – 

Samuel Stratton, NBS’s first director, and Louis Fischer, the Bureau’s chief of weights and measures, convened a 

meeting of state sealers of weights and measures. That meeting of officials from eight states and the District of 

Columbia marked the birth of this great organization. 

We were born in an era when good men and women first understood the dangers of adulterated products as well as 

the need to enact reforms such as the pure food and drug laws. We opened up shop as America moved on to the 

world stage as an industrial power. With each passing year, advances in science and technology have expanded our 

means of serving the nation. 

Together, NIST and the Conference helped shape a new age, fostering—with honest weights, sure measures, and 

common national standards—the economic miracle that has brought a good, decent life to millions. 

 

Now some, especially people outside this room, might be tempted to ask what am I talking about! That’s 

understandable. 

I once saw a New Yorker magazine cartoon that captured a more stereotypical view of our work. It portrayed a 

group of glum, mustached bureaucrats sitting around a conference table. A bespectacled, middle-aged man at the 

GS - 1 
General Session 2005 Final Report 

head of the table is saying, “I’m afraid, Gentlemen, we must learn to live with the hard truth. The Office of Weights 

and Measures is, by its very nature, colorless, non-controversial, scandal-free, and likely to remain so forever.” 

Well–let’s face it–as a bureaucrat, I have to admit—colorless is fine... non-controversial is desirable...and scandalfree is more than good. It is absolutely necessary. 

As weights and measures officials, state laboratory metrologists, and industry leaders in weighing and measuring 

devices, however, we know one very important truth–we have laid the groundwork for today’s fair, competitive and 

equitable marketplace benefiting the citizenry and business. 

As Massachusetts Governor Curtis Guild told the Conference in 1908, “Some reforms only touch the average citizen 

once in a lifetime; but the enforcement of honest weights and measures touches every human being at every moment 

of every day.” 

 

Our collaboration is symbolized by this commemorative reprint of the NBS 1915 publication on the tolerances and 

specifications for weighing and measuring devices. This publication was the forerunner of NIST Handbook 44, 

which has been adopted by all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and the Territories as their standard for 

commercial weighing and measuring devices. It is used in everything from gas pumps to grain moisture meters. 

Handbook 44 paved the way for other weights and measures handbooks including Handbooks 112, 130, 133, 105, 

143, and 145. They cover model laws for states, standardized field test procedures, and ways to check the net 

contents of packaged goods–from corn flakes to cooking oils. They save us immense time and expense and promote 

uniformity in weights and measures requirements and practices. 

Our collective efforts have resulted in documents used by an estimated 3,200 state and local weights and measures 

officials across the United States and 50,000 private-sector representatives. 

It is a fact that weights and measures rules, regulations, and standards annually affect about $4.5 trillion transactions, 

representing over half of the U.S. gross domestic product (GDP). 

Yet another fact, one that grows in importance every day, is that while we have accomplished much in the last 100 

years, we now must do even better. 

It’s the 21st Century. We are beginning to recognize that the system created in 1905 is less and less suited for the 

needs of the marketplace in 2005, let alone 10 years from now. The marketplace is changing–and significantly 

today’s environment is faster paced. Weighing and measuring equipment grows ever more diverse and complex. 

Administrators must tackle high turnover and lengthy training periods for the staff. Manufacturers, competing in a 

global marketplace, must continually be on guard for international standards that are at variance with national 

standards. Businesses must comply with a daunting network of regulations, many overlapping and sometimes 

conflicting. Consumers’ needs have changed, with a strong focus on convenience and timeliness. 

Clearly we need continually to reassess how we do business with regard to standards development. Technical topics 

are so diverse and technology so rapidly changing that the current system cannot provide the technical expertise 

needed to address the wide range of topics. Affected parties aren’t effectively informed about impending changes. 

Limited budgets prevent participation in many of the technical discussions. Decisions are often made without 

adequate information or understanding. Too often, for instance, NCWM committees neither have sufficient time to 

adequately review and make decisions about technical issues nor do they have access to the technical resources they 

need. 

And on top of all that, our weights and measures budgets have shrunk. At both the federal and state level, weights 

and measures jurisdictions compete for funding with other functions, such as homeland security, health, education 

and welfare. 

So, what needs to change? What are the most significant influences we face? How can we be most expedient? How 

can we ensure input and involvement from all parties? How can we ensure sound technical decisions? And how 

can we be most cost-effective as resources grow increasingly scarce? 

GS - 2 
General Session 2005 Final Report 

NIST has begun a long, hard look at these challenges. We have gone to our customers and asked, “What needs to be 

changed?” We have asked that question not just in technical meetings and through correspondence but also in focus 

groups, including meetings with many of the manufacturers and weights and measures officials here today. 

We are learning a great deal. We have ideas for a new template for legal metrology standard development, a way to 

better organize this effort, and even a national plan to roadmap America’s measurement needs for a stronger 

innovation infrastructure. 

Our conversations convince us that it is critical to expand participation in the development process for legal 

metrology standards. 

Again and again we have heard calls for more transparency in the process with an end to hidden agendas or 

behind-the-scenes actions. Many parties stress the need for openness, impartiality, due process, balance and

consensus with information freely shared and readily available to all impacted by the prospective standard 

...decisions based on the national interest ... the views of all duly considered. ...results generally agreed to and 

accepted by all participants. 

Others call for more relevance, in which standards are championed that have real benefit and impact on products. 

And for performance orientation, in which actions take into account the impact of potential standards and their 

cost benefit to products. As well as timeliness, in which actions reflect priority needs of manufacturers distributing 

goods and services, as well as regulatory officials faced with ensuring an environment for fair competition among 

businesses. 

People want flexibility that allows a standard to survive changing needs of parties due to changing technology, 

changing global influences, changing market practices and changes in related regulations. And, of course, there is a 

plea for more technical literacy and coherence—in other words, a standards development process that avails itself 

of technical expertise and produces results that are clear and understandable. 

Few of us would disagree with the desirability of a legal metrology standards development process that is 

characterized by all these elements or virtues, from transparency and openness to coherence and technical 

literacy. 

It’s a bit like being in favor of motherhood and apple pie. But the big question is how do we do it? How do we 

make the ideal that we all strive for, the norm for all of us?

NIST and the NCWM Board of Directors are engaged in a joint effort to consider alternatives for improving and 

enhancing the current system. This partnership is lighting the way to a more productive future. 

 

Recently, we met to discuss an approach, which would expand upon a “work group” model that NIST uses to 

develop U.S. comments on International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) documents, as well as for the 

development of technical requirements and test procedures for specialized technical topics such as belt-conveyor 

scales. 

You may have already heard of this proposal through presentations given at the Spring 2005 regional weights and 

measures association meetings by your incoming NCWM Chairman, Don Onwiler. 

Under this model, work groups consisting of technical experts from industry and the regulatory community would 

be used to develop and address technical issues such as those currently considered by NCWM standing committees. 

Recommendations of the work groups would feed into the existing NCWM process, thereby providing additional 

technical resources to the standing committees and enhancing the efficiency of the process. 

These work groups may draw upon the expertise of existing technical committees, such as the National Type 

Evaluation Technical Sectors. 

GS - 3 
General Session 2005 Final Report 

Both NIST and the NCWM Board of Directors are optimistic that such an approach could, if properly implemented, 

address many of the key issues and concerns about the current process. 

NIST is excited by the prospect of partnering with the NCWM to implement such a model to facilitate the 

development of legal metrology standards in the U.S. 

We look forward to working with the NCWM leadership in the coming months to develop the details of this effort. 

I also look forward to NCWM participation in the initiative we recently launched to take the pulse of U.S. 

measurement capabilities and infrastructure. NCWM is a logical partner in this effort. Its work to set legal 

metrology standards—combined with NIST services—is central to the national measurement system. 

In 2004 NCWM-member state metrology laboratories provided more than 360,000 calibrations to regulatory 

agencies, research institutes and manufacturers and scale and meter service companies. This year the 16th state 

laboratory received its accreditation under NIST’s National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation Program (NVLAP)! 

That’s a great accomplishment! Mass calibrations concerns will be a major concern of the initiative and NCWM 

can make a fine contribution to this effort. 

This strong private-public sector partnership called “Roadmapping America’s Measurement Needs for a Strong 

Innovation Infrastructure” will make the first-ever evaluation of the breadth, depth and overall health of the U.S. 

measurement system. 

The final report, expected in early 2007, will identify priority measurement infrastructure needs across industry and 

the economy, recommend steps to address them, and point out the consequences of inaction. 

To kick off this process, NIST is reaching out to top customers and stakeholders in the United States Measurement 

System, such as NCWM. We are collecting and reviewing previously published roadmaps and workshop reports 

focused on future science and technology challenges and opportunities, and we are planning an initial set of focused 

workshops in key technology areas. 

Business, trade and professional associations are encouraged to identify and advise NIST of pressing measurement 

needs and gaps in their particular areas. 

Together we will document America’s priority measurement needs and their economic implications. We anticipate 

that our findings will motivate interested and affected parties to take action and ultimately ensure that our national 

measurement system is healthy and capable of serving U.S. institutions and citizens in the 21st Century. 

Meanwhile, we will continue efforts to document best practices, harmonize national standards with international 

standards, and prepare for a new metrics-only ruling that could affect U.S. exports. 

Thanks to the input received from the weights and measures community, as well as industrial partners, NIST 

recently completed a two-year benchmarking and needs assessment study. This limited look at the effectiveness of 

the national weights and measures infrastructure identified some of the challenges facing regulators and industry. 

With this kind of information plus your feedback on the study and with the help of experts in the field, we hope to 

begin identifying “best practices” and components, starting with the area of retail motor-fuel dispensing inspections. 

Efforts in this field could be the prototype of more efforts in other weights and measures inspection areas. 

As we work together to enhance our national system, we are also confronted with the need to think more globally. 

To keep markets open to American manufacturers of goods and services, our national system must strive to establish 

national standards that are harmonized with (or at least equivalent to) standards adopted by other nations. 

NCWM efforts complement NIST efforts in this field. NCWM committees routinely consider international 

documents when considering proposed changes to U.S. standards. In addition, NCWM participation in the 

International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) meetings helps to raise the visibility of U.S. standards and 

eliminate differences. NCWM is considering participation in an OIML Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA), 

GS - 4 
General Session 2005 Final Report 

which would greatly facilitate the type approval process for device manufacturers. And that would be very good for 

us all. 

I cannot close my remarks without mentioning the metric system. We are very conscious of the fact that the 

European Union has set January 1, 2010, as the deadline for implementation of a Metric Directive that requires only 

metric units to be used on products, including packaged commodities. This deadline is of significant concern to U.S. 

exporters. With others, we are exploring the possibility of changing the U.S. Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling 

Act to allow consumer packaging companies to continue labeling the net contents of packages in both inch-pound 

and metric units as they do now or to label, on a purely voluntary basis, the net contents in only metric units. 

Today 45 states allow metric only labeling for products. I strongly encourage the remaining states to move forward 

with the adoption of NIST Handbook 130, which permits metric-only packaging. 

And now, my friends, I congratulate you once more and wish you well as you begin your second century of service 

to the nation. I am confident that with imagination, creativity, cooperation and hard work we—together—will build 

a better future for our nation and our people. Thank you. 

GS - 5 
General Session 2005 Final Report 

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 

GS - 6 
General Session 2005 Final Report 

Chairman's Address 

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Orlando, Florida 

July 12, 2005 

G. Weston Diggs 

Virginia Office of Product and Industry Standards 

It is my pleasure to welcome you to the 90th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. 

It has been an honor to serve a second term as Chairman of this Conference. We are here to conduct important 

business that relates to weights and measures issues that will affect us nationally and internationally. At the same 

time, we are celebrating 100 years of providing equity in the marketplace. In this celebration, we recognize our 

relationship with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In 1905 the Department of 

Commerce, in its mission to establish uniformity in weights and measures, created the National Conference on 

Weights and Measures. To a great extent, we owe our success to our partners at NIST. Although, like in any 

relationship, we have had our differences; the leadership and support provided by people like Mac Jensen, Carol 

Brickenkamp, Henry Oppermann and their staff have been invaluable. 

I would like to take some time to discuss a few of our accomplishments that occurred this year, as well as some of 

what I believe to be challenges for the future. 

The National Conference is gaining international recognition. We have, to some extent, always been involved in the 

international world of legal metrology. For the most part this was accomplished through the sponsorship of NIST at 

meetings of the International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) where NIST represented the United States. 

This year, Steve Patoray, our NTEP Director, was invited to speak at a Japanese Forum on legal metrology. He was 

asked to discuss the U.S. system of weights and measures and our National Type Evaluation Program. Partly as a 

result of Steve's visit, a delegation from Japan visited California, Maryland, and NIST and met with me representing 

the National Conference before going to Canada. Japan is in the process of modifying its legal metrology system. 

This delegation was looking for ideas they could incorporate into their new system. In support of our members that 

export weighing and measuring devices, the Conference is participating in OIML's Committee on Participation 

Review. The long-range goal is to become an "issuing authority" under the Mutual Acceptance Agreement. This 

would mean we could issue OIML certificates in the same manner we now issue NTEP certificates. We will not 

sign any agreement until we have reached the status of an “issuing authority.” The reality of our international 

involvement is that it is very expensive, in terms of money and time for meetings and travel. I believe it is 

important, as we develop international relations, to identify a single person to represent the National Conference. 

For the sake of consistency, I believe Steve Patoray needs to be that person. That lends itself to another problem—

Steve has enough to do with his current workload in NTEP. We are adding international travel and the possibility of 

a new NTEP Software Sector. Even with the capable assistance of Linda Bernetich and Steve Cook, Steve Patoray's 

workload is reaching the crisis point. Next year the Board of Directors will have to make some tough choices in this 

area. 

The Conference must do more to make the public aware of the importance of its work. Over the years we have 

made attempts in this area with very limited success. The last effort I can remember was in the mid-nineties when 

we considered having Popeye, the cartoon caricature, as the NCWM spokesman. With the addition of Judy Markoe 

to the Management Solution's staff, we have a resource that could develop a plan for marketing, not only the 

importance of the Conference activities, but weights and measures in general. 

On June 30 our new website was activated. Based on the initial feedback, this new site is a vast improvement over 

what we had in the past. A lot of money and time has been expended to make this site a reality. It is our hope the 

new site is more user-friendly and helpful to those interested in the National Conference's activities. We would like 

to express our appreciation to the AMC Committee for its support of this effort. I would also like to acknowledge 

the hard work of Linda Bernetich, Steve Patoray and Judy Markoe of our management staff. 

GS - 7 
General Session 2005 Final Report 

I was your chairman in 2000 when we were experiencing a low point in the Conference's relationship with our 

partners at NIST. I am happy to report that since that time, with Henry Oppermann's leadership and the support of 

NIST upper-management, our relationship has continued to improve. Henry cannot be replaced but we look forward 

to working with whomever follows in his place. 

With our partners at the Weights and Measures Division, the Board of Directors is planning to initiate an improved 

method of managing conference issues. On the surface this may seem to be adding another level of bureaucracy to 

the process. We need to realize we have many new officials on committees who are learning about the conference 

process. This process is designed to help direct issues coming from the sectors and regional associations to the 

appropriate committee or work group. In some cases a special work group may have to be created to develop the 

issue or, if the issue lacks adequate information, it may be returned to its source. Don Onwiler and Henry 

Oppermann will go into more detail on this plan later during the Conference. 

The system of weights and measures in our country is unique in that there is no federal weights and measures law. 

Although federal agencies preempt us in certain areas, the enforcement is the responsibility of state and local 

officials, which is particularly true at the retail level. In recent years, the Conference, as well as the weights and 

measures community as a whole, has been frustrated because of dwindling resources. Weights and measures 

jurisdictions continue to be asked to do more with fewer resources, not only in terms of dollars but in terms of 

people. Both conditions are having an adverse effect on the Conference and its ability to operate. The money is no 

doubt important. Besides running our respective programs, it also allows us to attend the meetings and be involved 

in development of the issues. However, even now the lack of people with weights and measures experience is 

affecting our ability to operate as effectively as we would like. The lack of experienced people is not only on the 

regulatory side but on the industry side as well. No one is questioning the dedication to our profession by our new 

officials and industry members. It takes time to gain the knowledge to understand the wide range of issues that 

come before our Conference. While knowledge is necessary, it has been my experience this Conference operates to 

a great extent on a person's credibility. Whether it is desirable or not, issues are often decided by the position a 

person with credibility takes on an issue. My point to this is credibility doesn't come by registering and getting a 

name tag. In this organization it takes both time and participation to gain credibility. 

Most of us in government, and perhaps the industry members as well, have to justify travel to meetings and conferences 

to a higher authority within our agencies. If you are a weights and measures official, you probably justify attendance at 

conference meetings by saying it is important because this is where the requirements relating to weights and measures 

are developed that affect the citizens in your jurisdiction. I believe this a true statement, but it goes beyond that. You 

are to be complimented by your attendance and participation because in doing so you are supporting our system of 

weights and measures in the United States. Without your continued participation our system would surely fail. 

Before I close, I would be remiss if I did not touch on two other topics. You have heard this from me before so I 

will keep it short. First, the Conference must do something to correct its current voting requirements for getting 

issues passed. It is ridiculous that because of low attendance three or four members can cause an issue to fail. 

Those not in attendance have in effect voted "NO" on all the issues. In many cases these jurisdictions may not be 

members of the Conference. It is not equitable to those who invest their time and resources developing issues and 

have them fail because of a relatively few "No" votes at the Annual Meeting and the "NO" votes by those who do 

not attend. Second, I believe NIST Handbook 44 needs to be brought inline with today's technology and written so 

its intended users can effectively use it in the field. I would like to believe I am wrong concerning both of these 

issues, but only time will tell. 

In closing, I would like to thank the Board of Directors and all of the Conference membership for their support 

during this past year. I would especially like to express my thanks to Beth Palys and the staff at the NCWM 

Headquarters. Until you are chairman of this Conference, you have no conception of the amount of work turned out 

by our management group or how much is done without the knowledge of the general membership. I also would 

like to thank the staff at home for their support. 

As I close out my career in weights and measures, I hope you will remember me as someone who was not always 

right but someone who would always listen and you always knew where he stood. 

I thank you very much, and it has been an honor to serve as your Chairman. 

GS - 8 
General Session 2005 Final Report 

New Chairman’s Address 

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Orlando, Florida 

July 14, 2005 

“Back to the Basics as Stepping Stones to the Future” 

Don Onwiler 

Nebraska Department of Agriculture/Weights & Measures 

As I was preparing for this, I took the time to review remarks of previous chairmen in the Annual Reports. Several 

talked about “change.” It’s not one of our favorite subjects. The NCWM, it’s members and partners have all seen 

many changes in recent years. We have been through some challenging times in terms of defending our programs, 

protecting our budgets, and focusing on “maintaining” when we would prefer to focus on “improving.” 

Difficult times are also times of opportunity. Willingness to adapt is how we grow. Should we simply concentrate 

on doing those things that have worked for us in the past, or should we be looking for a fresh approach to those 

difficulties we face? In our program back home, we emphasize both. There I have learned the importance of 

researching and understanding our history while maintaining an eye on the horizon. This is the foundation for this 

year’s theme, “Back to Basics as the Stepping Stones to Our Future.”

So what did get us where we are? In his speech on Tuesday, Dr. Semerjian reflected on that first meeting in 1905. 

The subsequent success of NCWM is based on recognition that attendance, thoughtful participation, inclusion of our 

stakeholders, and tireless volunteer effort are critical to meeting our goals. The success of both NCWM and NIST 

Weights and Measures Division has hinged historically on a spirit of cooperation toward that end. 

Concern for a healthy system of measurement goes back farther than that meeting of state officials in 1905. In his 

first message to Congress in 1790, George Washington said, “...uniformity in the currency, weights and measures of 

the United States is an objective of great importance, and will, I am persuaded, be duly attended to.” 

Unfortunately, there is no longer strong recognition or acknowledgement from our leaders in Washington of the 

importance of weights and measures. Many state and local governments are also overlooking this fundamental 

ingredient to a fair business environment. One reason for this is that we have done such a tremendous job of 

instilling confidence into the marketplace. We should take pride in that. But, as former Chairman Dennis Ehrhart 

pointed out, we need to be in the public eye. We need an identity. 

Creating awareness of weights and measures activities is not our specialty, but we’re working on it. We have 

revamped our website to be more interesting and informative to first-time visitors. In the process, we have made it 

more functional to our members. We will also draw on the expertise of Judy Markoe, a new member of the 

Management Solutions team. She will help us develop a plan to elevate the NCWM to a higher level of public 

awareness. 

The NCWM has also struggled recently with reduced attendance. The effects of this are tremendous. Valuable 

input has been lost. We have a smaller pool of volunteers to serve on committees and work groups. We are doing 

less mentoring in the organization because we can’t afford to get new people to the meetings. Go back and read 

those reports from the early 1900's. Do you think it was easy getting to meetings then? It was a challenge, but they 

persevered. When we do get new attendees, we sometimes overlook them. When we get new volunteers, we tend to 

overwhelm them. Sure, as the economy improves membership and attendance will rebound, and attendance is also 

issue driven to some degree, but there are things we can do to help—basic things. 

GS - 9 
General Session 2005 Final Report 

As an example, I’ll take you back to my first National Conference in 1993. I did not know anyone at that meeting, 

not even the other representatives from my state, so Tina Butcher of NIST took the time to tutor me on the process 

of the Annual Meeting. Darryl Brown of Iowa and Will Wotthlie of Maryland told me my input was important and I 

should speak up. Others, like Steve Malone of Nebraska and Sid Colbrook of Illinois, asked me my opinions and, 

Heaven help them, they even listened to me. David McKay from Utah and his wife Carolyn saw a newcomer from 

Nebraska who looked lost. Now, David was a quiet man, but he promoted the NCWM by doing what came 

naturally to him. He extended friendship and offered support. And, lastly, I was asked to serve. 

Now I ask you, aren’t all these basic things that we can be doing? How often have we all overlooked them? No 

doubt, some of you wish I had been ignored in 1993 so that, just maybe, I would have gone away. Had I been 

ignored, I would have. 

Once we gain awareness and get new people involved, they must find value in our organization or we will lose 

them. The efforts of the Professional Development Committee and NIST to improve training and create a 

certification program will provide part of that value. The value will also come from our proactive approach to 

standards development. A process that is responsive to the needs of our stakeholders will provide benefit in 

participation. We will continue working to develop and implement the plan Henry Oppermann and I presented to 

you this week to improve our standards development process. I like this plan because it does not replace what we 

do. It enhances what we do. I also like it because it is something the NCWM and NIST are developing together. 

As we move forward, it will continue to require a strong partnership of our organizations. 

The relationship between the NCWM and NIST has been a concern. Both organizations have had to redefine 

themselves to some degree. There may have been occasions where we have duplicated efforts or neglected needs. 

There may have been occasions when some of our membership has been compelled to “choose sides.” I am asking 

you now to let that go. Both organizations remain committed to our respective charges. Both continue to share 

common goals. We will continue to have agreements and disagreements along the way, but we are finding ways to 

move forward together, rebuilding the partnership that has served us so well in the past. I thank Henry Oppermann 

and Wes Diggs for the role they have played in that effort. 

Another thing I remember from my first meeting was how much I admired the people who served on Standing 

Committees. They worked long hours, often into the evenings. They understood the need to put forward a quality 

agenda for the voting session. I noticed they included very difficult, sometimes political or emotional issues on the 

agenda. They welcomed stakeholders with specific agendas and members with unpopular opinions to the 

microphone. The Committee members demonstrated dedication, intelligence, patience, and a desire to get it right. 

They knew the tough issues were also important issues. 

It was all so glamorous from the outside looking in but any of us who have been there know it is difficult to listen to 

disagreements among membership, sorting through the opinions and facts to work toward the best solution. It is 

difficult to generate quality final reports to serve as an historical record of the NCWM. But it’s worth it. I 

commend all of you who give so much of yourselves to be part of that process. 

Over the years, we have endured many discussions regarding harmonization with OIML standards. Do you know 

that one of the early roadblocks to developing our system in the U.S. was the lack of a uniform measurement system 

internationally? Efforts toward harmonization are similar to our struggle for uniformity among the 50 states. We 

will never fully achieve it, but working toward the goal is a necessity if we want to improve the measurement system 

in the U.S. We will continue to strive for harmonization by considering proposals to amend our standards and 

making recommendations to modify international standards. We will continue to consider our options in the world 

arena as we participate in the development process for the Mutual Acceptance Arrangements. 

So you see, I’m not suggesting change after all. I’m not advancing a new agenda as your Chairman. My agenda 

dates back to 1905. If we look back at our successes and our failures, learn from those experiences what works and 

what doesn’t, we can apply that knowledge, and we will be successful. Let’s get back to the basics, be innovative in 

our approaches, and keep our eye on the horizon. 

GS - 10 
General Session 2005 Final Report 

What do you see when you look forward? Where do you think we need to be in terms of technology, training, and 

field enforcement? How well we predict these things and respond to them will determine the effectiveness of the 

NCWM and our level of importance in United States legal metrology. 

Part of the equation lies in computer technology. I appreciate the Board of Directors’ decision this week to address 

software in a comprehensive manner. Once again we are leaving our comfort zone. The Software Sector will draw 

new experts into our organization, increasing our abilities and broadening our resources. These particular experts 

are the future of our business and we will surely welcome them in. 

The Board of Directors and NIST WMD have committed to performing market surveys in the next year. We will 

follow the protocol established by the NCWM in 1999. Our first task will be to identify the scope of the survey. 

We have a team established per NCWM protocol and the team will proceed, reporting to the Board of Directors. 

Market surveys may be conducted for devices, for packaged commodities, or any area of weights and measures 

enforcement activity. 

The Board of Directors has heard criticism occasionally because our revolving door of leadership can easily create a 

change of priorities. This can cause issues or pet projects to go unfinished as new projects are introduced. Some 

might guess software to be my pet project. It’s not. My pet project is doing what we can to get this organization 

hitting on all cylinders. Having a group of experts assembled to assist us on software issues is part of that effort. If 

we can do that, we will succeed as a multi-functional organization and projects won’t fall through the cracks. 

Temperature compensation, stored vehicle tare weights, software-based devices... there is no lack of difficult issues, 

but think about the marketplace in 1905. Think about the technology or, if you prefer, lack of technology that 

existed at that time. Keeping up with new technology and marketing practices is our business. It’s not getting 

harder. We just struggle sometimes to fully implement the system we have. We face the same obstacles that have 

been there from the beginning, and we honor those who are committed to helping this organization overcome those 

obstacles. 

Let’s recognize those who attend, participate, and contribute their talents. Let’s be proactive in promoting our 

meetings and our agendas. Lets instill pride, the kind of pride so many of us have, into every new member who 

walks into the room. Let’s not be afraid to take on tough issues. Let’s talk to the political leaders and invite them to 

participate. Let’s work with our partners to achieve good things. 

Now, with our eyes on the horizon, I make the following appointments: 

Laws and Regulations Committee:

Stephen Benjamin, North Carolina (5) 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee: 

Brett Saum, San Luis Obispo County, California (5) 

Professional Development Committee: 

There are no vacancies on this committee this year. The committee has requested a reassignment of 

terms of its current members to provide for the traditional staggered terms for standing committee 

members. In response to that request, I am extending the following terms: 

Ken Deitzler of Pennsylvania to 2007 

Will Wotthlie of Maryland to 2010. 

By recommendation of the Associate Membership Committee, Gary Lameris will serve as the 

Associate Member to the Professional Development Committee. 

Nominating Committee:

Ross Andersen, New York 

Tom Geiler, Barnstable, Massachusetts 

Max Gray, Florida 

Steve Malone, Nebraska 

Aves Thompson, Alaska 

Jim Truex, Ohio 

Credentials Committee: 

Mark Buccelli, Minnesota (3) 

GS - 11 
General Session 2005 Final Report 

Presiding Officers:

Kristin Young, Colorado 

Bill Timmons, Massachusetts 

Steve Pedersen, Iowa 

John Junkins, West Virginia 

Parliamentarian:

Aves Thompson, Alaska 

Chaplain:

Mike Belue, Belue Associates 

Sergeants-at-Arms:

To be provided by the City of Chicago, Dept. of Consumer Services 

Board of Directors to complete Mike Cleary’s term:

Joe Gomez, New Mexico (2) 

Jim Truex, Ohio, will continue as NTEP Committee Chairman to fill the vacancy resulting from Wes 

Diggs’ retirement. Thank you, Jim, for your continued service. We are fortunate to have you. 

Thank you, each of you, who have accepted appointments for offering your time and talents to the NCWM. 

Now some personal remarks if I may: To my wife, Peggy, and our children, Phil, Mark, Tim, and Janessa, who are 

here this morning, thank you for your tolerance, thank you for being here this week, and most of all thanks for not 

changing the locks when I’m away. 

To Steve Malone and our staff back home, thank you for giving me your support to dedicate so much time to the 

NCWM. Steve, you have always seen more in me than I could see in myself. Thank you for giving me the 

confidence to stand here today and thank you for allowing me to make my own mistakes. 

It will be my honor to serve the NCWM this year. Chairman-Elect Mike Cleary and I look forward to seeing all of 

you again throughout the year as we visit the regions and continue the work of the National Conference on Weights 

and Measures. 

Thank you. 

GS - 12 
General Session 2005 Final Report 

NCWM 2005 Annual Meeting Honor Award Recipients 

Full Name Organization State No. of Years 

Steven B. Steinborn Hogan & Hartson DC 5 

Brett Gurney Utah Department of Agriculture & Food UT 5 

Steven Beitzel Systems Associates, Inc. IL 5 

Kenneth Deitzler Bureau of Ride & Measurement Standards PA 5 

Stephen Casto West Virginia Weights & Measures WV 5 

William Cobb West Virginia Weights & Measures WV 5 

Robert McGrath Boston ISD Weights & Measures MA 10 

O.R. "Pete" O'Bryan Foster Farms CA 10 

Jack Kane Montana Bureau of Weights & Measures MT 10 

Gordon W. Johnson Gilbarco, Inc. NC 15 

Gilles Vinet Measurement Canada Ontario 15 

Robert A. Reinfried Scale Manufacturers Association FL 20 

Robert G. Williams Tennessee Dept. of Agriculture W&M TN 25 

Richard L. Davis Georgia-Pacific WI 25 

Henry Oppermann NIST MD 25 

Steven Malone Nebraska Division of Weights & Measures NE 30 

GS - 13 
General Session 2005 Final Report 

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 

GS - 14 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Report of the Board of Directors 

G. Weston Diggs 

Virginia Product and Industry Standards 

Introduction 

The Board held its quarterly Board of Directors meeting on Saturday, July 9, 2005, and continued that meeting 

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

Committee invited members to dialogue with the Board on the following issues: Conformity Assessment, NCWM 

Organizational Structure, the National Training Program, Voting Procedures, Public Relations campaign and 

participation internationally, i.e., OIML, CFTM, APLMF, and USNWG. 

Table A 

Table of Contents

Subject Page 

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................1

1. NTEP Chair Position ..............................................................................................................................................2

2. The Use of Work Groups .......................................................................................................................................2

3. National Training Program Curriculum..................................................................................................................2

4. Voting Procedures..................................................................................................................................................2

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

6. Meetings.................................................................................................................................................................3

7. Conformity Assessment..........................................................................................................................................3

8. Electronic Copies of Pub 14 ...................................................................................................................................3

9. Website Revamp.....................................................................................................................................................3

10. Participation in International Standards Setting .....................................................................................................3

11. Nominating Committee ..........................................................................................................................................3

12. Future Meetings......................................................................................................................................................3

Table B 

Appendices 

Appendix Title Page 

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

Regional Legal Metrology Organizations ...........................................................................................................A1

B Minutes, NCWM Associate Membership Committee......................................................................................... B1

B-1 AMC Funds Allocations............................................................................................................................. B5

C Conformity Assessment Program Update ........................................................................................................... C1

C1 Initial Verification ...................................................................................................................................... C3 

C2 Administrative Review of Certificates of Conformance .......................................................................... C11 

C3 Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP)................................................................................. C17

BOD - 1 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

1. NTEP Chair Position 

The Board discussed the feedback received from the membership regarding a longer term for the NTEP Chair 

position. They did not get a sense of urgency from comments heard on this item. As a result, a decision was made to 

not move forward with this issue at this time. 

2. The Use of Work Groups 

Some members of the Board and NIST WMD senior staff met in May to discuss how to identify the need for and 

fund work groups. The consensus was to form a Review Panel made up of a member of the NCWM Board of 

Directors, representatives from NIST WMD, the appropriate NCWM Standing Committee chairpersons, and 

designated representatives from the Associate Membership Committee. This panel will assess all new proposals to 

NCWM standing committees put forward from the regional associations and other sources, and make 

recommendations to the standing committees regarding the best method to develop each proposal. This Review 

Panel will operate on a trial basis for all new proposals coming forward from the regions in the fall of 2005 for the 

NCWM Interim Meeting in January 2006. Recommendations may include: 

1. Assigning the proposal to an existing work group of experts for proper development, 

2. Creating a new work group of experts to develop the proposal, 

3. Returning the proposal to the source region for further development, or 

4. Completing the development of the proposal within the standing committee. 

The Board and NIST WMD will jointly address funding for work groups and recognize that some work groups may 

be able to accomplish their work through alternative means including email, telephone, web or video conferencing, 

or meeting in conjunction with other meetings. When funding is requested, there should be an identified product 

outcome and a timeline for achieving that outcome. The outcome should, at the completion of the committee’s work, 

be reported to the appropriate standing committee for action on the item by the NCWM. 

3. National Training Program Curriculum 

The Board has turned over the National Training Program Curriculum to the Professional Development Committee 

and issues will now revert to the Professional Development Committee agenda items and report. This issue will no 

longer be on the BOD’s agenda. 

4. Voting Procedures 

Reduced attendance at NCWM annual meetings in recent years due to budget constraints has caused difficulty for 

standing committees to move forward on some difficult voting issues. This prompted proposals to the Board to 

amend the voting procedures in the bylaws. The Board has heard testimony in past meetings both supporting and 

opposing such changes. The historical perspective for the current bylaws indicates that the goal is to get support for 

or against an item from a majority of the states and territories prior to adopting or rejecting a voting item. 

Hearing no feedback on this issue at the 2005 Interim Meeting, the Board withdrew the proposal. 

5. Marketplace Surveys 

There was positive feedback and interest in conducting marketplace surveys. NCWM will refer to the product 

survey protocol adopted in 1999 for the coordination of any product surveys it conducts. The Board formed a team 

in accordance with the protocol and will plan a market survey in the next year as a joint effort with NIST WMD. 

The Board believes marketplace surveys can be a useful tool for weights and measures jurisdictions. Based on 

comparisons with other jurisdictions, the data may be useful in protecting or increasing funding to a particular 

program and may be valuable in generating visibility for the value of weights and measures programs. 

BOD - 2 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

6. Meetings 

Some of the constraints that had been in place for the selection of meeting sites and facilities have been removed. 

The Board indicated that the regional rotation does not necessarily need to continue nor does the mandatory Federal 

per diem room rate. 

7. Conformity Assessment 

The work groups are continuing work on their particular charges. A presentation by each of the three task forces 

was made during the Board’s open hearings. Good progress has been made, and the Board asked the task forces to 

continue to move forward with developing the model. The current plan is to focus a pilot program on one device 

type for Initial Verification and Certificate Administrative Review. See Appendix C for complete Conformity 

Assessment update and presentations by the three task forces. 

8. Electronic Copies of Pub 14 

Some of our membership had requested the opportunity to purchase electronic copies of Pub 14 instead of the 

traditional hard copy. The Board recognized the added value electronic copies would provide our membership and 

gave staff direction to move forward with the creation of electronic copies of Pub 14. Staff completed the project 

and copies were available for sale at the Annual Meeting. Print copies will still be offered. 

9. Website Revamp 

The website revamp has been completed. The new website provides improved navigation to popular pages and more 

tools to benefit members. The regional associations were offered the opportunity to place their content as a section 

on the NCWM website, and the Central Weights and Measures Association has taken advantage of that opportunity. 

10. Participation in International Standards Setting 

The Board unanimously agreed to participate on the Committee on Participation Review, but NCWM will not sign 

the Declaration of Mutual Confidence document until it is ready to sign as a Country A with regard to R76 and R60. 

However in light of the decision by the NIST Force Group not to participate in OIML R60 testing of load cells, the 

Board is being asked to reconsider its position regarding R60. Specifically, the Board is being asked to consider 

being a “utilizing country” for R60 data since it may not be possible for a U.S. laboratory to conduct such 

evaluations. The Board has designated representatives for the Committee on Participation Review for R60 and R76. 

The Board recognized the need to involve the brick and mortar labs in the process. 

11. Nominating Committee 

The Nominating Committee submitted the following report to the NCWM Board of Directors: 

• Chairman Elect: Mike Cleary, California 

• Treasurer (one-year term): Tom Geiler, Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts 

• Active Membership/Central (five-year term): Judy Cardin, Wisconsin 

12. Future Meetings 

NCWM Annual Meetings 

2006 July 9 - 13 Chicago Marriott, Chicago, IL 

2007 July 8 - 12 Snowbird Resort, Salt Lake City, UT 

BOD - 3 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

NCWM Interim Meetings 

2006 January 22 - 25 Omni Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL 

2007 January 21 - 24 Omni Jacksonville, Jacksonville, FL 

2008 January 13 - 16 Marriott Convention Center Hotel, New Orleans, LA 

NTEP Lab & Sector Meetings 

GMM/NIR Sector Meeting: August 24 - 25, 2005, Kansas City, MO 

Weighing Sector Meeting: September 25 - 27, 2005, Columbus, OH 

Measuring Sector Meeting: October 21 - 22, 2005, Memphis, TN 

1. Membership Report 

The total NCWM membership, as of July 10, 2005, is 2510. The membership breakdown by category is: 

State Government 849 

Local Government 492 

U.S. Government 27 

Foreign Government 31 

Associate Members 844 

Foreign Associate 42 

Retirees 225 

2. Financial Report 

The Board reviewed the 2003-04 year-end audited financial report. 

Statement of Activities ending 

September 30, 2004 2004 Budget 

Revenue & Support 

Government Dues $ 93,220 $ 97,500 

Associate Dues $ 58,055 $ 61,750 

National Type Evaluation Program $435,397 $432,025 

Interim Meeting Fees $ 27,580 $ 21,750 

Annual Meeting Fees $ 68,822 $ 80,900 

Publications $ 20,274 $ 18,850 

Advertising $ 775 $ 975 

Investment Return $ 8,287 $ 7,500 

Total revenue & support $712,410 $721,250 

Expenses 

Programs 

Membership $ 12,749 $ 10,814 

National Type Evaluation Program $428,538 $431,662 

Interim Meeting $ 47,227 $ 51,056 

Annual Meeting $ 81,356 $ 95,545 

Publications $ 11,265 $ 15,601 

Newsletter $ 15,753 $ 15,315 

Total Programs $596,888 $619,993 

BOD - 4 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Management & General 

Management Fees $ 48,655 $ 48,655 

Board of Directors $ 42,075 $ 25,000 

Bank Fees $ 11,697 $ 6,400 

Website $ 10,317 $ 11,635 

Legal & Accounting $ 5,479 $ 7,225 

FMA Expense $ 4,380 $ 0 

Committee Travel $ 1,972 $ 2,500 

Insurance $ 1,854 $ 2,700 

Office Supplies $ 1,495 $ 1,200 

Telephone $ 1,246 $ 2,000 

Storage Fees $ 960 $ 960 

Printing & Duplicating $ 932 $ 1,000 

Miscellaneous $ 168 $ 0 

Postage $ 47 $ 100 

Total Management & General $131,277 $109,375 

Total Expenses $728,165 $729,368 

Change in net assets ($15,755) 

Net assets, beginning of year $622,387 

Net assets, end of year $606,632 

Assets 

Current Assets 

Cash & Cash Equivalents $197,396 

Certificates of Deposit $551,267 

Accounts Receivable $ 299 

Prepaid expenses $ 2,506 

Interest Receivable $ 5,099 

Total Assets $756,567 

Liabilities & Net Assets 

Accounts payable $ 626 

Deferred Dues Revenue $133,280 

Total Liabilities $133,906 

Net Assets 

Unrestricted $622,661 

Total liabilities and net assets $756,567 

 

G. Weston Diggs, Virginia, NCWM Chairman 

Don Onwiler, Nebraska, NCWM Chairman-Elect 

Judy Cardin, Wisconsin 

Charles Carroll, Massachusetts 

Michael Cleary, California 

Tom Geiler, Town of Barnstable, Massachusetts 

Stephen Pahl, Texas 

Michael Pinagel, Michigan 

Christopher B. Guay, Procter & Gamble Co. 

Darrell Flocken, Mettler-Toledo, Inc. 

NCWM Staff: Beth W. Palys, CAE 

NIST: Henry Oppermann 

Board of Directors 

BOD - 5 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 

BOD - 6 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix A - Report on Activities of OIML 

Appendix A 

Report on the Activities of the 

International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) 

And Regional Legal Metrology Organizations 

International Legal Metrology Group 

Weights and Measures Division, NIST 

The International Legal Metrology Group (ILMG) of the Weights and Measures Division (WMD) of the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is responsible for coordinating U.S. participation in OIML and other 

international legal metrology organizations. Learn more about OIML at the OIML website at http://www.oiml.org

and the WMD website at http://www.nist.gov/owm on the Internet. Dr. Charles Ehrlich, Group Leader of the 

ILMG, can be contacted at charles.ehrlich@nist.gov or at 301-975-4834 or by fax at 301-926-0647. 

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

Table A 

Table of Contents 

I. Report on the Activities of the OIML Technical Committees.............................................................................A1 

II. Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) on OIML Type Evaluations..............................................................A4 

III. Report on the 39th Meeting of the International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) .................................A5 

IV. Report on the 12th International Legal Metrology Conference............................................................................A5 

V. Report on the 40th Meeting of the International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) ................................A6 

VI. 11th Annual Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF) ............................................................................A7 

I. Report on the Activities of the OIML Technical Committees 

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

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

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

(IWGs) of the Committees and Subcommittees. The name in italics after the Committee or Subcommittee is the 

country responsible for secretariat activities. 

TC3 Metrological Control (United States) 

A joint work group of the OIML, the International Bureau of Weights and Measures (BIPM), and the International 

Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) developed a draft revision of OIML D1 “Elements for a Law on 

Metrology.” In early 2004, the NIST WMD reviewed the document for consistency with NIST Handbook 130. The 

revision of D1 presents the various elements that should be considered when preparing laws related to metrology. 

This document gives advice on general laws covering all the aspects of legal metrology, as well as specific laws 

related to some distinct aspects of metrology, such as legal units and traceability. OIML D1 was approved by the 

CIML in October 2004, has been published, and is available for free on the OIML website. 

TC3/SC1 “Pattern Approval and Evaluation” (United States) 

The OIML documents D19 “Pattern evaluation and pattern approval” and D20 “Initial and subsequent verification 

of measuring instruments and processes” have not been revised in over fifteen years. The subcommittee has 

approved the U.S. proposal for a combined revision of OIML D19 and D20 into a single document “Principles of 

metrological control of measuring instruments: type approval and verification.” Key elements of OIML D3 “Legal 

Qualification of Measuring Instruments,” R34 “Accuracy Classes of Measuring Instruments,” and R42 “Metal 

Stamps for Verification Officers” will also be incorporated into the combined revision of OIML D19 and D20. 

BOD - A1 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix A - Report on Activities of OIML 

The revised documents will incorporate recent developments such as the OIML certificate system, D27 “Initial 

verification of measuring instruments utilizing the manufacturer's quality management system,” and the 

“Framework for a mutual acceptance arrangement (MAA) on OIML type evaluations.” Consideration will be given 

to the appropriate conformity assessment options developed by the International Organization for Standardization 

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

certification, and accreditation. Consideration needs to be given as well to information technology and statistical 

methods to increase or decrease verification intervals based upon proven instrument performance. For more 

information on this activity, contact Dr. Ambler Thompson at 301-975-2333 or at ambler@nist.gov. 

TC5/SC1 Electronic Instruments (Netherlands) 

The final Draft Document of D11 "General Requirements for Electronic Measuring Instruments" was approved by 

CIML postal ballot in 2004 and has been published. This is an especially important document in the OIML system 

because its testing requirements will become general guidance for all OIML Recommendations for electronic 

measuring instruments. 

TC5/SC2 Software (Germany and France)

In May 2004, all OIML TCs and SCs that are currently revising an OIML Recommendation were contacted to 

ensure that software aspects are considered in revised Recommendations. All OIML Documents and 

Recommendations published since 1990 are being reviewed for terms and requirements related to software. A predraft of the document “Software in Legal Metrology” was circulated in October 2004 by the Secretariat. When 

complete, the document will serve as guidance for technical committees addressing software requirements in 

Recommendations for software-controlled instruments. The ILMG submitted U.S. comments on the pre-draft in 

February 2005, and the next draft is expected late in 2005. Please contact Wayne Stiefel at 301-975-4011 or by 

email at stiefel@nist.gov if you would like to participate in this project. Please see 

http://ts.nist.gov/ts/htdocs/230/235/TC5-SC2.htm to review the documents. 

TC8/SC1 “Static Volume Measurement” (Austria) 

The Secretariat submitted 1st CD revisions in January 2005 for OIML R71 “Fixed Storage Tanks,” R80 “Road and 

Rail Tankers,” and R85 “Automatic Level Gages for Measuring the Level of Liquid in Fixed Storage Tanks.” U.S. 

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

April 2005. The Secretariat held a subcommittee meeting in April 2005 in Vienna, Austria. Another meeting of the 

subcommittee is scheduled for October 2005. Please contact Wayne Stiefel at 301-975-4011 or at stiefel@nist.gov

if you would like copies of the documents or to participate in these projects. 

TC8/SC3 “Measuring Instruments for Liquids other than Water.” (Germany) and TC8/SC4 “Dynamic Mass 

Measurements (Liquids other than Water)” (United States)

OIML R117 “Measuring Instruments for Liquids other than Water” is undergoing an extensive revision, 

incorporating new instrument technologies and merging the document with OIML Recommendations R86 “Drum 

Meters” and R105 “Mass Flowmeters.” This is a high priority project for OIML. ILMG is working with the U.S. 

National Work Group on flowmeters, Germany, and the Netherlands on this effort. Meetings of the U.S. National 

Work Group on flowmeters were held during the NCWM Annual Meeting in July 2004 in Pittsburgh, the NCWM 

Interim Meeting in January 2005 in Santa Monica, and the NCWM Annual Meeting in July 2005 in Orlando. 

Measurement Canada has been a strong contributor to this effort. A 2nd CD of R117 was circulated to the two 

international subcommittees and received over 90 % international “yes” votes in July 2004. The Draft 

Recommendation (DR) will be circulated to OIML member nations in the late summer of 2005 with an objective of 

receiving full CIML approval on R117 in 2006. If you have questions or would like to become involved in this 

effort, please contact Mr. Ralph Richter by email at ralph.richter@nist.gov or at 301-975-4025. 

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

The Secretariat circulated a 3rd CD of the Recommendation “Measuring Systems for Compressed Natural Gas 

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

April 2003 the United States cast a negative ballot on the 3rd CD because the testing requirements were unrealistic. 

A 4th CD is being prepared by the Secretariat. 

BOD - A2 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix A - Report on Activities of OIML 

A ballot was circulated on the 3rd CD “Measuring Systems for Gaseous Fuel” in March 2004. This Recommendation 

is intended for large pipelines with large flow rates and high operating pressures, or systems not fitted with 

diaphragm gas meters. Different types of measuring systems are covered by the Recommendation: measuring 

systems providing indications of volume at base conditions or mass converted from a volume of gas determined at 

metering conditions, measuring systems providing directly the mass of gas, and measuring systems providing 

indication of energy corresponding to a volume at base conditions or a mass of gas. Based on a review of the 3rd CD 

and its requirements, the United States voted “no” in June 2004; comments were sent to the Secretariat 

recommending that several sections needed clarification, that the test report procedure be improved to better define 

flow conditions for improved meter measurement, and that severity levels be changed in the electrostatic discharge 

test. A 4th CD was received from the Secretariat and comments are due in November 2005. Please contact Wayne 

Stiefel at 301-975-4011 or at stiefel@nist.gov if you would like to obtain a copy of these documents or to participate 

in these projects. 

TC8/SC8 “Gas Meters” (Netherlands) 

Based on a poll of subcommittee members, R6 “General provisions for gas volume meters,” R31 “Diaphragm Gas 

Meters”, and R32 “Rotary Piston Gas Meters and Turbine Gas Meters” have been revised and combined into a 

single Recommendation. The Secretariat circulated a 2nd CD of this document, and U.S. comments were returned in 

March 2005. A subcommittee meeting to discuss the document was held in June 2005 in the Netherlands. Please 

contact Wayne Stiefel at 301-975-4011 or at stiefel@nist.gov if you would like to participate in this project. 

 

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

The current review cycle of R76 “Non-automatic Weighing Instruments” is of major importance to U.S. interests 

because the Recommendation serves as the foundation for a majority of the laws and regulations that governs 

weighing instruments around the world. This review is significant for U.S. weighing instrument manufacturers 

because international harmonization of requirements would eliminate technical barriers to trade and reduce the 

delays and the cost of getting new weighing instruments into the global marketplace. It is also important for legal 

metrology officials since it is taking place when the NCWM is considering its participation in the OIML Mutual 

Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) for type evaluations with other countries. The United States returned comments 

on the first working draft of the revised R76 in April 2004. This draft included new language addressing 

metrological controls for type evaluations, conformity, and initial and subsequent inspections. A first committee 

draft was circulated to the USNWG, and a U.S. response with comments was sent to the Secretariat in April 2005. 

The USNWG held a meeting in July 2005 and is being consulted concerning proposals to harmonize Handbook 44 

and R76. If you would like to participate in this effort, please contact Steve Cook at 301-975-4003 or

steven.cook@nist.gov. 

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

The Recommendation R134-1 “Automatic Instruments for Weighing Road Vehicles in Motion – Total Load and 

Axle Weighing” is out for final vote. If approved, the document should be published in early 2006. If you would 

like to receive a copy of this document, please contact Richard Harshman at 301-975-8107 or harshman@nist.gov. 

TC17/SC1 “Humidity” (China) 

The Secretariat is working closely with the United States and a small international work group (IWG) to revise 

OIML R59 "Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds.” The Secretariat distributed a first committee draft to 

the IWG in May 2003. All drafts have been distributed to the U.S. National Work Group, which for the most part is 

a subset of the NTEP Grain Sector. In October 2003 China hosted a meeting of the TC17/SC1 subcommittee in 

Beijing to review and discuss this revised document. A second committee draft that incorporated U.S. comments 

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

resolve conflicts on the document. U.S. comments on the 3d

 CD of R59 were returned to the Secretariat in 

July 2005. Please contact Diane Lee at 301-975-4405 or at diane.lee@nist.gov if you would like to participate in 

this work group. 

TC17/SC8 “Quality Analysis of Agricultural Products” (Australia) 

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

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

group meeting was held in May 2004 in Sydney. A second working draft of this document was received in August 

2004, and a third working draft was received in May 2005. A work group meeting was held in June 2005 in Berlin 

BOD - A3 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix A - Report on Activities of OIML 

to discuss the latest round of comments on the third working draft. Please contact Diane Lee at 301-975-4405 or at 

diane.lee@nist.gov if you would like to participate in this working group. 

II. Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) on OIML Type Evaluations 

The OIML MAA has now entered the implementation phase. The first “provisional” Committee on Participation 

Review (CPR) has been established for OIML R60 (Load Cells) and R76 (Non-automatic Weighing Instruments). 

The CPR is being called ‘provisional’ to reflect the fact that the participants are under no obligation to sign either of 

the Declarations of Mutual Confidence (DoMCs) that are expected to result. 

The first meeting of the CPR was held June 15 and 16, 2005, in Lyon, France, in conjunction with the 40th CIML 

Meeting and the 50th Anniversary Celebration of OIML. Mr. Stephen Patoray represented the NCWM, Mr. Steve 

Cook represented the Secretariat of OIML TC9 responsible for OIML R60, and Dr. Charles Ehrlich represented the 

Secretariat for OIML TC3/SC5 responsible for the MAA. Twenty-one countries had representatives at the meeting, 

with nine of the countries indicating interest in participating as an ‘Issuing Participant’ for at least one of the two 

DoMCs. (An ‘Issuing Participant’ is one that performs tests and issues certificates under the DoMC.) The CPR 

reviewed the application files of the nine countries wishing to be Issuing Participants and decided that two of the 

countries needed to have peer reviews conducted. (For reasons of confidentiality, no countries are being identified 

by name until the DoMC is signed.) A training course for peer review auditors will be held in September 2005 in 

Paris, and the peer reviews are expected to be completed by January 2006. Signing of the DoMCs for R60 and R76 

is tentatively set for early 2006, shortly after the second CPR meeting to be held in February 2006. At that time 

countries who do not sign at least one of the DoMCs will no longer be members of the CPR (the CPR will then no 

longer be ‘provisional’). It was proposed that countries may subsequently apply to join the CPR during two 

specified periods per year. (The CIML will be voting on this.). 

Also at the first CPR meeting a draft ‘Operating Rules for CPRs’ was discussed, and it was agreed among CPR 

members that an 80 % voting rule would apply, with no more than one negative vote from an ‘Issuing Participant’. 

The ‘Operating Rules’, containing this proposal and others, will be put forward to the CIML for postal vote. A draft 

implementation document on using ISO/IEC 17025 (requirements for testing laboratories), to be used for conducting 

the legal metrology audits, was also discussed. Another implementation document on ISO Guide 65 (requirements 

for issuing authorities) was circulated to the CPR for comment after the meeting. These implementation documents 

will ultimately be distributed as Working Drafts to OIML TC3/SC5 to be developed as OIML Documents. 

The NCWM Board of Directors (BOD) had indicated to the BIML its desire to participate on the CPR, primarily to 

help answer many of the NCWM’s questions and concerns, and realized that many details regarding the 

implementation of the MAA will be developed through discussions of the CPR. The NCWM also indicated to the 

BIML that the NCWM anticipates it will sign a DoMC only when it is prepared to do so as an OIML Issuing 

Authority that issues test data and OIML Certificates under the MAA (i.e., as an Issuing Participant). The BIML 

allowed the NCWM to participate on the provisional CPR under this arrangement. The United States is for now 

considered by the BIML as a country that will not issue OIML Certificates under the MAA but rather might in the 

future utilize those issued by other countries (a ‘Utilizing Participant’). This arrangement could change as 

negotiations continue and the CPR discussions advance. At their July 2005 Annual Meeting in Orlando, the Board 

began considering whether NCWM should be a Utilizing Participant for R60 since all of the necessary load cell 

testing capability in the United States is not available. A final decision is anticipated at the January 2006 Interim 

Meeting in Jacksonville. 

At their meeting in Berlin in 2004, the CIML instructed OIML TC3/SC5 to start revising both publication B10-1 

(MAA) and publication B3, “OIML Certificate System for Measuring Instruments” after some experience with the 

MAA has been gained. Further implementation of the MAA may require that other detailed regulations be 

developed. 

For further information on the MAA and its implementation, please contact Dr. Charles Ehrlich at 

charles.ehrlich@nist.gov or at 301-975-4834 or by fax at 301- 975-5414. 

BOD - A4 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix A - Report on Activities of OIML 

III. Report on the 39th Meeting of the International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) 

(held October 2004) 

Representatives from 54 of the 59 member nations participated in the 39th Annual Meeting of the CIML in 

November 2004 in Berlin. Dr. Charles Ehrlich, the CIML Member for the United States, led the U.S. delegation. 

The delegation also included Dr. Richard Kayser, NIST Acting Deputy Director; Mr. Henry Oppermann, Chief of 

the NIST Weights and Measures Division; Dr. Claire Saundry, Chief of the NIST International Affairs Office; Mr. 

Stephen Patoray, Director of the U.S. National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) of the National Conference on 

Weights and Measures (NCWM); and Dr. Jane Cowley, Office of Technical Specialized Agencies, Bureau for 

International Organization Affairs, U.S. Department of State. 

Work of the TCs/SCs 

The CIML approved the following International Documents and one International Recommendation: 

• Revision of D1 Elements for a law on metrology; 

• Revision of D9 Principles of metrological supervision; 

• Revision of D11 General requirements for electronic measuring instruments; 

• Revision of D14 Training of legal metrology personnel - Qualification - Training programs; 

• Combined Revision of D6/D8 Measurement Standards - Requirements and Documentation; 

• New D28 Conventional value of the result of weighing in air (reclassification of R 33); and 

• R111-2 Weights of classes E1, E2, F1, F2, M1, M1-2, M2, M2-3 and M3. Part 2: Test Report Format 

(Edition 2004). 

The Committee approved the assignment of the Secretariat of TC6 “Prepackaged products” to South Africa and the 

Secretariat of TC9/SC3 “Weights” to Germany. It was noted that Germany wishes to relinquish the Secretariat of 

TC12 “Instruments for measuring electrical quantities.” 

The Committee approved two new working projects: 

• Revision of R99/ISO 3930 Instruments for measuring vehicle exhaust emissions as jointly proposed by 

TC16/SC1 and ISO TC22/SC5; 

• New Recommendation on Clinical infrared ear thermometers as proposed by TC 18/SC2. 

CIML Presidency 

The Committee elected Mr. Alan E. Johnston (CIML Member for Canada) as its President for the next six years, 

effective at the opening of the 40th CIML Meeting in June 2005. The Committee was unable to elect a First Vice 

President because the required majority of votes was not obtained. Prof. Kochsiek (of Germany) agreed to continue 

his role as CIML First Vice President until the election of a new First Vice President at the 40th CIML Meeting. 

IV. Report on the 12th International Legal Metrology Conference 

Representatives from 54 of the 59 member nations participated in the 12th International Legal Metrology Conference 

from October 26-29, 2004, in Berlin. This Conference is held only once every four years. Members of the U.S. 

delegation to the Conference are listed in the CIML section (above) in this report. 

Work of the TCs/SCs 

The Conference formally sanctioned those new or revised Recommendations already approved by the CIML since 

the 11th Conference in 2000. 

Recommendations approved in 2001: 

• R16-1 Mechanical non-invasive sphygmomanometers (Edition 2002) 

• R16-2 Non-invasive automated sphygmomanometers (Edition 2002) 

BOD - A5 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix A - Report on Activities of OIML 

• R75-1 Heat meters. Part 1: General requirements (Edition 2002) 

• R75-2 Heat meters. Part 2: Type approval tests (Edition 2002) 

• R133 Liquid-in-glass thermometers (Edition 2002) 

Recommendations approved in 2002: 

• R84 Platinum, copper, and nickel resistance thermometers (for industrial and commercial use)(Edition 

2003) 

• R134-1 Automatic instruments for weighing road vehicles in motion. Total vehicle weighing (Edition 

2003) 

Recommendations approved in 2003: 

• R48 Tungsten ribbon lamps for the calibration of radiation thermometers (Edition 2004) 

• R49-1 Water meters intended for the metering of cold potable water. Part 1: Metrological and technical 

requirements (Edition 2003) 

• R49-2 Water meters intended for the metering of cold potable water. Part 2: Test methods (Edition 2004) 

• R52 Hexagonal weights - Metrological and technical requirements (Edition 2004) 

• R61-1 Automatic gravimetric filling instruments. Part 1: Metrological and technical requirements – Tests 

(Edition 2004) 

• R87 Quantity of product in prepackages (Edition 2004) 

• R135 Spectrophotometers for medical laboratories (Edition 2004) Recommendation approved in 2004 by 

CIML postal approval 

• R111-1 Weights of classes E1, E2, F1, F2, M1, M1-2, M2, M2-3 and M3 Part 1: Metrological and technical 

requirements (Edition 2004) 

One Draft Recommendation, R136 Instruments for measuring the area of leathers, was directly sanctioned by the 

Conference. 

OIML Recommendations R33 Conventional value of the result of weighing in air (Revised as D28) and R62 

Performance characteristics of metallic resistance strain gauges were withdrawn. The Conference decided that 

OIML Test Report Formats, which are of an informative nature and concern the implementation of the 

Recommendation in national regulations, shall be approved by the CIML according to the rules applicable to 

International Documents without having to be sanctioned by the Conference. 

OIML Publications – Now Available Without Cost 

The conference approved a proposal to make all OIML publications, except those which are published jointly with 

other organizations, available free of charge in electronic format on the OIML website and to cease publishing 

Recommendations in paper format. 

Administrative and Financial Matters

The conference adopted the Budget for the Financial Period 2005-2008; it represents a zero-real-growth increase 

(2 %) over the previous financial period. No Member State offered to host the 13th International Legal Metrology 

Conference (to be held in 2008). It was decided that the BIML will ‘host’ the 13th Conference in France if no other 

country steps forward. 

V. Report on the 40th Meeting of the International Committee of Legal Metrology (CIML) 

(held June 2005) 

The 40th CIML meeting was held in conjunction with the 12th International Metrology Congress, 

June 18 - 20, 2005, in Lyon, France. Representatives from 52 OIML member states participated in the meeting that 

also included a celebration of the 50th Anniversary of OIML. 

BOD - A6 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix A - Report on Activities of OIML 

Opening addresses at the meeting were given by both the (outgoing) Acting CIML President Manfred Kochsiek 

(Germany) and the recently-elected CIML President Alan Johnston (Canada). Discussions at the meeting included 

concerns on implementing new financial regulations at the BIML, activities of the Presidential Council, and the 

OIML long-term strategy and action plan. A report was given on the activities of the Permanent Work Group on 

Developing Countries. Dr. Steven Carpenter, Director of the NIST Office of International and Academic Affairs, 

represented the United States on the work group. Reports were also given by representatives of several liaison 

organizations (such as BIPM and ISO) and several Regional Legal Metrology Organizations (such as SIM and 

APLMF). 

The BIML Director gave a presentation on the organization and activities of the Bureau. Another presentation 

concerned efforts of the BIML to improve communication, coordinate the production of OIML publications, and 

improve the OIML web site. 

Technical Activities: 

The Committee decided: 

• to disband and discontinue the work of TC 10/SC 6 Strain gauges, 

• to merge TC8/SC1 Static volume measurement and TC8/SC2 Static mass measurement under the Cosecretariat of Austria and Germany with title TC8/SC1 Static volume and mass measurement, (disbanding 

the old TC8/SC2), 

• to allocate the Secretariat of TC10/SC3 Barometers to China, 

• to withdraw the following work projects: 

- TC7/SC1: p 1 revision R 30 End standards of length (gauge blocks), 

- TC10/SC4: p 2 Requirements for force measuring instruments for verifying material testing machines 

in favor of the utilization of ISO 376, 

- TC17/SC6: p 1 Calibration procedure for mine methanometers and p 2 Procedure for calibration of 

alarms of combustible gazes and vapors. 

The Committee approved the proposal from TC3/SC5 to use the Guides for the application of ISO 17025 and Guide 

65 drawn up by the CPR on R60 and R76 as a first Working Draft and to proceed following the Directives for 

Technical Work. The Committee authorized the Bureau, together with the TC4 Secretariat (Slovakia), to decide 

together with ILAC on the best way of publishing the revised D10 Recalibration intervals for measuring equipment 

used in testing laboratories. The Committee instructed the Bureau to organize a meeting with the Secretariats of 

TC8/SC7 and TC8/SC8 (Gas Meters) and to redefine the scope of these Subcommittees’ projects so as to avoid 

unnecessary discrepancies and the duplication of work. 

The Committee took note of a report presented by Mrs. Gaucher, MAA Project Leader at the BIML, showing the 

progress in the implementation of the MAA and the outcome of the first CPR Meeting. [Details on the MAA and 

the CPR are given in the MAA section of this report.]

The Committee elected Mr. Stuart Carstens (South Africa) for a six-year term as First Vice President. He will take 

over his duties immediately. Prof. Kochsiek (Germany) will remain Vice President until the 41st CIML Meeting in 

2006. The Committee approved the renewal of the contract of Mr. Magaña as BIML Director from January 1, 2006, 

to December 31, 2010. A new Assistant Director will be appointed in 2007, and a selection committee for that 

position was chosen; Dr. Ehrlich is on the selection committee. 

Future CIML Meetings 

The 41st CIML Meeting will be hosted by South Africa in Capetown in October 2006. The Committee noted that 

the People’s Republic of China was considering inviting the CIML to hold its 42nd Meeting in China in October 

2007. A decision on this will be made at the 41st CIML Meeting. 

VI. 11th Annual Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF) 

The 11th Annual Meeting and Work Group meetings of the Asia-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF) were 

held October 6 - 8, 2004, in San Diego, CA. As host, the United States was represented by Dr. Charles Ehrlich, Mr. 

Henry Oppermann, and Mr. Wayne Stiefel of NIST, Mr. Michael Cleary, California Division of Measurement 

BOD - A7 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix A - Report on Activities of OIML 

Standards, Mr. Chris Guay, Procter and Gamble Company, and Ms. Kathleen Thuner, Commissioner and Sealer of 

Weights and Measures for San Diego County. Ms. Thuner’s staff graciously provided logistical support. The 

meetings were attended by more than 50 delegates from 18 member countries. There are presently 26 member 

economies, 20 full members and 6 corresponding members in the Forum. 

Mr. Guay provided a special host economy presentation on “International and Regional Labeling Requirements: 

Local Control at what Local Cost” that explored the difficulties encountered by consumer product packagers when 

exporting into multiple countries. Issues discussed included different consumer product regulations, units of 

measure, expression of units, language requirements, regulated package sizes vs. unit pricing, and enforcement 

policies and practices. The need to reduce barriers through use of international guidelines and standards, 

harmonization of requirements, and mutual recognition of capabilities was emphasized. 

The President of APLMF is Dr. Akira Ooiwa, who is Director of the Mechanical Metrology Division at the National 

Metrology Institute of Japan. Japan has agreed to continue serving as Secretariat until next year, but a new 

Secretariat is being sought. The Forum currently has seven active work groups: (1) Training chaired by Australia, 

(2) Prepackaged Goods chaired by New Zealand, (3) Mutual Acceptance Arrangements chaired by United States, 

(4) Utility Meters chaired by Canada, (5) Medical Measurements chaired by Chinese Taipei, and (6) Rice Moisture 

Measurements chaired by Japan. A new work group (7) on Traceability in Legal Metrology is being started by 

Japan. All of these work groups held meetings in San Diego. 

The main activity of the APLMF has been to conduct regional training. Training on developing legislation for the 

implementation of OIML R87 (Prepackages) was held in Malaysia in July 2004. The training was conducted by 

New Zealand. A Seminar on Sphygmomanometers was held in Chinese Taipei from August 30 - September 5, 2004. 

Guest speakers from the United States and Germany provided most of the training. A training session on the 

verification of non-automatic weighing instruments is planned for November 2004 in Shanghai with trainers from 

the Peoples Republic of China and Australia. Training on electricity meters is scheduled for late 2004 in Vietnam, 

with Canada to provide the training. Mr. Cleary indicated that California might be able to provide training on CNG. 

The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has been asked to provide a training session on medical thermometers. 

Malaysia will host the 2005 APLMF meeting in Kuala, Lampur, November 23 - 25, 2005. Please contact Dr. 

Ehrlich for details at charles.ehrlich@nist.gov or at 301-975-4834 or by fax at 301-926-0647. 

BOD - A8 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix B – AMC Minutes 

Appendix B 

NCWM Associate Membership Committee Minutes 

July 11, 2005 

The following individuals were in attendance: 

Mark Galletta Nestlé USA mark.galletta@us.nestle.com 

Gary Lameris Hobart gary.lameris@hobartcorp.com 

Stephen Langford Cardinal Scale slangford@cardet.com 

Paul Lewis Rice Lake paulew@rlws.com 

Vince Orr ConAgra Foods vince.orr@conagrafoods.com 

Chris Guay Procter & Gamble guay.cb@pg.com 

Bill Sveum Kraft Foods wsveum@kraft.com 

Gale Prince Kroger gale.prince@kroger.com 

Krister Hardaf Segerstad IKEA krister@memo.ikea.com 

Zina Juroch Pier 1 Imports zmjuroch@pier1.com 

Richard Davis Georgia Pacific richard.davis@gapac.com 

Darrell Flocken Mettler-Toledo darrell.flocken@mt.com 

Pete O’Bryan Foster Farms obryanp@fosterfarms.com 

Steve Steinborn Hogan & Hartson sbsteinborn@hhlaw.com 

Carolyn Hall Foster Farms hallcd@fosterfarms.com 

Michael Kelley Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. mkelly1@wal-mart.com 

Bob Murnane Seraphin Test Measures rmurnane@pemfab.com 

Louis Straub Fairbanks Scales lou.e.straub@fancor.com 

Beth Palys NCWM Headquarters 

Chairman Galletta called the meeting to order at 12:05 pm. 

The minutes from the January 23, 2005, meeting, included as Appendix B in the NCWM Board of Directors report 

in NCWM Publication 16, were reviewed. Gary Lameris asked that the spreadsheet referred to in the minutes be 

included as part of the minutes. With this addition, the minutes were approved. 

Financial Condition

Chairman Galletta reviewed the financial condition of the AMC stating that nine thousand dollars had been used to 

aid in the development of the NCWM website and that ten thousand dollars was reserved for support of the special 

event. Payment of the training requests for Washington and Arizona Weights and Measures had been made. The 

fund had a balance of $18,810.47 as of June 30, 2005, before any deduction for the special event. 

Board of Directors Report

Darrell Flocken, the AMC representative on the NCWM Board of Directors, gave a report about Board activities: 

• The Board of Directors is developing a Review Panel. This panel will act as a support group to the 

conference standing committees by reviewing new items. Don Onweiler and Henry Oppermann will make 

a presentation during this meeting to review the goals of this panel. The panel is made up of one Board of 

Directors member, a technical advisor from NIST WMD, the chair of the standing committees and industry 

experts in the field of scales, LMD, and packaging. The Board of Directors requests the AMC provide 

names for the three industry experts. The panel may also call upon other industry experts as the need 

arises. 

BOD - B1 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix B – AMC Minutes 

• The AMC needs to recommend an associate member representative for the Professional Development 

Committee. 

• Henry Oppermann, Chief of NIST WMD, retired effective July 1st of this year. NIST is planning on 

seeking a replacement for him and will be posting the position both internally and externally. NIST 

management hopes to name Henry’s replacement by January 2006, but is not certain that this can be 

accomplished in this relatively short period of time. In the meantime, NIST will use department leaders on 

a rotating basis to perform Henry’s duties. Tina Butcher will perform this role during July, Georgia Harris 

will do it in August, Chuck Erlich in September, and Ken Butcher in October. Four NCWM Board of 

Directors met with Belinda Collins of NIST to provide information on what characteristics Henry’s 

replacement should have in order to ensure that the NCWM/NIST relationship continues to develop. 

• The Board of Directors is reviewing a new NCWM budget for the next fiscal year. This budget includes an 

increase in NTEP Certificate of Conformance maintenance fees of ten dollars (from $145 to $155 per certificate), 

an increase of $10 in membership dues (from $65 to $75) and an increase in annual meeting registration of $50 

(from $250 to $300). Chair-elect Don Onweiler stated that the conference has operated in the red for the last 

three years and that these increases will result in a projected profit of $7,648. 

• Management Solutions has added Judy Markoe to their staff to work on public relation efforts to increase 

the membership of the NCWM. There will be no addition to management fees for this work. 

• There have been additional discussions regarding changing the voting policy of the conference but there is 

no support for these changes from the Board of Directors at this time. This item will be dropped from the 

Board’s agenda. 

• The Board of Directors extends its thanks and appreciation to the AMC for the funds allocated to the new 

website. This new website is up and running with some cleanup and tweaking remaining to be completed. 

(There have been reports of large white areas in the screens when viewing the site. If you experience this, 

you should advise Management Solutions and include your hardware type, browser type and revision so 

that the problem may be resolved.) 

• The 2007 annual meeting will take place on July 8 - 12 at Snowbird Resort in Salt Lake City, Utah. The 

2008 Interim Meeting of the NCWM will be held in New Orleans from January 13 - 16. 

• The NCWM and NIST WMD are developing the next steps in a market survey plan. Don Onweiler will 

speak on this topic on Tuesday and may appoint a team to develop a plan for the survey. 

• There has been a small decrease in some segments of NCWM membership but the Board feels that this is 

close to a turnaround in membership and that they expect it to grow in the future. 

NCWM Website

Beth Palys of Management Solutions reported that the new NCWM website came online last week and that they are 

accepting feedback about the site content and operation. The site will undergo further development and refinement. 

The AMC listserve will be activated at the conclusion of this meeting. If you experience problems with the 

operation of the site, please report your problem to Management Solutions personnel. 

Elections and Appointments

• Vince Orr was elected as the new Secretary for the AMC 

• Gary Lameris was elected as the recommended associate member representative on the Professional 

Development Committee 

• Lou Straub was appointed as the scale expert to the new Review Panel 

• Gordon Johnson was appointed as the LMD expert to the new Review Panel 

• Mark Galletta was appointed as the packaging expert to the new Review Panel 

BOD - B2 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix B – AMC Minutes 

Training Requests

Mark Galletta will draft a new procedure for reviewing training requests and forward it to committee members for 

review and comment. 

New Business

Vince Orr proposed a technical roundtable discussion for next year’s meeting. He suggested a topic on Net Content 

Control to provide specific information to NCWM membership in this area. He indicated that he will ask the 

Professional Development Committee to help sponsor it. The panel will consist of at least three industry 

representatives, one legal representative, and two weights and measures representatives. The discussion should take 

about 2 hours. This should be more fully developed by the NCWM Interim Meeting. 

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 12:55 pm. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Stephen Langford 

Secretary/Treasurer, AMC 

BOD - B3 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix B – AMC Minutes 

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 

BOD - B4 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix B1 – AMC Funds Allocations 

Appendix B1 

AMC Funds Allocations 

BOD - B5 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTEP - Conformity Assessment Program Update 

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 

BOD - B6 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTEP - Conformity Assessment Program Update 

Appendix C 

NTEP - Conformity Assessment Program (CAP) Update 

During the NCWM Annual Meeting held July 9 - 14, 2005, in Orlando, FL, the chairs of the three work groups for 

the Conformity Assessment Program (CAP) gave a presentation to the NCWM Board during their work session and 

again to the NCWM membership during the open hearings. Presenting were: Don Onwiler, Administrative Review 

of NTEP CC's; Lou Straub, Initial Verification (IV); and Mark Knowles, Verified Conformity Assessment Program 

(VCAP). Each chairman used a prepared PowerPoint presentation while narrating the details related to each slide. 

The presentations were well received by both the Board and general membership. After the presentation, questions 

from the floor were answered by the respective chairs. 

The presentations as they were given at the meeting are included in this Appendix. It was evident after the 

presentation that additional work is still needed to answer all of the remaining questions regarding the details needed 

to implement each of these sections of the overall program. In some cases the work groups will meet in an attempt to 

answer these questions. In the case of the IV work group, a pilot of the IV Program on small-capacity computing 

scales is planned in order to gain insight where additional information may be needed and how data may best be 

handled. 

Once these questions have been answered by the work groups, the NCWM Board and NTEP Committee may also 

have additional work to address any changes or clarifications to the exiting policy before the full program is 

implemented. 

BOD - C1 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C – NTEP - Conformity Assessment Program Update 

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 

BOD - C2 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C1 – Initial Verification 

Appendix C1 

Initial Verification 

1 

2 

BOD - C3 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C1 – Initial Verification 

3 

4 

BOD - C4 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C1 – Initial Verification 

5 

6 

BOD - C5 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C1 – Initial Verification 

7 

8 

BOD - C6 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C1 – Initial Verification 

9 

10 

BOD - C7 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C1 – Initial Verification 

11 

12 

BOD - C8 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C1 – Initial Verification 

13 

14 

BOD - C9 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C1 – Initial Verification 

15 

16 

BOD - C10 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C2 – Administrative Review of CCs 

Appendix C2 

Administrative Review of Certificates of Conformance 

1 

2 

BOD - C11 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C2 – Administrative Review of CCs 

3 

4 

BOD - C12 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C2 – Administrative Review of CCs 

5 

6 

BOD - C13 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C2 – Administrative Review of CCs 

7 

8 

BOD - C14 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C2 – Administrative Review of CCs 

9 

10 

BOD - C15 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C2 – Administrative Review of CCs 

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK 

BOD - C16 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C3 – Verified Conformity Assessment Program 

Appendix C3 

Verified Conformity Assessment Program (VCAP) 

1 

2 

BOD - C17 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C3 – Verified Conformity Assessment Program 

3 

4 

BOD - C18 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C3 – Verified Conformity Assessment Program 

5 

6 

BOD - C19 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C3 – Verified Conformity Assessment Program 

7 

8 

BOD - C20 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C3 – Verified Conformity Assessment Program 

9 

10 

BOD - C21 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C3 – Verified Conformity Assessment Program 

11 

12 

BOD - C22 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C3 – Verified Conformity Assessment Program 

13 

BOD - C23 
BOD 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C3 – Verified Conformity Assessment Program 

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 

BOD - C24 
L&R Committee 2005 Final Report 

Report of the Laws and Regulations Committee 

Joe Gomez, Chairman 

New Mexico Weights and Measures 

Reference 

Key Number 

200 INTRODUCTION 

This is the report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations (hereinafter referred to as “Committee”) for the 90th

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Items marked with a “D” after the key numbers are developing issues. The developing designation indicates an item 

has merit; however, the item is returned to the submitter for further development before any action is taken at the 

national level. Items marked “W” have been withdrawn from consideration. Table B lists the appendices to the 

report, and Table C provides a summary of the results of the voting on the Committee’s items and the report in 

entirety. 

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

Handbook 130, 2002 Edition, “Uniform Laws and Regulations,” or NIST Handbook 133, “Checking the Net 

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

by striking out information to be deleted and underlining information to be added. New items proposed for the 

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

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

Subject Series 

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................... 200 Series 

NIST Handbook 130 - General ...................................................................................................................... 210 Series 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L&R - 1 
L&R Committee 2005 Final Report 

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items 

Ref. Key No. Title of Item Page 

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

221 UNIFORM WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW......................................................................................3

221-1 V Update Terminology .........................................................................................................................3

232 METHOD OF SALE REGULATION.........................................................................................................6

232-1 D Temperature Compensation for Petroleum Products ........................................................................6

234 UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION OF 

SERVICEPERSONS AND SERVICE AGENCIES...................................................................................7

234-1 V Update Terminology .........................................................................................................................7

237 ENGINE FUELS, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, AND AUTOMOTIVE LUBRICANTS 

REGULATION............................................................................................................................................10

237-1 V Biodiesel Fuel Identification and Labeling .....................................................................................10

237-2 I Premium Diesel Lubricity...............................................................................................................12

260 NIST HANDBOOK 133, CHECKING THE NET CONTENTs OF PACKAGED GOODS................13

260-1 W Amend § 2.3 Basic Test Procedure, and Table 2-5 .........................................................................13

260-2 W Amend § 3.11 and MAV Table 2-10...............................................................................................14

260-3 W Make MAV Tables More Uniform .................................................................................................15

270 OTHER ITEMS...........................................................................................................................................15

270-1 W Tare on Case-Ready Packages of Meat...........................................................................................15

Table B 

Appendices 

Appendix Title Page 

A Sample List of Documentary Standards for Item 221-1 ......................................................................................A1

L&R - 2 
L&R Committee 2005 Final Report 

Table C 

Voting Results 

House of State Representatives House of Delegates Reference Key Number 

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays 

Results 

221-1 33 5 23 7 Item Passed 

234-1 36 1 33 0 Item Passed 

237-1 37 0 38 0 Item Passed 

200 - Entire Committee 

Report 37 0 38 0 Report Accepted 

Details of all Items 

(In order by Reference Key Number) 

221 UNIFORM WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW 

221-1 V Update Terminology 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Recommendation: Amend the UWML as described below: 

Amend the Table of Contents as shown: 

Table of Contents 

Section Page 

1. Definitions.......................................................................................................................................................21 

1.4. Primary Standards................................................................................................................................21

1.5. Secondary Standards............................................................................................................................21

1.12. Standard, Field ..................................................................................................................................23

1.13. Accreditation......................................................................................................................................23

1.14. Calibration .........................................................................................................................................23

1.15. Traceability ........................................................................................................................................23

1.16. Uncertainty ........................................................................................................................................23

1.17. Verification ........................................................................................................................................23

1.18. Recognition ........................................................................................................................................23

1.19. Standard, Reference..........................................................................................................................23

1.20. Standard, Working............................................................................................................................23

Delete Sections 1.4. and 1.5. as follows and renumber the remaining definitions in sequence: 

1.4. Primary Standards. -- The term “primary standards” means the physical standards of the State that serve as 

the legal reference from which all other standards for weights and measures are derived. 

L&R - 3 
L&R Committee 2005 Final Report 

1.5. Secondary Standards, Secondary. -- The term “secondary standards” means the physical standards that are 

traceable to the primary standards through comparisons, using acceptable laboratory procedures, and used in the 

enforcement of weights and measures laws and regulations. 

Add these definitions: 

1.12. Standard, Field. - A physical standard that meets specifications and tolerances in NIST 105-series 

standards (or other suitable and designated standards) and is traceable to the reference or working 

standards through comparisons, using acceptable laboratory procedures, and used in conjunction with 

commercial weighing and measuring equipment (1.13).

(Added 2005)

1.13. Accreditation. - A formal recognition by a recognized Accreditation Body that a laboratory is 

competent to carry out specific tests or calibrations or types of tests or calibrations. NOTE: 

Accreditation does not ensure compliance of standards to appropriate specifications.

(Added 2005)

1.14. Calibration. - A set of operations which establishes, under specified conditions, the relationship 

between values indicated by a measuring instrument or measuring system, or values represented by a 

material measure, and the corresponding known values of a measurand.

Also: Comparison of a measurement standard or instrument with another standard or instrument to 

detect, correlate, report, or eliminate by adjustment any inaccuracy of the compared.

(Added 2005)

1.15. Traceability. - The property of the result of a measurement or the value of a standard whereby it 

can be related to stated references, usually national or international standards, through an unbroken 

chain of comparisons all having stated uncertainties.

(Added 2005)

1.16. Uncertainty. - A parameter associated with the result of a measurement that characterizes the 

dispersion of the values that could reasonably be attributed to the measurance.

(Added 2005) 

1.17. Verification. - The formal evaluation of a standard or device against the specifications and 

tolerances for determining conformance.

(Added 2005)

1.18. Recognition. - A formal recognition by NIST Weights and Measures Division that a laboratory has 

demonstrated the ability to provide traceable measurement results and is competent to carry out specific 

tests or calibrations or types of tests or calibrations.

(Added 2005)

1.19. Standard, Reference. - A standard, generally of the highest metrological quality available at a given 

location, from which measurements made at that location are derived. The term “reference standards” 

means the physical standards of the State that serve as the legal reference from which all other standards 

for weights and measures within that State are derived.

(Added 2005)

1.20. Standard, Working. - A standard that is usually calibrated against a reference standard, and is 

used routinely to calibrate or check material measures, measuring instruments, or reference materials. 

The term “working standards” means the physical standards that are traceable to the reference 

standards through comparisons, using acceptable laboratory procedures, and used in the enforcement of 

weights and measures laws and regulations.

(Added 2005)

L&R - 4 
L&R Committee 2005 Final Report 

Amend Section 3 as shown: 

Section 3. Physical Standards 

Weights and measures that are traceable to the U.S. prototype standards supplied by the Federal Government, or 

approved as being satisfactory by the National Institute of Standards and Technology, shall be the State 

primary reference and working standards of weights and measures, and shall be maintained in such 

calibration as prescribed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology as demonstrated through 

laboratory accreditation or recognition. All secondary field standards may be prescribed by the director and 

shall be verified upon their initial receipt, and as often thereafter as deemed necessary by the director. 

(Amended 2005)

Amend Sections 12a, 12h, and 12p as follows: 

Section 12. Powers and Duties of the Director 

The Director shall: 

a. maintain traceability of the State standards to the national standards in the possession of the National 

Institute of Standards and Technology as demonstrated through laboratory accreditation or 

recognition;

(Amended 2005)

h. test annually the verify the field standards for weights and measures used by any city or county

jurisdiction within the State, before being put into service, tested annually or as often thereafter as 

deemed necessary by the director based on statistically evaluated data, and approve the same when 

found to be correct; 

(Amended 2005)

p. provide for the training of weights and measures personnel, and may establish minimum training and 

performance requirements which shall then be met by all weights and measures personnel, whether county, 

municipal, or State. The director may adopt the training standards of the National Conference on Weights 

and Measures’ National Training Program and the laboratory metrology standards specified by the 

NIST accreditation and/or recognition requirements; and 

(Added 1991; Amended 2005)

Discussion: This item came to the Southern Weights and Measures Association from the NIST Handbook Update 

Work Group in conjunction with Item 234-1 and Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee Item 360-2. It is 

the intent of the work group that these three items be considered together. 

One of the reasons for these proposals is to update the terminology used in Handbooks 130 and 44 to conform to 

international definitions. The terms “primary standard” and “secondary standard” have been eliminated to avoid 

confusion with the international usage of these terms. Terms like “reference standard,” “field standard,” 

“traceability,” and “uncertainty” have been added to reflect their use within these documents. The proposed changes 

also allow state directors to exercise more discretion when evaluating calibration intervals, referencing documentary 

standards, and accepting calibration reports. 

This particular proposal allows state directors to change the calibration interval for field standards (which are now 

required to be calibrated annually). This proposal permits a jurisdiction to collect historical calibration data, 

including “as-found” measurements, to evaluate whether or not an annual calibration interval is appropriate for a 

particular type of standard. Based on a statistical analysis of its historical data, a lab may find that its stainless steel 

field weights only need to be calibrated once every 5 years, while their cast iron weights need to be calibrated every 

6 months. The intent is to save jurisdictions time and money by setting calibration intervals at suitable frequencies 

rather than at arbitrary fixed intervals. This should also lead to improved inspection accuracy by ensuring field 

standards are within tolerance during the entire calibration interval. Laboratory metrologists should be familiar with 

adjusting calibration intervals for laboratory standards and may be a useful resource for both providing data and 

L&R - 5 
L&R Committee 2005 Final Report 

doing the statistical analysis. Jurisdictions that need more information or assistance with statistical approaches to 

changing calibration intervals may consult the National Conference of Standards Laboratories International (NCSLI) 

Recommended Practice (RP) #1, “Establishment & Adjustment of Calibration Intervals.” 

These proposed changes would have relatively little effect on state and local weights and measures programs. There 

is no mandate for a jurisdiction to change the way it currently operates. The proposed changes would serve only to 

increase control and flexibility when evaluating field standard calibration intervals, the acceptance of accredited 

private lab calibration reports, and other similar topics. Much of what is being proposed reflects practices already 

occurring in jurisdictions across the country. The Committee discussed this item in a joint session with the 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee and met with both NIST and several metrologists to resolve questions 

related to the meaning of the definitions. 

The Committee received a comment expressing reservations about the appropriateness of all the new definitions 

proposed but concluded the new definitions were appropriate and submitted the item for adoption. 

232 METHOD OF SALE REGULATION 

232-1 D Temperature Compensation for Petroleum Products 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA). (See Item 232-4 in the Report of the 89th NCWM 

Annual Meeting in 2004.) 

Recommendation: Amend the Method of Sale Regulation in Handbook 130 as shown below: 

2.XX. Temperature Correction for Petroleum Products Other Than LPG. - All petroleum products 

other than LPG shall be sold by liquid volume.

2.XX.1. Petroleum products sold in volumes greater than 18,927 liters (5,000 U.S. gallons) may be 

corrected to the volume at 15 °C (60 °F), provided:

2.XX.1.1. The correction is made through automatic means; and

2.XX.1.2. The measuring device and all associated documents clearly indicate the volume has 

been corrected for temperature.

2.XX.2. Petroleum products sold in volumes less than or equal to 18,927 liters (5,000 U.S. gallons) 

through (list specific device(s)) may be corrected to the volume at 15 °C (60 °F), provided:

2.XX.2.1. The correction is made through automatic means;

2.XX.2.2. The measuring device and all associated documents clearly indicate the volume has 

been corrected for temperature; and

2.XX.2.3. All sales by the same vendor within a state are corrected over at least a 12-month 

period.

2.XX.3. The volume of petroleum products sold through retail motor-fuel devices and in all 

transactions not covered in 2.XX.2. or 2.XX.3. shall be the volume at the conditions at the time of 

sale. Products shall not be artificially heated prior to sale.

Discussion: Selling fuel adjusted to the volume at 15 °

C (60 °F) throughout the distribution system is the most 

equitable way fuel can be sold without the buyer or seller gaining a competitive advantage. Allowing a distributor 

to buy product at wholesale by gross volume and sell it at retail by net volume is not equitable. A single method of 

sale should be required so a prospective customer can make a value comparison. There is no practical way 

L&R - 6 
L&R Committee 2005 Final Report 

customers can make value comparisons when some locations sell product temperature compensated and other 

locations sell the same product without temperature compensation. 

This item is considered in conjunction with a temperature compensation item that is before the Specifications and 

Tolerances (S&T) Committee, Item 331-1, although that item is limited to vehicle-tank meters. The Committee 

believes this is an important issue that should be given careful consideration and that it must be discussed with 

parties that may be affected by its adoption. The Committee has requested authorization and funding from the 

Board of Directors to establish a work group to bring together interested parties and build a consensus on the best 

way to resolve this issue. 

A similar proposal was made by NEWMA in 2000 that mirrored a temperature compensation item before the S&T 

Committee at the time. In 2000 NEWMA noted that Pennsylvania, New Hampshire, Maine, and Canada permit 

temperature compensation in sales of products like home heating fuel and retail gasoline. In 2001 the Committee 

withdrew that item after several jurisdictions opposed its adoption. 

At the 2005 Interim Meeting the Committee heard several comments opposing the original language of this item and 

received an alternate recommendation from NEWMA. The Committee agreed to accept and circulate the NEWMA 

language for comments. 

Regarding the NEWMA language, the Committee heard a comment that the 5,000-gallon threshold proposed in 

section 2.XX.2. is too large because, although the capacity of a tanker truck is more than 5,000 gallons, many trucks 

are compartmentalized. The compartmentalization of the trucks results in the delivery of a single product (e.g., 

grade of fuel) that is significantly less than 5,000 gallons. 1,500 gallons was proposed as an appropriate alternative. 

The Committee also received a comment that language would need to be inserted into section 2.XX.3. to recognize 

the need to heat certain viscous products, like Heating Oil #4 and Heating Oil #6, in order to allow them to flow 

properly. 

The Committee also received comments opposing the permissive nature of the NEWMA language while others 

supported the voluntary nature of the requirement. One concern is that permitting temperature compensation 

without mandating it will encourage some companies to compensate while others will not. How is a consumer to 

make an informed purchasing decision when faced with choosing between competitors who are selling the same 

product using different methods of sale? Related to this, the Committee heard an alternate proposal to go back to the 

original language but mandate temperature compensation for those devices capable of pumping at a rate in excess of 

20 gallons per minute, and prohibit temperature compensation for everything else. This would effectively require 

temperature compensation for all vehicle-tank meters, wholesale and terminal meters, and large volume diesel 

dispensers while prohibiting it for standard retail motor-fuel devices. Some comments expressed concern about the 

burden of educating consumers about what temperature compensation is and how it will affect their evaluation of 

options when making purchasing decisions. 

The Committee will retain this item as a developing item until a consensus can be reached on the language to be 

proposed and will send the item back to all of the regional associations for further consideration. 

234 UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE VOLUNTARY REGISTRATION OF 

SERVICEPERSONS AND SERVICE AGENCIES 

234-1 V Update Terminology 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association 

Recommendation: Amend Sections 1 (Policy), 5 (Minimum Equipment), 8 (Placed in Service Report), and 

9 (Examination of Calibration or Certification of Standards and Testing Equipment) in Handbook 130 as follows: 

L&R - 7 
L&R Committee 2005 Final Report 

Section 1. Policy 

For the benefit of the users, manufacturers, and distributors of commercial weighing and measuring devices, it 

shall be the policy of the Director of Weights and Measures, hereinafter referred to as "Director," to accept 

registration of (a) an individual and (b) an agency providing acceptable evidence that he, she, or it is fully 

qualified by training or experience to install, service, repair, or recondition a commercial weighing or measuring 

device; has a thorough working knowledge of all appropriate weights and measures laws, orders, rules, and 

regulations; and has possession of, or has available for use, and will use suitable and calibrated weights and 

measures field standards and testing equipment appropriate in design and adequate in amount. (An employee of 

the government shall not be eligible for registration.) 

The Director will check the qualifications of each applicant. It will be necessary for an applicant to have 

available sufficient field standards and equipment (see § 5). 

It shall also be the policy of the Department to issue to qualified applicants, whose applications for registration 

are approved, a "Certificate of Registration." This gives authority to remove rejection seals and tags placed on 

Commercial and Law-Enforcement Weighing and Measuring Devices by authorized weights and measures 

officials, to place in service repaired devices that were rejected, or to place in service devices that have been 

newly installed. 

The Director is NOT guaranteeing the work or fair dealing of a Registered Serviceperson or Service Agency. 

He will, however, remove from the registration list any Registered Serviceperson or Service Agency that 

performs unsatisfactory work or takes unfair advantage of a device owner. 

Registration with the Director shall be on a voluntary basis. The Director shall reserve the right to limit or reject 

the application of any Serviceperson or Service Agency and to revoke his, her, or its permit to remove rejection 

seals or tags for good cause. 

This policy shall in no way preclude or limit the right and privilege of any individual or agency not registered 

with the Director to install, service, repair, or recondition a commercial weighing or measuring device (see § 7). 

(Added 1966; Amended 1984 and 2005) 

Section 5. Minimum Equipment 

Applicants must have available sufficient standards and equipment to adequately test devices as set forth in the 

Notes section of each applicable code in NIST Handbook 44, "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical 

Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices." When applicable, tThis equipment will meet the 

specifications of National Institute of Standards and Technology Handbook 105- 1, “Specifications and 

Tolerances for Reference Standards and Field Standard Weights and Measures, Specifications and 

Tolerances for Field Standard Weights (NIST Class F),” National Institute of Standards and Technology 

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 Institute 

of Standards and Technology 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.” series standards (or other suitable and designated standards). This section 

shall not preclude the use of additional field standards and/or equipment, as approved by the Director, 

for uniform evaluation of device performance. See also § 9. 

(Added 1984; Amended 2005) 

Section 8. Placed in Service Report 

The Director shall furnish each Registered Serviceperson and Registered Service Agency with a supply of 

report forms to be known as "Placed in Service Reports." Such a form shall be executed in triplicate, shall 

include the assigned registration number, and shall be signed by a Registered Serviceperson or by a 

L&R - 8 
L&R Committee 2005 Final Report 

serviceperson representing a Registered Agency for each rejected device restored to service and for each newly 

installed device placed in service. Within 24 hours after a device is restored to service or placed in service, the 

original of the properly executed Placed in Service Report, together with any official rejection tag removed 

from the device, shall be mailed forwarded to the Director at (address) . The duplicate copy of the report 

shall be handed to the owner or operator of the device, and the triplicate copy of the report shall be retained by 

the Registered Serviceperson or Registered Service Agency. 

(Added 1966; Amended 2005) 

Section 9. Examination and Calibration or Certification 

of Standards and Testing Equipment 

All field standards that are used for servicing and testing weights and measures devices for which competence 

is registered shall be submitted to the Director for initial and subsequent examination and certification 

verification and calibration at intervals determined by the director. A Registered Serviceperson or Registered 

Service Agency shall not use in servicing commercial weighing or measuring devices any field standards or 

testing equipment that have not been certified calibrated or verified by the Director. Equipment calibrated 

by another State weights and measures laboratory that can show evidence of measurement traceability to 

the National Institute of Standards and Technology will also be recognized as equipment that is suitable 

for use by Registered Servicepersons or Registered Service Agencies in this State. In lieu of submission of 

physical standards the Director may accept calibration and/or verification reports from any laboratory 

that is formally accredited or recognized. The Director shall maintain a list of organizations from which 

the State will accept calibration reports. The State shall retain the right to periodically monitor 

calibration results and/or to verify field standard compliance to specifications and tolerances when field 

standards are initially placed into service or at any intermediate point between calibrations.

(Added 1966; Amended 1984, and 1999, and 2005) 

Discussion: This item came to the Southern Weights and Measures Association from the NIST Handbook Update 

Work Group in conjunction with Item 221-1 and Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee Item 360-2. It is 

the intent of the work group that these three items be considered together. 

One of the reasons for these proposals is to update the terminology used in Handbooks 130 and 44 to conform to 

international definitions. The terms “primary standard” and “secondary standard” have been eliminated to avoid 

confusion with the international usage of these terms. Terms like “reference standard,” “field standard,” 

“traceability,” and “uncertainty” have been added to reflect their use within these documents. The proposed changes 

allow state directors to exercise additional discretion when evaluating calibration intervals, referencing documentary 

standards, and accepting calibration reports. 

This particular proposal grants state directors the freedom to reference ASTM, OIML, or other suitable documentary 

standards, in addition to NIST documents, when defining specifications for field standards. Currently, some 

standards being used in the field have no corresponding NIST document defining their specifications. Allowing 

ASTM, OIML, or other suitable documentary standards to be referenced would fill this void. State directors must be 

able to evaluate the impact of a field standard that deviates from documentary standards and assess how it might 

affect measurement results, functionality, efficiency, and safety. State directors would have the authority and 

flexibility to accept and designate field standards and to grandfather or otherwise allow deviations from standard 

specifications. State directors may choose to require unique calibration intervals for these deviant field standards, or 

they may reject and/or confiscate the deviant standard based on evaluation results. For further guidance on 

documentary standards that may be used as specifications and tolerances for field standards, please see Appendix A. 

In addition, this proposal would allow state directors to accept calibration reports from accredited industry 

laboratories in addition to NIST WMD-recognized state laboratories. If a private laboratory is accredited by a 

National Cooperation for Laboratory Accreditation (NACLA)-approved accreditation body, or recognized by NIST 

WMD as capable of providing traceable measurement results, a state director may decide whether or not s/he wants 

to accept the calibration reports of the lab after evaluating the scope of accreditation and assessing the lab’s 

measurement uncertainty. Initial verification of field standards may still be required, however, since a calibration 

L&R - 9 
L&R Committee 2005 Final Report 

report provides no guarantee the equipment meets specifications. Accreditation is not conformity assessment and 

should not be used for that purpose. State metrologists and technical experts at NIST may be able to assist in 

evaluating the acceptability of outside calibration reports. 

These proposed changes would have relatively little effect on state and local weights and measures programs. There 

is no mandate for a jurisdiction to change the way that it currently operates. The proposed changes would serve only 

to increase local control and flexibility when evaluating things like field standard calibration intervals and the 

acceptance of accredited private lab calibration reports. Much of what is being proposed reflects practices already 

occurring in jurisdictions across the country. The Committee discussed this item in a joint session with the 

Specifications and Tolerances Committee and met with both NIST and several metrologists to resolve questions 

related to the meaning of the definitions. 

The Committee did not receive any comments opposing this item. 

237 ENGINE FUELS, PETROLEUM PRODUCTS, AND AUTOMOTIVE 

LUBRICANTS REGULATION 

237-1 V Biodiesel Fuel Identification and Labeling 

(This item was adopted) 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA). (See item 237-3B in the Report of the 89th NCWM 

Annual Meeting in 2004.) 

Recommendation: Amend Handbook 130 Engine Fuels, Petroleum Products, and Automotive Lubricants 

Regulation by adding the following. 

3.15. Biodiesel.

3.15.1. Identification of Product. - Biodiesel and biodiesel blends shall be identified by the capital 

letter B followed by the numerical value representing the volume percentage of biodiesel fuel. 

(Examples: B10; B20; B100)

3.1.5.2. Labeling of Retail Dispensers Containing Between 5 % and 20 % Biodiesel. - Each retail 

dispenser of biodiesel blend containing more than 5 % and up to and including 20 % biodiesel shall 

be labeled with either:

3.15.2.1. The capital letter B followed by the numerical value representing the volume percentage 

of biodiesel fuel and ending with ‘biodiesel blend.’ (Examples: B10 biodiesel blend; B20 biodiesel 

blend), or;

3.15.2.2. The phrase "biodiesel blend between 5 % and 20 %" or similar words.

3.15.3. Labeling of Retail Dispensers Containing More Than 20 % Biodiesel. - Each retail dispenser 

of biodiesel or biodiesel blend containing more than 20 % biodiesel shall be labeled with the capital 

letter B followed by the numerical value representing the volume percentage of biodiesel fuel and

ending with either 'biodiesel' or 'biodiesel blend.' (Examples: B100 biodiesel; B60 biodiesel blend)

3.15.4. Documentation for Dispenser Labeling Purposes. - The retailer shall be provided, at the time 

of delivery of the fuel, with a declaration of the volume percent biodiesel on an invoice, bill of lading, 

shipping paper, or other document. This documentation is for dispenser labeling purposes only; it is 

the responsibility of any potential blender to determine the amount of biodiesel in the diesel fuel 

prior to blending.

3.15.5. Exemption. - Biodiesel blends containing 5 % or less biodiesel by volume are exempted from 

the requirements of Section 3.15.

L&R - 10 
L&R Committee 2005 Final Report 

Discussion: The Committee has been working on this item since 2002 and has been monitoring the activities of the 

American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) with regard to biodiesel fuels. The Committee has decided to 

move forward with identification and labeling requirements for biodiesel blends containing more than 5 % biodiesel 

by volume. The Committee agrees it is important for consumers to be properly informed about what is being 

offered for sale so they can make informed purchases. The Committee has been informed that ASTM is considering 

changing the “Fill and Go” specifications in D 975 to include biodiesel blends of 5 % or less. Existing laws and 

regulations require accurate and adequate information to be placed on commodities to allow consumers to make 

price and quantity comparisons. Consumers must also be able to rely on manufacturers’ product “claims” and 

products must conform to specifications. 

When the first biodiesel specification was introduced at ASTM in 1993, it proposed a specification for biodiesel 

used as a pure fuel, called B100. However, several engine manufacturers had reservations about B100 biodiesel 

because they had no experience using blends over 20 % (B20). Engine manufacturers recommend that users consult 

with their engine manufacturer before using biodiesel blends above 5 % (B5) as concerns related to costs, rubber and 

gasket compatibility, and cold flow properties exist with these blends. While experience over the last 10 years and 

40 million on-road miles has shown that biodiesel blends up to 20 % (B20) do not require modifications to the fuel 

systems of conventional diesel engines, the manufacturers of these engines still promote caution when using 

biodiesel blends over 5 % (B5). In 2002 ASTM adopted ASTM D 6751, Standard Specification for Biodiesel Fuel 

(B100) Blend Stock for Distillate Fuels. This specification is for use as a blend component with diesel fuel oils 

defined in Specification D 975. 

ASTM is considering classifying biodiesel blends up to B5 as “Fill and Go” since generally they do not require 

changes to the engine or fuel system. ASTM is also considering adding a separate specification for B20 blends. 

Biodiesel levels higher than B20 may need to have different gaskets and hoses. While blends of biodiesel over 20 % 

are not readily available in today’s marketplace, they may be in the not-too-distant future. Therefore, the biodiesel 

industry supports accurate labeling for all fuel dispensers and encourages the NCWM to adopt these 

recommendations. 

An issue that remains, however, is the opportunity for fraud that may occur if inaccurate percentages of biodiesel are 

claimed. Biodiesel blends cost significantly more than conventional diesel fuels. As such, there is a possibility that 

an unscrupulous fuel distributor might unfairly profit from claiming a higher concentration of biodiesel than they 

actually deliver. If a distributor claims that they are selling B20 and they are putting in only 1 %, then the 

distributor is misrepresenting the product. The biodiesel industry claims this is not a pump labeling issue but an 

enforcement issue. 

Part of the problem with a strict percentage labeling requirement is that as biodiesel blends become more 

“mainstream” the percentage of biodiesel added may vary from day to day depending on the needs of the distributor. 

Currently this practice is discouraged by the relatively high cost of biodiesel. However, as the price of biodiesel 

moves closer to the price of diesel fuel, it becomes just one of the myriad of compounds which could make up 

conventional diesel fuel. Refiners could blend in biodiesel to reduce the sulfur content or aromatic content of the 

finished blend. They could use it to replace their existing lubricity additives. If the price of biodiesel was more 

equal to diesel, then they may add 1 % today, 5 % the next day, and 20 % the following day. Theoretically, as long 

as the finished blend meets the ASTM D 975 “Fill and Go” specification, the level of biodiesel could range as high 

as 5 % without consequence. Labeling requirements that are too restrictive would eliminate the flexibility of the 

“Fill and Go” concept and could significantly reduce the amount of biodiesel that is eventually used. 

ASTM is currently developing a Biodiesel “Fill and Go” specification for D 975 that is not based on the parent fuels, 

but on the finished fuel and what is satisfactory for operation in a diesel engine. This may also mean changes to 

D 6751, which is a stand-alone specification. The current thinking is that the upper biodiesel concentration limit for 

the D 975 “Fill and Go” specification will be 5 % although it is possible that it could ultimately be higher or lower. 

Whatever the concentration of biodiesel, if the finished blend meets the D 975 “Fill and Go” specification, the fuel is 

D 975-grade diesel fuel and would have to be labeled as such. Some industry members believe that existing labeling 

requirements in Handbook 130 are sufficient to address this situation. 

The National Biodiesel Board supports this proposal. The Committee did not receive any comments opposing this 

item. 

L&R - 11 
L&R Committee 2005 Final Report 

237-2 I Premium Diesel Lubricity 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Recommendation: Forward the following proposal to the Petroleum Subcommittee to review and consider. 

Amend § 2.2.1. in Handbook 130 as follows: 

2.2.1. Premium Diesel Fuel - All diesel fuels identified on retail dispensers, bills of lading, invoices, shipping 

papers, or other documentation with terms such a premium, super, supreme, plus, or premier must conform to 

the following requirements: 

(a) Cetane Number - A minimum cetane number of 47.0 as determined by ASTM Standard Test Method 

D 613. 

(b) Low Temperature Operability - A cold flow performance measurement which meets the ASTM D 975 

tenth percentile minimum ambient air temperature charts and maps by either ASTM Standard Test 

Method D 2500 (Cloud Point) or ASTM Standard Test Method D 4539 (Low Temperature Flow Test, 

LTFT). Low temperature operability is only applicable October 1 - March 31 of each year. 

(c) Thermal Stability - A minimum reflectance measurement of 80 % as determined by ASTM Standard 

Test Method D 6468 (180 min, 150 °

C). 

(d) Lubricity - A maximum wear scar diameter of 520 μm as determined by ASTM D 6079. If an 

enforcement jurisdiction’s singe test of more than 560 μm is determined, a second test shall be 

conducted. If the average of the two tests is more than 560 μm, the sample does not conform to 

the requirements of this part.

Discussion: A member of the petroleum industry believes that the test and associated tolerances for lubricity on 

premium diesel specified in 2.2.1.(d) are inconsistent with that for regular diesel. Effective January 1, 2005, the test 

tolerance for regular diesel lubricity will be the ASTM D 6079 reproducibility of 136 μm (see ASTM D 975-04b). 

The NCWM has chosen to accept the ASTM reproducibility limits for all diesel (D 975) and gasoline (D 4814) 

properties (see § 7.2.2., Reproducibility), but has chosen a different reproducibility limit for premium diesel 

lubricity without providing any explanation as to why the ASTM reproducibility limit is insufficient. If the NCWM 

intends to impose a stricter lubricity requirement for premium diesel, it should designate a tighter specification for 

this property instead of a different test tolerance (e.g., for regular and premium gasoline, premium has a different 

octane specification than regular but the test tolerance is the same). ASTM reproducibility limits are, by definition, 

based on establishing a 95 % probability that product that should pass, will pass. Applying an average test as 

specified in 2.2.1.(d) reduces this probability to only 80 %. 

The Committee received comments from several members of the Premium Diesel Work Group (Work Group) who 

do not support the item as presented by the petroleum industry member. The Work Group members felt that the 

process that led to the current definition was very thorough and complete, and that the premium diesel lubricity 

requirements were established with a full understanding of their implications. The work group members felt that 

very knowledgeable individuals provided input to the process, which lead to the consensus position contained in the 

current regulation. The work being done by the work group was reported at meetings of ASTM Subcommittee E-2 

every six months. The current regulation has been endorsed by the American Petroleum Institute, the Engine 

Manufacturer's Association, and the NCWM. 

Prior to this requirement being adopted, the ASTM Lubricity Task Force conducted a great deal of research on this 

topic. Based on their research, the ASTM Lubricity Task Force concluded that a limit of 520 microns would meet 

the requirements of equipment in the field. Since the passage of this model regulation, ASTM included a lubricity 

requirement for No. 1 and No. 2 diesel fuel effective January 1, 2005. The ASTM requirement is also 520 microns. 

The work group members reported that when this regulation was being written fuels with adequate lubricity 

provided a functional benefit to the end user. The work group agreed with the ASTM Lubricity Task Force that 

L&R - 12 
L&R Committee 2005 Final Report 

520 microns was the correct limit to set for premium diesel. However, the work group's review process also 

indicated increased pump wear for fuels with High-Frequency Reciprocating Rig (HFRR) values greater than 

560 microns. The current reproducibility value of the HFRR test method would have placed enforcement well 

beyond the 560 micron level, essentially allowing fuels with little lubricity protection to be sold as Premium. The 

work group felt it could not recommend a premium fuel standard that would permit excessive pump wear. Using the 

statistical tools provided in ASTM D 3244, the work group evaluated an enforcement limit of 560 microns. The 

statistical tools indicated that a single laboratory reporting the assigned test value would have an enforcement limit 

of approximately 80 % probability of acceptance, while the average of two separate laboratories reporting the 

assigned test value would have an enforcement limit of approximately 90 % probability of acceptance. It was 

agreed that for a premium fuel the average of two test results was the best approach given the current test methods 

and precision available. Therefore, if a test exceeds 560 microns, then a second test must be run. The average of the 

two tests must exceed 560 microns before a violation would occur. At this time, the work group members believe 

this remains the best approach. 

The Committee believes that it lacks the expertise necessary to adequately evaluate this proposal. The Committee 

voted to forward this proposal to the Petroleum Subcommittee for its review and consideration, and requests that the 

Subcommittee provide the Committee with a recommendation and justifications for its adoption. 

260 NIST HANDBOOK 133, CHECKING THE NET CONTENTS OF PACKAGED 

GOODS 

260-1 W Amend § 2.3 Basic Test Procedure, and Table 2-5 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA). (See Item 260-4 in the Report of the 89th NCWM 

Annual Meeting in 2004.) 

Recommendation: Amend Handbook 133 § 2.3 as follows: 

Where are Maximum Allowable Variations found? 

Find the MAV values for packages labeled by weight, volume, count, and measure in the tables listed 

below in Appendix A. 

• Packages labeled by weight See Table 2-5

• Packages labeled by volume liquid or dry See Table 2-6 

• Packages labeled by count See Table 2-7 

• Packages labeled by length (width), or area See Table 2-8 

• Packages labeled with bearing a USDA seal of inspection - Meat and Poultry when 

labeled weight is provided by the USDA-inspected facility

See Table 2-9 

• Textiles, polyethylene sheeting and film, mulch and soil labeled by volume, 

packaged firewood, and packages labeled by count with less than 50 items 

See Table 2-10 

Amend the Header of Table 2-5 in Handbook 133 as follows: 

Table 2-5. Maximum Allowable Variations (MAVs) for Packages Labeled by Weight 

Do Not Use This Table fFor Meat and Poultry Products subject to USDA Regulations when Labeled Weight is 

Provided by USDA-Inspected Facility – Use Table 2-9 

For Polyethylene Sheeting and Film, see Table 2-10. Exceptions to the MAVs. 

Discussion: This proposal was originally intended to more clearly define when the USDA lower limits should apply 

(Table 2-9) and when MAVs should apply (Table 2-5) to packages of meat and poultry. This item was 

informational on the Committee’s agenda in 2004 and NIST was granted editorial privileges to amend 

L&R - 13 
L&R Committee 2005 Final Report 

Handbook 133 to include this proposal. However, after researching the issue NIST believes this proposal is in 

conflict with language adopted by the USDA. The USDA requires that Table 2-9 lower limits be applied to any 

“meat and poultry product subject to USDA requirements.” The language adopted by the USDA does not 

distinguish between packages packed and weighed at a USDA plant and packages packed at a USDA plant but 

weighed elsewhere; it simply requires that any package subject to USDA jurisdiction be tested with the USDA lower 

limits. NIST cannot include language in Handbook 133 that is in conflict with federal regulations. 

NIST contacted the USDA about this item and was advised that USDA does not support the changes recommended 

in this proposal. Subsequently, all of the regional associations have withdrawn their support for this proposal and 

the Committee voted to withdraw this item. 

260-2 W Amend § 3.11 and MAV Table 2-10 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA). (See Item 260-6 in the Report of the 89th NCWM 

Annual Meeting in 2004.) 

Recommendation: Amend the application and header of Handbook 133 Table 2-10 as follows to allow the MAVs 

that apply to Mulch and Soil to also apply to similar products, such as Wood Shavings and Animal Bedding: 

Table 2-10. Exceptions to the Maximum Allowable Variations for 

Textiles, Polyethylene Sheeting and Film, Mulch and, Soil, and Other Similar Products Labeled by Volume, 

Packaged Firewood, and 

Packages Labeled by Count with Less than 50 Items 

Amend Handbook 133 § 3.11 to read: 

3.11. Mulch and, Soil, and Other Similar Products Labeled by Volume 

Discussion: A manufacturer of wood fiber products believes wood shavings, labeled by volume, should receive the 

same MAV exceptions as mulch, soils or peat moss. The wood fiber products in question could conceivably be used 

as animal bedding, insulation, mulch (a horticultural above-ground dressing), etc. Item 250-10, which was adopted 

at the 83rd National Conference on Weights and Measures in 1998 and was entitled “Bark Mulch and Other Organic 

Products - Maximum Allowable Variations,” discussed the reasoning and the necessity for expanded MAVs in 

certain circumstances, and some of this rationale may apply to other wood fiber products. 

The Committee believes that the manufacturer seeking this additional allowance has not provided sufficient data to 

support its position. There is an established procedure for evaluating MAVs and the manufacturer has not followed 

it. The Committee feels this item needs to be further developed by the manufacturer in conjunction with a 

regulatory agency to provide reliable data upon which to base any decision. 

In addition, concerns have been raised about the expansion of the mulch, soil, and peat moss sections to “Other 

Similar Products.” What are “Other Similar Products?” Are they products that are used in similar applications? If 

so, and if “Other Similar Products” is intended to extend to pet beddings made of wood shavings, should it also be 

extended to pet beddings made of paper (also a wood product)? What about pet beddings made from other 

substances (clay, straw, etc.)? It is believed that the language proposed is overly broad and needs to be better 

defined to capture the product under consideration without including products that do not require the larger MAV. 

The Committee has received several comments opposing this item. The Committee has no received additional 

information from the original proponent of this item to justify its adoption and voted to withdraw this item. 

L&R - 14 
L&R Committee 2005 Final Report 

260-3 W Make MAV Tables More Uniform 

Source: Northeast Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) 

Recommendation: To evaluate whether or not the MAV tables in Handbook 133 should be revised to be more 

uniform with other national and global standards. 

Discussion: The Committee heard from several manufacturers and packers that meeting the different MAVs in the 

global marketplace is not generally a problem for them. While most of the comments heard did not directly oppose 

this item, the overall sentiment was that this was not a high priority issue for manufacturers and packers. The 

Committee voted not to pursue the establishment of new MAVs through the collection of data. However, the 

Committee believed there may be merit in seeking to make Handbook 133 MAVs more uniform with other MAVs 

in the global marketplace. Subsequently, all of the regional associations have withdrawn their support for this item. 

The Committee voted to withdraw this item. 

270 OTHER ITEMS 

270-1 W Tare on Case-Ready Packages of Meat 

Source: Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) 

Recommendation: The NCWM should petition the USDA to request a rule change that would require packers of 

case-ready consumer-sized packages of beef and pork to print the individual consumer package tare weights on the 

outside of the shipping case. 

Discussion: For several years the USDA has required packers of case-ready poultry to print the individual 

consumer package tare weights on the outside of the shipping case. This proposal would extend this requirement to 

packers of case-ready meat (beef and pork) products. 

As retail stores reduce or eliminate on-site meat cutting and processing, weights and measures officials are seeing 

more packages of meat that are shipped case-ready (i.e., the meat is already portioned into individual packages, 

wrapped, and labeled with all required information except weight). Retailers are required to label these packages 

with the correct weight before making them available for sale. However, retailers don’t know what tare deduction to 

take and are reluctant to open a reasonable sample of packages to determine an average tare weight. This has led to 

inaccurate tares being used with these products. 

NIST believes that the current requirement for poultry has taught us that placing tare weights on shipping cases is an 

imperfect system. Inspections have shown that tare weights printed on poultry shipping cases are often inaccurate—

packers use unused dry tare for this determination and don’t always include the weight of all the tare materials. 

Retailers often rely on these tares to their detriment. Jurisdictions may have difficulty determining from whom to 

seek compliance—the retailer (for selling a short-weight product) or the packer (for declaring an inaccurate tare). 

The fact that the packer falls under USDA jurisdiction may also cause additional hurdles. In addition, NIST is also 

concerned that inspectors may mistakenly rely on the accuracy of these tares when performing inspections. If the 

tares are inaccurate but inspectors rely on them to perform audit tests, will the inaccuracy ever be discovered? 

Inspectors must remain vigilant about checking the actual tare of these packages and not rely on the packer for this 

information. Enforcement action must only be taken on packages where the average used or unused dry tare has 

been determined. 

The Committee received comments opposing this item. Several manufacturers and packers stated that tare materials 

and weights change on a regular basis and would be difficult to pre-stamp on cases. In addition, packers stated that 

tare weight information is already provided to the retailers and recommended that retailers who are not receiving this 

information should contact the packer. A national retailer stated that they receive updated tare information from 

L&R - 15 
L&R Committee 2005 Final Report 

their packers in an electronic format on a regular basis, and that putting tare information on the shipping case would 

provide little benefit to them. The Committee voted to withdraw this item at its 2005 Interim Meeting. 

 

Joe Gomez, New Mexico, Chairman 

Joe Benavides, Texas 

James Cassidy, Cambridge, Massachusetts 

Vicky Dempsey, Montgomery County, Ohio 

Dennis Johannes, California 

Vince Orr, ConAgra Foods, Associate Member Representative 

Brian Lemon, Canada, Technical Advisor 

Doug Hutchinson, Canada, Technical Advisor 

Tom Coleman, NIST, Technical Advisor 

Kathryn Dresser, NIST, Technical Advisor 

Laws and Regulation Committee 

L&R - 16 
L&R Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix A - Item 221-1: Documentary Standards

Appendix A 

Sample List of Documentary Standards for Item #221-1 

Physical Standard Documentary 

Standard Device Calibration Interval Notes 

Cast Iron Weights Handbook 105-1 Class III, III L, IV scales 6 months to 1 year 

Stainless Steel Weights Handbook 105-1 Class III, III L, IV scales 5 years 

Class F1 Weights 

Class 2 Weights 

OIML R111 

ASTM E 617-97 Class II scales 1 year 

Glassware Handbook 105-2 Package testing 10 years 

Test Measures (handheld and 5-gallon truck 

or trailer mounted) 

Handbook 105-3 Gas pumps 1 year 

Large Provers Handbook 105-3 Meters 1 year 

LPG Provers Handbook 105-4 LPG meters 1 year 

Stopwatches Handbook 105-5 Taxi meters, timing devices, 

parking meters, Laundromats 1 year 

Thermometers Handbook 105-6 

Temperature corrections, 

refrigeration specifications, 

package checking 

5 years 

Annual 

inspection 

required 

Small Volume Provers Handbook 105-7 Meters 6 months to 1 year 

Need EPO 

for field 

testing 

Master Meters API document in 

development Master meters for petroleum 

Proving Rings and Load 

Cells ASTM E 74 

Wheel load weighers, 

weight carts, large mass 

standards 

Rings: 5 years 

Cells: 6 months if 

used for wheel load 

weighers; evaluate 

with use for 

substitution weighing 

Depends on 

use 

Weight Carts Handbook 105-8 Vehicle scales 6 months to 1 year 

Needs to be 

recalibrated 

with any 

repair. Need 

EPO for 

field use 

Hydrometers ASTM E 100 Petroleum products; bulk oil 

meters 1 year 

Length Standards, 

Tapes GGG-standard 

Taxi meters, fabric scale 

decks, firewood, lobster 

gauges 

5 years Inspect 

before use 

Containers Handbook 133 Bulk mulch 

Berry Baskets Handbook 44 Berry quantity 

L&R - A1 
L&R Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix A - Item 221-1: Documentary Standards 

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 

L&R - A2 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Report of the 

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances 

Jack Kane, Chairman 

Bureau of Weights and Measures 

Department of Labor and Industry 

Montana 

300 INTRODUCTION 

This is the final report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) (Committee) for the 90th Annual 

Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The report is based on the 90th Interim 

Report offered in NCWM Publication 16, “Committee Reports,” the Addendum Sheets issued at the Annual 

Meeting, and actions taken by the membership at the Voting Session of the Annual Meeting. 

Table A identifies the agenda items in the report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The item 

numbers are those assigned in the Interim Meeting Agenda. Voting items are indicated with a “V,” or if the item 

was part of the consent calendar by the suffix “VC” after the item number. Items marked with an “I” after the 

reference key numbers are information items. Items marked with a “D” after the key numbers are developing 

issues. The developing designation indicates an item that while it has merit, it may not be adequately developed for 

action at the national level. Developing items inform parties about issues that are developing in different localities 

or in the regional associations. A developing item is returned to the submitter to develop further before any action is 

taken at the national level. The Committee withdrew items marked with a “W.” Items marked with a “W”

generally will be referred to the regional weights and measures associations because they either need additional 

development, analysis, and input, or did not have sufficient Committee support to bring them before the NCWM. 

Table B lists the Appendices to the report, and Table C provides a summary of the results of the voting on the 

Committee's items and the report in entirety. 

This Report contains many recommendations to revise or amend National Institute of Standards and Technology 

(NIST) Handbook 44 (HB-44), 2005 Edition, “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for 

Weighing and Measuring Devices.” Proposed revisions to the handbook(s) are shown in bold face print by 

striking out information to be deleted and underlining information to be added. Proposed nonretroactive 

requirements are printed in bold-faced italics.

Note: The policy of NIST is to use metric units of measurement in all of its publications; however, 

recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been printed in this publication as they were 

submitted and may, therefore, contain references to inch-pound units. 

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference 

Key No. Title of Item Page 

300 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................1

310 GENERAL CODE............................................................................................................................................4

310-1 W G-A.1. Commercial and Law Enforcement, G-S.1. Identification; Built-for-Purpose Software 

Based Devices, Table G-S.1. Identification, G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for 

Not Built-For-Purpose, Software-Based Devices, and Appendix D; Definition of Built-forPurpose Device, Measuring Device (General), Measuring System (General), Electronic 

Devices, Not-Built-for-Purpose Device, Metrological Software Version (Revision), and 

Weighing Device (Instrument)..........................................................................................................4

310-2 I G-T.1. (e) Acceptance Tolerances.....................................................................................................8

S&T - 1 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

320 SCALES.............................................................................................................................................................9

320-1 I S.1.1. (c) Zero Indication; Requirements for Markings or Indications for Other than Digital 

Zero Indications................................................................................................................................9

320-2 VC S.1.8.4. Recorded Representations, Point-of-Sale Systems; Footnote 1 ........................................11

320-3 I UR.1.6. Computing Scale Interfaced to a Cash Register ...............................................................12

320-4 VC S.2.1.3. Scales Equipped with an Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism (Zero Tracking), 

S.2.1.3.1. For Scales Manufactured Between January 1, 1981 and January 1, 2007; Maximum 

Load Rezeroed, S.2.1.3.2. For Scales Manufactured On or After January 1, 2007; Maximum 

Load Rezeroed, and S.2.1.3.3. Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism (Zero Tracking) on Class 

III L Devices...................................................................................................................................14

320-5 VC Table S.6.3.b. Notes For Table S.6.3.a. Note 3; Nominal Capacity and Value of the Scale 

Division and Appendix D; Definition of Reading Face ..................................................................16

320-6 I N.1.3.1. Bench or Counter Scales, N.1.3.8. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging 

Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel–Load Weighers, and Portable Axle-Load Weighers, and 

Appendix D; Definitions of Bench Scale and Counter Scale..........................................................19

320-7 I Table 6 Tolerances..........................................................................................................................22

320-8 V T.N.4.5. Time Dependence, General, T.N.4.5.1. Time Dependence; Class II, III, and IIII Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments, T.N.4.5.2. Time Dependence; Class III L Non-automatic 

Weighing Instruments, T.N.4.6. Time Dependence (Creep) for Load Cells During Type 

Evaluation, T.N.4.6.1. Permissible Variations of Readings, T.N.4.6.2. Apportionment Factors, 

and Definitions of Dmax, Emax, and Non-automatic Weighing Instrument ......................................23

320-9 I List of International Symbols Noted as Acceptable........................................................................27

321 BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS .....................................................................................................29

321-1 VC UR.3.4. Diversion or Loss of Measured Product ............................................................................29

322 AUTOMATIC BULK WEIGHING SYSTEMS...........................................................................................30

322-1 W Tolerances.......................................................................................................................................30

330 LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES...............................................................................................................32

330-1 V S.1.6.1. Indication of Delivery; Electronic Devices........................................................................32

330-2 VC N.4.2.2. Retail Motor-Fuel Devices................................................................................................33

331 VEHICLE-TANK METERS .........................................................................................................................35

331-1 I Temperature Compensation ............................................................................................................35

331-2 VC S.1.4.1. Display of Unit Price .........................................................................................................38

331-3 VC S.2.4. Zero Set-Back Interlock, Vehicle-Tank Meters, Electronic..................................................39

331-4 VC N.4.2. Special Tests (Except Milk-Measuring Systems), N.4.5. Product Depletion Test, T.4. 

Product Depletion Test, and Table T.4. Tolerances for Vehicle-Tank Meters n Product 

Depletion Tests, Except Milk Meters..............................................................................................39

336 WATER METERS .........................................................................................................................................41

336-1 I Table N.4.2. Flow Rate and Draft Size for Water Meters Special Tests.........................................41

360 OTHER ITEMS ..............................................................................................................................................42

360-1 V Proposed Section 5.59. Electronic Livestock, Meat, and Poultry Evaluation Systems and/or 

Devices -Tentative Code.................................................................................................................42

360-2 V Appendix A Fundamental Considerations 3. Testing Apparatus; 3.1 Adequacy, 3.2 Tolerances 

for Standards and Footnote 2, and 3.3 Accuracy of Standards........................................................45

360-3 I International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Report.....................................................47

360-4 I Add International Terms that are Synonymous to NIST Handbook 44 Terms in Appendix D; 

Definitions.......................................................................................................................................47

360-5 D Developing Issues...........................................................................................................................48

S&T - 2 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Table B 

Appendices

Appendix Title Page 

A Item 360-1: Proposed Section 5.59 Electronic Livestock, Meat, and Poultry Evaluation Systems and/or 

Devices – Tentative Code....................................................................................................................................A1 

B Item 360-2: Appendix A Fundamental Considerations 3. Testing Apparatus; 3.1 Adequacy, 3.2 

Tolerances for Standards and Footnote 2, and 3.3 Accuracy of Standards.......................................................... B1 

C Item 360-5: Developing Issues.......................................................................................................................... C1 

Part 1, Item 1 General Code: G-S.5.6.1. Recorded Representation of Metric Units on Equipment with 

Limited Character Sets ........................................................................................................................................ C1

 Part 2, Item 1 Scales: Table 4. Minimum Test Weights and Test Loads............................................................ C1

Table C 

Voting Results 

House of State Representatives House of Delegates Reference Key Number

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

Results

300 (Consent Calendar) 36 0 36 0 Passed 

320-8 27 10 28 8 Passed 

330-1 37 0 36 0 Passed 

360-1 32 3 31 3 Passed 

360-2 37 0 33 1 Passed 

300 (Report in its 

Entirety Voice Vote) All Yeas No Nays All Yeas No Nays Passed 

S&T - 3 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Details of all Items 

(In order by Reference Key Number) 

310 GENERAL CODE 

310-1 W G-A.1. Commercial and Law Enforcement, G-S.1. Identification; Built-for-Purpose Software 

Based Devices, Table G-S.1. Identification, G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for 

Not Built-For-Purpose, Software-Based Devices, and Appendix D; Definition of Built-forPurpose Device, Measuring Device (General), Measuring System (General), Electronic 

Devices, Not-Built-for-Purpose Device, Metrological Software Version (Revision), and 

Weighing Device (Instrument) 

(This item was withdrawn.) 

Source: Carryover Item 310-1. (This proposal first appeared on the Committee’s 2003 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Amend General Code paragraph G-A.1. Commercial and Law Enforcement Equipment as 

follows: 

G-A.1. Commercial and Law Enforcement Equipment. - These specifications, tolerances, and other 

technical requirements apply as follows:

(a) To commercial weighing and measuring devices or systems equipment; that is, to weights, and 

measures, and weighing and measuring devices or systems commercially used or employed in 

establishing the size, quantity, extent, area, or measurement of quantities, things, produce, or articles 

for distribution or consumption, purchased, offered, or submitted for sale, hire, or award, or in 

computing any basic charge or payment for services rendered on the basis of quantity determination 

weight or measure. 

(b) To any accessory attached to or used in connection with a commercial weighing or measuring device 

when such accessory is so designed that its operation affects the accuracy of the device. 

(c) To weighing and measuring devices or systems equipment in official use for the enforcement of law 

or for the collection of statistical information by government agencies.

(These requirements should be used as a guide by the weights and measures official when, upon request, 

courtesy examinations of noncommercial equipment are made.) 

(Amended 200X)

Amend General Code paragraph G-S.1. Identification as follows: 

G-S.1. Identification. - All equipment, except weights and separate parts necessary to the measurement 

process but not having any metrological effect, shall be clearly and permanently marked in accordance with 

Table G-S.1. for the purposes of identification with the following information: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor;

(b) a model designation that positively identifies the pattern, or design, or metrological version or 

revision of the device in accordance with Table G-S.1.; 

1. The model designation shall be prefaced by the term "Model," "Type," or "Pattern." These terms 

may be followed by the term "Number" or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the 

word "Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., No or No.). The abbreviation 

for the word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.” Prefix lettering may be initial capitals, all 

capitals or all lower case.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003] 

(Added 2000) (Amended 2001) 

(Amended 200X)

S&T - 4 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

(c) a nonrepetitive serial number, except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts and 

not built-for-purpose, software-based electronic devices; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968]

(Amended 2003 and 200X) 

1. The serial number shall be prefaced by words, and abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly 

identifies the number as the required serial number. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986] 

2. Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “S,” and 

abbreviation 

for the word “Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser. No., 

and S. No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001] 

(d) the current software version designation for not built-for-purpose, software- based devices;

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004]

(Added 2003)

(ed) an NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) number or a corresponding CC Addendum Number for 

devices that have a CC. The CC Number or a corresponding CC Addendum Number shall be 

prefaced by the terms “NTEP CC,” “CC," or "Approval." These terms may be followed by the term 

"Number" or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word "Number" shall, as a 

minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., No or No.) 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003] 

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity of the disassembly of 

a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device. 

(Amended 1985, 1991, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2003)

Delete General Code paragraph G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-for-Purpose, 

Software-based Devices and renumber G-S.1.2. Remanufactured Devices and Remanufactured Main 

Elements as follows: 

G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-for-Purpose, Software-based Devices. - For notbuilt-for-purpose, software-based devices, the following shall apply: 

(a) the manufacturer or distributor and the model designation shall be continuously displayed or 

marked on the device (see note below), or

(b) the Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number shall be continuously displayed or marked on the 

device (see note below), or 

(c) all required information in G-S.1. Identification. (a), (b), (c), and (e) shall be continuously 

displayed. Alternatively, a clearly identified “view only” System Identification, G-S.1. Identification, 

or Weights and Measures Identification shall be accessible through the “Help” menu. Required 

information includes that information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the 

same type that was evaluated.

Note: Clear instructions for accessing the remaining required G-S.1. information shall be listed on the 

CC. Required information includes that information necessary to identify that the software in the device 

is the same type that was evaluated.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004]

(Added 2003)

S&T - 5 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

G-S.1.12. Remanufactured Devices and Remanufactured Main Elements. - All remanufactured devices and 

remanufactured main elements shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purposes of identification with 

the following information: 

(a) The name, initials, or trademark of the last remanufacturer or distributor; 

(b) The remanufacturer's or distributor's model designation if different than the original model 

designation. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2002] 

(Added 2001) 

Note: Definitions for “manufactured device,” “repaired device,” and “repaired element” are also included 

(along with definitions for “remanufactured device” and “remanufactured element”) in Appendix D, 

Definitions.

Add a new Table G-S.1. Identification as follows: 

Table G-S.1. Identification

Built-for-Purpose

Instruments, Elements, or Systems

Not-Built-for-Purpose

Devices or Elements

Name, initials, or trademark of the 

manufacturer or distributor M D2

Model designation M1 D2

Specific model designation3 M1 or D

Serial number M Not required

Metrological version or revision

designation3 N/A D

Certificate of Conformance (CC) number M or D D2

M: Physically and permanently marked 

D: Either: (1) displayed by accessing a clearly identified view only System Identification, G-S.1. 

Identification, or Weights and Measures Identification accessible through the “Help” menu. Required 

information includes that information necessary to identify the software in the device is the same type 

that was evaluated, or

(2) continuously displayed. Note: For revision or software version number, clear instructions for 

accessing this information shall be listed on the CC in lieu of the “Help” menu. Required information 

includes that information necessary to identify the software in the device is the same or subsequent type 

that was evaluated.

(Nonretroactive as of January 2004)

Note 

1:

As a minimum, the model designation (positively identifying the pattern, design, type, series, generic, or 

trademark designation) must be marked on the device. If the model designation changes with differing

parameters such as size, features, options, intended application, not Handbook 44 compliant, 

construction, etc., the specific model designation shall be physically marked or continuously displayed or 

be capable of being displayed. 

(Nonretroactive as of January 200X)

Note 

2:

As a minimum, either the manufacturer or distributor and the model designation, or the CC Number 

shall be continuously displayed. Clear instructions for accessing the remaining required 

G-S.1. information shall be listed on the CC, which may be available as an unaltered copy of the CC or

printed by the device or through another on-site device.

(Nonretroactive as of January 200X)

Note 

3:

Metrological version or revision designation for devices with downloadable or field programmable 

software.

(Table Added 200X)

S&T - 6 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Add new terms and definitions to Appendix d, Definitions, as follows: 

measuring device (general) – A device (instrument) intended to be used to make measurements, alone or 

in conjunction with supplementary devices. (VIM)[1.10]

measuring system (general) - An instrument or group of instruments that serves to make measurements, 

alone or in conjunction with supplementary devices. (VIM)[1.10]

electronic devices – A device operating by the principles of electronics, which may consist of one or more 

subassemblies and performs a specific function(s). (ASTM)[1.10] 

not-built-for-purpose device -- Any electronic peripheral or auxiliary device or element which was not 

originally manufactured with the intent that it be used as, or part of, a weighing or measuring device or 

system. [1.10]

metrological software version (revision) – A designation that specifically defines the metrological 

software version used in a measuring instrument, system, or peripheral/auxiliary device with field 

programmable or downloadable metrological software). [1.10]

weighing device (instrument) -- A measuring instrument that serves to determine the mass of a body by 

using the action of gravity on said body. The instrument may also be used to determine other quantities, 

magnitudes, parameters or characteristics related to the determined mass. According to its method of 

operation, a weighing instrument is classified as an automatic or non-automatic instrument. (OIML 

R76)[1.10] 

Amend the definition for “built-for-purpose device” as follows: 

built-for-purpose device - Any main, peripheral, or auxiliary device or element which was manufactured 

with the intent that it be used as, or part of, a weighing or measuring device or system.

Background/Discussion: In 2003, paragraph G-S.1.1. was added to allow manufacturers of “not-built-for-purpose” 

devices to “display” the markings required in paragraph G-S.1. as an alternative to physically marking the required 

information on the device. Manufacturers of “built-for-purpose” devices have requested that paragraph G-S.1. be 

amended to provide a similar option for the “display” of the paragraph G-S.1. required markings on “built-forpurpose” devices. 

At the 2004 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee made this proposal an information item because of concerns 

stated by some manufacturers that “built-for-purpose” devices were being treated differently than “not-built-forpurpose” devices. In response to this concern, the Committee asked that the Weighing and Measuring Sectors 

develop language acceptable to both weighing and measuring device manufacturers. 

At its Fall 2004 meeting, the Weighing Sector reviewed the information from the Committee, previous Sector 

recommendations, and information regarding international requirements. The Sector also reviewed an alternate 

recommendation from NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD), which included changes to paragraph G-A.1. 

The most significant change to paragraph G-A.1. was the elimination of the term “weighing” and utilization of the 

more general term “measuring” for devices or systems that measure mass, length, or volume. The WMD alternate 

proposal included new and amended definitions and addressed concerns raised during the Committee’s deliberations 

on this item. The WMD proposed definition for a “weighing device” describes it as a “measuring instrument” that 

serves to determine the mass of a body by using the action of gravity on said body. Although this change is a 

departure from conventional terminology for “scales,” it is consistent with OIML recommendations and facilitates 

harmonization between Handbook 44 and international standards. WMD revised the definition for “not-built-forpurpose” devices to clarify that they are auxiliary or peripheral equipment devices and systems, but they are part of 

the weighing or measuring system process. Some of the private Sector members repeated their earlier comments 

that current technology permits the electronic display of required identification information and there is no technical 

justification for treating “built-for-purpose” devices differently than “not-built-for-purpose” devices. Additionally, 

WMD’s proposed definitions would reclassify most measuring devices according to the physical property being 

S&T - 7 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

measured. Since WMD’s proposed definition for measuring devices applies to all types of devices, some concern 

was expressed that laws and regulations would need to be changed because many state statutes refer to both 

“weighing and measuring” devices. The Weighing Sector supported the WMD alternate proposal; however, the 

Sector changed the marking requirement for metrological version or revision designation in Table G-S.1. for “builtfor-purpose” instruments, elements, or systems from WMD’s proposed designation of “marked or displayed 

(M or D)” to “not applicable (NA)” and added a definition for “weighing device.” The Weighing Sector agreed to 

send the WMD alternate proposal with these modifications to the NTETC Measuring Sector and regional 

associations for their review and comments. 

 

At the October 2004 Northeastern Weights and Measures Association Meeting, several participants indicated that 

the requirements for “built-for-purpose” and “not-built-for-purpose” devices should be the same. An Associate 

member commented that manufacturers should be trusted to report metrological updates to software since 

requirements for reporting current software version numbers hampers innovations in software development. 

At its October 2004 meeting, the Measuring Sector also reviewed the recommendation developed by WMD since 

that was the only alternate proposal ready for review. The members agreed that the majority of the changes 

proposed to include “built-for-purpose” devices are more applicable to weighing devices than they are to measuring 

devices. One member objected to the proposal to eliminate references in paragraph G-A.1. to the term “weighing” 

and the dual use of the term “measuring” to refer to all forms of measurement including weighing. The member 

stated that the proposal was in conflict with the historic use of the term “measurement” in the United States. The 

Sector agreed to forward a recommendation to the Committee that the proposal to include marking requirements for 

“built-for-purpose” devices in paragraph G-S.1. Identification be withdrawn from the S&T agenda. 

At its October 2004 meeting, the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) S&T Committee did not 

include this or other items requiring further development on its agenda for a vote of the members; however, the 

SWMA did accept comments during the open hearings. The SWMA learned that the Scale Manufacturers 

Association (SMA) wanted the requirements in Table G-S.1. for “built-for purpose” instruments, elements, or 

systems to allow markings for name, model, and serial number to be either physically marked (M) or displayed (D) 

just like requirements in the table for specific model designation or CC. One manufacturer of retail motor-fuel 

dispensers supported the recommendation on the condition that the requirement for metrological revision 

designation for “built-for purpose” instruments, elements, or systems is changed from “M” or “D” to “N/A” as 

recommended by the Weighing Sector. The SWMA forwarded these comments to the Committee without taking a 

position on the proposal. 

At the 2005 NCWM Interim Meeting, the SMA opposed this item because it did not treat “built-for-purpose” and 

“not-built-for-purpose” devices equally and recommended the NCWM form a Work Group to further develop the 

proposal. The Committee heard support for the alternate proposal as modified by the Weighing Sector. The 

Committee considered withdrawing this item due to a lack of support from the group of manufacturers that 

originally submitted the proposal. After some discussion the Committee agreed to retain the Weighing Sector’s 

latest alternate language shown in the recommendation above as an information item and urged the NTETC Sectors 

and SMA to develop a proposal they all support prior to the 2006 Interim Meeting. If the NTETC Sectors and SMA 

do not provide an alternative proposal that resolves their concerns with the current proposal, the Committee may 

withdraw this item from its agenda. 

At the 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee concluded that there was no support for this proposal and 

decided to withdraw it. The regional associations, the NTETC Sectors, and associations of device manufacturers 

may develop and submit a new proposal if they are able to resolve the concerns discussed above. 

For more background information, refer to the 2003 and 2004 S&T Final Reports. 

310-2 I G-T.1. (e) Acceptance Tolerances 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Measuring Sector:

Recommendation: Modify Section 1.10 Paragraph G-T.1. (e) Acceptance Tolerances as follows:

S&T - 8 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

G-T.1. Acceptance Tolerances. - Acceptance tolerances shall apply to: 

(a) equipment to be put into commercial use for the first time; 

(b) equipment that has been placed in commercial service within the preceding 30 days and is being 

officially tested for the first time; 

(c) equipment that has been returned to commercial service following official rejection for failure to 

conform to performance requirements and is being officially tested for the first time within 30 days 

after corrective service; 

(d) equipment that is being officially tested for the first time within 30 days after major reconditioning or 

overhaul; and 

(e) equipment undergoing type evaluation (special test tolerances are not applicable). 

 (Amended 1989 and 2005)

Discussion/Background: At its October 2004 Meeting, the NTETC Measuring Sector noted that the intent of 

paragraph G-T.1. (e) is to specify that acceptance tolerances apply to all equipment undergoing type evaluation; 

however, the language is not clear regarding what tolerance would apply during “special tests.” 

Special test tolerances recognize that a larger tolerance for test drafts conducted under certain conditions, such as at 

a slow flow rate, is appropriate for meters in normal service. Normal wear of the measuring elements frequently 

produces larger performance errors when testing at a slow flow rate, compared to testing at full flow rate. The 

Sector agreed that devices submitted for NTEP evaluation should be held to a higher standard than devices in 

normal service and special test tolerances should not be applicable during an NTEP evaluation. The Sector also 

agreed to forward the proposal to modify Handbook 44 paragraph G-T.1. (e) Acceptance Tolerances to the NCWM 

S&T Committee NCWM and Southern Weights and Measures Association for consideration. 

At its October 2004 Meeting, the SWMA reviewed the recommendation and agreed to forward it to the Committee 

with the recommendation that it be a voting item on the 2005 NCWM S&T Agenda. 

At the 2005 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee received no opposition to this item and, therefore, agreed to 

present it for a vote at the Annual Meeting. 

At the 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting, members of the Meter Manufacturers Association (MMA) said that they had 

not understood that the proposal from the Measuring Sector would only apply to liquid measuring devices 

undergoing NTEP evaluation. They explained that without special test tolerances most meters, especially those 

installed in vehicle-mounted applications, would not meet tolerances for low flow tests during either field testing or 

NTEP evaluations. Based on this information the Committee agreed to make this an information item to allow the 

MMA and the Measuring Sector to further develop the proposal and submit it for reconsideration. 

320 SCALES 

320-1 I S.1.1. (c) Zero Indication; Requirements for Markings or Indications for Other than Digital 

Zero Indications 

Source: Carryover Item 320-8. (This item originated from the Committee and first appeared on its 2004 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Amend paragraph S.1.1. (c) as follows: 

S.1.1. Zero Indication. 

(a) On a scale equipped with indicating or recording elements, provision shall be made to either indicate 

or record a zero-balance condition. 

S&T - 9 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

(b) On an automatic-indicating scale or balance indicator, provision shall be made to indicate or record an 

out-of-balance condition on both sides of zero. 

(c) A zero-balance condition may be indicated by other than a continuous digital zero indication, provided 

that an effective automatic means is provided to inhibit a weighing operation or to return to a 

continuous digital indication when the scale is in an out-of-balance condition and is marked or 

includes supplemental indications or markings to indicate that the “other than digital zero 

indication” represents a no-load condition of the scale. 

Added 1987 (Amended 1993 and 2005) 

[Note: The markings or supplemental indications in S.1.1.(c) are not required if, prior to the start of 

a transaction: (1) operator intervention is required to verify the zero balance condition with a digital 

zero indication, or (2) the scale automatically represents the zero-balance condition with a digital 

zero indication.]

(Added 2005)

(Amended 1987) 

Background/Discussion: The Committee proposes to modify paragraph S.1.1.(c) to clarify the requirement’s 

original intent for marking zero indications on scales and point-of-sale systems where a zero-balance condition is 

represented by other than a digital zero indication. The proposal is the Committee’s response to the 2003 NTETC 

Weighing Sector’s request for clarification on whether or not scales that use scrolling messages, dashes, etc., to 

indicate zero require additional markings or indications to: (1) inform customers that the scales are at a zero-balance 

condition and (2) properly identify the feature as specified in General Code paragraph G-S.6. Marking Operational 

Controls, Indications, and Features. 

The proposal is consistent with other Handbook 44 code requirements adopted to ensure that customers have 

sufficient information to make an informed decision during a direct sale. These codes require marking and/or 

identification of values, graduations, units, and indications in the displayed and recorded transaction information. 

Handbook 44 includes requirements for clearly identifying operational controls and features used in weighing 

applications. Additionally, Handbook 44 requirements specify that the size, proximity, and position of that 

information shall be such that it is easily read and is appropriate for that application. 

In 2003 the Weighing Sector reported there was ongoing disagreement among NIST Weights and Measures Division 

(WMD), the NTEP Participating Laboratories, and manufacturers regarding the interpretation of Handbook 44 

General Code paragraph G-S.6. Marking Operational Controls, Indications, and Features; Scales Code paragraph 

S.1.1. Zero Indication; and related discussions in the 78th (1993) NCWM Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Final 

Report Item 320-1 S.1.1. Zero Indication. These disagreements resulted in inconsistencies between type evaluations 

and field enforcement for scales and point-of-sale systems interfaced with scales that use methods such as screen 

savers, power savers, scrolling displays, and modes of operation other than a digital zero indication to indicate that a 

device is at a no-load condition. WMD and some representatives of several NTEP Participating Laboratories agreed 

that General Code paragraph G-S.6. requires weighing devices to be marked or provide an indication that states the 

zero-balance is represented by other than a digital zero indication. WMD and the representatives noted this 

interpretation was supported by the 1993 S&T Final Report, and NCWM Publication 14 clearly states such markings 

are required. Other Participating Laboratories and some manufacturers stated that the markings were not necessary 

because Handbook 44 paragraph S.1.1. (c) does not specifically state that the additional markings are required and 

the actions of the 78th NCWM to amend paragraph S.1.1.(c) provided sufficient customer protection for devices that 

use this feature. 

Weights and measures officials indicated there may be “not-built-for-purpose” devices that do not comply with the 

proposed interpretation. These “not-built-for-purpose” devices are interfaced with approved devices; however, the 

system continues weighing when the scale is off zero. Consequently, officials questioned whether the proposed 

changes to paragraph S.1.1.(c) are intended to be nonretroactive requirements. 

In July 2004 the Committee agreed that its proposal to modify paragraph S.1.1.(c) was consistent with the original 

intent of the requirement. After hearing comments about how some systems are designed to operate, the Committee 

decided that additional language was needed to clarify that no marking is required if operator intervention is 

S&T - 10 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

necessary to verify a zero condition before the start of a transaction. In July 2004, the Committee made this an 

information item to provide sufficient time for input from the Weighing Sector (that did not have this proposal at its 

2003 meeting) and to receive a proposal that addresses operator intervention. 

The Committee believes the proposal provides a record of how to apply the requirement. The Committee agreed 

that the original intent of the requirement was that all primary indicators comply with paragraph S.1.1., therefore, 

the proposal should be a retroactive requirement. 

At its August 2004 meeting the Weighing Sector agreed with the Committee’s interpretation, but did not find it 

necessary to modify paragraph S.1.1.(c) because NCWM Publication 14 was expanded in 2003 to include in type 

evaluation checklist procedures criteria to verify that digital electronic scales equipped with other than a continuous 

digital zero-balance indication comply. Publication 14 test procedures specify methods for defining the zero 

indication when the zero condition of the scale is represented by other than a continuous digital zero indication. The 

Weighing Sector agreed the type evaluation aspects of this issue have been resolved. 

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) indicated there is little support for this proposal. 

Many at NEWMA believe the NTEP laboratories already have the necessary information to properly perform 

evaluations. 

The Central and Western Weights and Measures Associations recommended the proposal be withdrawn because 

appropriate protections and labeling criteria are applied during type evaluation. 

 

The Scale Manufacturers Association agreed that the current type evaluation process based on paragraph S.1.1.(c) 

prevents facilitation of fraud. 

During the 2005 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed that past inconsistencies in the interpretation of 

paragraph S.1.1.(c) warrant clarifying the intent of the paragraph in Handbook 44. Even though the regional weights 

and measures associations recommended a different approach, their positions do not disagree with the technical 

content of the proposal. The Committee further modified paragraph S.1.1. to include a new note recommended by 

WMD to clarify that no markings are necessary when operator intervention is required to return the indication to a 

digital zero balance before conducting a transaction. 

At the July 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee changed the status of the item from “voting” to 

“information” to allow additional time to determine whether or not the markings could be displayed as part of the 

indication rather than being physically marked on the device. This will also allow additional time for the Committee 

to gather information on whether or not self-service systems provide information about the zero-balance condition of 

scales prior to each weighment. 

320-2 VC S.1.8.4. Recorded Representations, Point-of-Sale Systems; Footnote 1 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector 

Recommendation: Amend paragraph S.1.8.4. Recorded Representations, Point-of-Sale Systems; Footnote 1 as 

follows: 

S.1.8.4. Recorded Representations, Point-of-Sale Systems. - The sales information recorded by cash 

registers when interfaced with a weighing element shall contain the following information for items weighed at 

the checkout stand: 

(a) the net weight,1

(b) the unit price,1

S&T - 11 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

(c) the total price, and 

(d) the product class or, in a system equipped with price look-up capability, the product name or code 

number. 

1

Weight values shall be identified by kilogram, kg, grams, g, ounces, oz, pound, lb, or the sign “#.” For 

devices interfaced with scales indicating in metric units, the unit price may be expressed in price per 100 grams. 

Weight values shall be identified by kilogram, kg, grams, g, ounces, oz, pound, or lb. The “#”symbol is 

not acceptable. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2006]

(Amended 1995 and 2005) 

Discussion/Background: In 1976, the Committee reviewed numerous examples of point-of-sale systems’ 

transaction information and provided clarification on how that information should be formatted on recorded 

representations. At that time, the Committee indicated the “#” symbol was an acceptable representation for “pound” 

on point-of sale system’s receipts. The Committee noted that the “#” symbol was acceptable because it was 

recognized in a widely used dictionary. In addition, printer technology at that time could better accommodate the 

“#”symbol since it required only one column, whereas the two characters in “lb” needed two columns. 

Currently, NCWM Publication 14 “NTEP Technical Policy, Checklists and Test Procedures,” Section 75, List of 

Acceptable Abbreviations/Symbols recognizes the “#” symbol as acceptable, but discourages using the “#” symbol 

for recorded representations for electronic cash registers (ECR) and point-of-sale (POS) systems. One manufacturer 

reasoned that if the symbol is suitable for recorded representations for ECRs, then there is no justification for 

prohibiting use of the “#” symbol for other recorded representations or markings. The manufacturer argued that the 

“#” symbol should be acceptable in all instances or not acceptable in any weighing applications, but was amenable 

to the Weighing Sector’s proposal to remove the “#” symbol from Footnote 1.

The Committee considered several proposals to modify paragraph S.1.8.4. Footnote 1, including recommendations 

from the Western and Central Weights and Measures Associations outlined above and the Weighing Sector to 

remove reference to the “#” symbol as shown below: 

1

Weight values shall be identified by kilogram, kg, grams, g, ounces, oz, pound, or lb, or the sign “#.” For 

devices interfaced with scales indicating in metric units, the unit price may be expressed in price per 100 grams. 

(Amended 1995 and 200X) 

The Weighing Sector proposed removing the “#” symbol from paragraph S.1.8.4. Footnote 1 because the symbol 

represented a multitude of terms used in many unrelated disciplines and because of advances in printer technology. 

The Western, Central, Northeastern, and Southern Weights and Measures Associations and Scale Manufacturers 

Association agreed the “#” symbol is no longer acceptable, but this should not be applied retroactively. 

At the 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting the Committee heard unanimous support for removing reference to “#” from 

the list of acceptable symbols used to identify weight values. The Committee agreed to present the proposal as a 

voting item with an effective date of January 1, 2006. This prohibition on the use of the “#” will be nonretroactive. 

320-3 I UR.1.6. Computing Scale Interfaced to a Cash Register 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph UR.1.6. to the Scales Code as follows: 

UR.1.6. Computing Scale Interfaced to a Cash Register. – A computing scale may interface with a cash 

register provided all displayed and recorded indications agree:

(a) the cash register only records (serves as printer) the information received from the scale,

S&T - 12 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

(b) the computing scale has tare capability,

(c) the computing scale is not equipped with PLU capability,

(d) The electronic cash register does not have any input to the computing scale in the process of 

determining the total price of a weighed item.

(Added 200X)

Discussion: This proposal is intended to add new device-specific requirements to the Scales Code to address the 

interface of computing scales with electronic cash registers (ECR) and to clarify how each component must display 

transaction information. The requirements also prescribe how such devices must operate in taking tare and how 

Price-Look-Up (PLU) features must function. Currently, a General Code Specification (G-S.2.) specifying that 

weighing and measuring equipment and associated devices shall not facilitate fraud is not sufficient to clarify how a 

computing scale interfaced with an ECR must operate. 

In Spring 2004, the NTEP Participating Laboratories learned that officials in one jurisdiction were finding 

computing scales interfaced with ECRs, where the ECR accepts weighing results from the computing scale and uses 

the ECR's price look-up (PLU) feature to retrieve tare and unit price information to calculate the total price. 

Officials reported that a different unit price, tare, and total price could be manually entered and displayed on the 

computing scale at the same time. In this instance, what the customer views on the computing scale as the net 

weight, unit price, and total price may not be what is actually used by the ECR to calculate the customer’s charge. 

Additionally, the NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) for devices with such areas of noncompliance did not list 

the interface as an approved application. 

The Participating Laboratories recognized that NCWM Publication 14 type evaluation criteria address how 

computing scales must interface with ECRs and decided to use that criteria to propose the following new 

specification for the Scales Code that would be used by field officials in their inspection and test of these systems: 

S.1.8.5. Computing Scale Interfaced to a Cash Register. - A computing scale may interface with a cash register 

provided:

(a) the cash register only records (serves as printer) the information received from the scale,

(b) the computing scale has tare capability,

(c) the computing scale is not equipped with PLU capability, and

(d) the electronic cash register does not have any input to the computing scale in the process of 

determining the total price of a weighed item.

The proposal was distributed at the 2004 fall meetings of the NTETC Weighing Sector, Western Weights and 

Measures Associations (WWMA) and SWMA. The WWMA withdrew the item from its agenda because there was 

only minimal support for the proposal from the Weighing Sector. The Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) 

opposed the proposed specification because SMA members believed it would, as worded, inadvertently impose 

design restrictions on devices. SMA recommended the following language as an alternative: 

S.1.8.5. Computing Scale Interfaced to a Cash Register. - A computing scale may interface with a cash register 

provided all displayed and recorded indications agree.

The SWMA supported the original proposal because it provided clear guidance for officials and SWMA also 

believed it would be easier to enforce than G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud. The SWMA agreed to forward the proposal 

to the NCWM S&T Committee for consideration as a voting item. 

During the 2005 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed that adding specific language to the Scales Code 

would make it easier for the field official to ensure that equipment is operating in an approved manner. The 

language clarifies that it is acceptable for the ECR and computing scale to communicate the total price, but not to the 

S&T - 13 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

point where the input process involves the ECR calculating the total price. The Committee recommended that 

jurisdictions, if they have not already done so, establish specific examination procedures (e.g., enter a new price per 

pound at the ECR) so that officials verify that both the ECR and the computing scale interface are in compliance. 

The Committee heard numerous comments opposing the proposed specification. Industry representatives said the 

proposal might limit future technology used to interface equipment and that it would be too restrictive when applied 

to a point-of-sale system that reads UPC codes and computes prices for frequent shopper discounted prices. The 

Committee was advised that, since type evaluation already verifies the requirements proposed in new paragraphs 

S.1.8.5.(a) through (d), that the Committee should consider an alternate proposal that only specifies “all indications 

must agree,” similar to the language in the SMA proposal. The Committee also concluded that the term “input” 

should be expanded to more provide more detail to officials about how the interface must work and that a 

requirement was needed to ensure equipment in commercial use is interfaced as approved by NTEP and as intended 

by the manufacturer’s design. Consequently, the Committee modified the proposal to make it a user requirement 

with the recommendation that it be adopted by the NCWM. 

During the 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee again heard that there are instances in which a computing 

scale may be interfaced with an ECR to create a point-of-sale system that is contrary to the device application 

covered on the device’s Certificate of Conformance. Additionally, the Committee was told that neither of the 

proposals discussed above address computing scales with multiple sales accumulation capability. Several comments 

suggested that the current definition of point-of-sale system (POS) may also need modification to clarify the specific 

type of weighing element that is permitted as part of the POS assembly. Based on the comments it received the 

Committee believed that developing a new specification rather than a user requirement was the most appropriate 

way to address the problems that have been reported. Consequently, the Committee changed the item to 

“information” so that it can be further developed. The Committee recommends that the SWMA rework the proposal 

as a specification that (1) provides details to officials users about how cash registers must function, (2) provides 

guidance to assist device manufacturers who are considering design modifications to a computing scale or cash 

register, and (3) is not in conflict with requirements in related paragraphs such as S.1.8.4. Recorded Representations, 

Point-of-Sale Systems. 

320-4 VC S.2.1.3. Scales Equipped with an Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism (Zero Tracking), 

S.2.1.3.1. For Scales Manufactured Between January 1, 2007; Maximum Load Rezeroed, 

S.2.1.3.2. For Scales Manufactured On or After January 1, 2007; Maximum Load Rezeroed, 

and S.2.1.3.3. Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism (Zero Tracking) on Class III L Devices 

(This item was adopted.)

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector 

Recommendation: Modify paragraphs S.2.1.3. and S.2.1.3.1. and add new paragraphs S.2.1.3.2.and S.2.1.3.3.as 

follows: 

S.2.1.3. Scales Equipped with an Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism (Zero Tracking). - Under normal 

operating conditions 

S.2.1.3.1. Zero-Tracking for Scales manufactured Between January 1, 1981 and January 1, 2007. - Tthe 

maximum load that can be “rezeroed,” when either placed on or removed from the platform all at once 

under normal operating conditions, shall be: 

(a) for bench, counter, and livestock scales: 0.6 scale division; 

(b) for vehicle, axle-load, and railway track scales: 3.0 scale divisions; and 

(c) for all other scales: 1.0 scale division. 

(Amended 2005)

S&T - 14 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

S.2.1.3.2. Zero-Tracking for Scales manufactured On or After January 1, 2007. - The maximum load 

that can be “rezeroed,” when either placed on or removed from the platform all at once under normal 

operating conditions, shall be:

(a) for vehicle, axle-load, and railway track scales: 3.0 scale divisions; and

(b) for all other scales: 0.5 scale division.

(Added 2005)

S.2.1.3.13. Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism Means to Disable Zero-Tracking on Class III L 

Devices - Class III L devices equipped with automatic zero setting mechanisms shall be designed with a 

sealable means to allow the automatic zero setting to be disabled during the inspection and test of the 

device. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001] 

(Added 1999) (Amended 2005)

Discussion: This issue revisits the 2003 Weighing Sector’s concerns about holding a device to different AZSM 

requirements based solely on whether or not it is located on a counter or floor. The confusion over how to apply 

AZSM requirements is compounded when a family of scales covered on an NTEP Certificate of Conformance 

includes both bench/counter scales and other platform-type scales. Currently, paragraph S.2.1.3. specifies a 

different maximum load that can be rezeroed under normal operating conditions for bench/counter scales (0.6 scale 

division) from that for all other scales (1.0 scale division). 

The proposal is also intended to partially align the automatic zero tracking requirements in paragraph S.2.1.3. with 

those of Measurement Canada and OIML R76 “Non-automatic Weighing Instruments.” AZSM requirements for 

Class III L vehicle, axle-load, and railway track scales will remain unchanged. 

The Weighing Sector asked that the proposal be a developing item on the NCWM S&T Agenda while the regional 

weights and measures associations consider its effect on field evaluations. The Sector’s public members questioned 

how field officials will determine the date of manufacture and whether training is needed. The Weighing Sector’s 

industry members requested a delayed enforcement date to allow sufficient time for changes to be made to devices 

nearing the end of their production cycle. 

The Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) believed there is sufficient time between September 

2004 and July 2005 to gather data to determine if there will be enforcement issues. The WWMA agreed that while 

input from field officials is necessary the proposal should move forward as a voting item. 

The Central Weights and Measures Association received no comments on the proposal and recommended it move 

forward as a voting item. 

The Southern Weights and Measures Association agreed with the concern stated by public members of the Sector 

that it is difficult for field officials to determine when a device was manufactured and recommended the proposal be 

an information item. 

NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) believes field officials will have no difficulty with enforcing the 

proposal based on the equipment manufacture date since officials already successfully establish that criteria when 

enforcing other nonretroactive requirements. 

The Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) believes the proposal has no technical merit and is only an attempt to 

harmonize United States and OIML requirements. SMA is concerned about the potential for unnecessarily 

increasing evaluation costs. However, the SMA supported this effort toward harmonization provided NTEP does 

not require reevaluation of devices already covered by NTEP Certificates of Conformance. 

At the 2005 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed that the proposal is a good move in the direction of 

harmonization of standards and should not lose momentum. The Committee concluded that sufficient data could be 

easily gathered by July 2005 on new production lots of existing products to demonstrate if a January 1, 2006, 

S&T - 15 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

effective date was appropriate. The Committee encouraged manufacturers, officials, and Participating NTEP 

Laboratories to gather data since it is easy for each group to verify if bench, counter, livestock scales, and scales 

classified as other types can meet the proposed ASZM requirement during their regular duties. The Committee 

indicated it is willing to modify the date to January 1, 2007, if any group submitted data at the July 2005 NCWM 

Annual Meeting to support extending the period in which manufacturers have to comply. The Committee agreed 

with WMD’s assessment that jurisdictions continually prove their ability to determine manufacture dates when 

devices are subject to nonretroactive requirements. The Committee indicated its full support of an NTEP policy that 

does not require additional evaluation for existing equipment since the proposal appears to have little effect on most 

bench or counter scales. Consequently, the Committee agreed the proposal was ready for a vote at the 2005 NCWM 

Annual Meeting. 

During the July 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee acknowledged that officials may experience delays 

during inspections if they have to verify the date that a device was manufactured. However, it believes these delays 

are manageable and are no different than those experienced when verifying compliance with other nonretroactive 

requirements. Typically, date of manufacture information is readily available from the manufacturer. The 

Committee heard opposition to an alternate SMA proposal that based the enforcement date on the Certificate of 

Conformance (CC) issue date. A CC can be updated or revised for any number of reasons consequently there are 

variations in subsequent CC numbers and model features that would require even more investigative work by 

officials. The Committee did not support the alternate proposal since it would also set a precedent for enforcing 

Handbook 44 nonretroactive requirements based on the CC issue date rather than the manufacture date. The 

Committee also recognized that there may be some models nearing the end of their production life, where it may not 

be economically practicable to modify them to meet the proposed maximum 0.5 d load requirement. The 

Committee heard from industry that most equipment is already designed to operate to the proposed standard and that 

large numbers of devices are not built in advance; however, additional time is necessary for existing field devices to 

reach the end of their life cycle. Consequently, the Committee modified the proposal to extend the enforcement date 

to January 1, 2007. 

320-5 VC Table S.6.3.b. Notes For Table S.6.3.a. Note 3; Nominal Capacity and Value of the Scale 

Division and Appendix D; Definition of Reading Face 

 (This item was adopted.) 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector 

Recommendation: Amend Table S.6.3.b. Notes For Table S.6.3.a. Note 3 and revise the definition for “reading 

face” to include a reference to Scales Code Section 2.20 as follows: 

3. The device shall be marked with the nominal capacity. The nominal capacity and shall be shown 

together with the value of the scale division (e.g., 50 000 x 5 kg, 100 000 x 10 lb, 15 x 0.005 kg , or 30 x 

0.01 lb, or capacity = 15 kg, d = 0.005 kg) adjacent to the weight display in a clear and conspicuous 

manner and be readily apparent when viewing the reading face of the scale indicator unless when the 

nominal capacity and value of the scale division are not immediately already apparent by the design of 

the device. Each scale division value or weight unit shall be marked on multiple range or multi-interval 

scales. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1983] 

(Amended 2005)

reading face. That portion of an automatic-indicating weighing or measuring device that gives a visible 

indication of the quantity weighed or measured. A reading face may include an indicator and a series of 

graduations or may present values digitally, and may also provide money-value indications. [1.10, 2.20]

(Amended 2005)

Discussion: The proposed change is intended to eliminate any differences in the interpretation of where to place the 

required nominal capacity and scale division markings on equipment. Currently, Table S.6.3.b. Note 3 specifies that 

the nominal capacity and the scale division shall be shown together adjacent to the weight display. In 1990, the 

Committee was unable to arrive at definitive guidelines on what is meant by “adjacent” and left the interpretation to 

S&T - 16 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

NTEP Participating Laboratories. Any manufacturer’s challenge to the laboratory’s interpretation was to be heard 

by the NTEP Board of Governors (now the NCWM NTEP Committee). 

NCWM Publication 14, “NTEP Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures” for Digital Electronic Scales 

Section 2.13. states: 

2.13. The nominal capacity by minimum scale division shall be clearly and conspicuously marked adjacent to 

the weight display. (Acceptable location depends on conspicuousness). 

Repeated attempts by the NTEP Laboratories and manufacturers to uniformly apply this marking requirement have 

resulted in conflicting interpretations. The NTEP Laboratories believe the criteria in paragraph 2.13. implies that 

“conspicuousness” should be the primary objective, rather than proximity of the information. However, the NTEP 

Laboratories agree that until the term “adjacent” is removed from Handbook 44 Table S.6.3.b. Note 3, the 

Laboratories are tied to requiring the nominal capacity and scale division values be marked adjacent to the weight 

display as shown below in Example 1. 

The NTEP Laboratories maintain that the information must be marked next to the weight display on the face of a 

scale, as shown below in Example 1, but that they continue to receive devices with the required markings located 

elsewhere on the face of the scale such as shown below in Example 2. 

 

30 x 0.01 lb

Example 1 Example 2 

The NTEP Laboratories agreed that at this point in time Example 2 shown above is incorrect according to 

Handbook 44 because the markings do not appear adjacent to or as close as practical to the weight display as 

required in General Code paragraph G-S.5.2.4. Values. The NTEP Laboratories believe that the operator is already 

familiar with the device and the customer does not fully understand the significance of this information. The NTEP 

Laboratories also believe that the markings in the examples above are “conspicuous” enough for the inspector and 

service technician who rely most heavily on the information. However, Example 2 is only acceptable if Note 3 

could be amended to allow for placing the markings conspicuously on the face of the indicating portion of the scale. 

The Weighing Sector agreed with the Laboratories that both Example 1 and 2 represent the acceptable placement of 

markings since they are either adjacent to or conspicuous on the reading face of the weight display. The Weighing 

Sector also proposed to modify the existing definition of “reading face” to include a reference to Section 2.20. 

Scales Code since the term would also apply to scale indications. 

The Central Weights and Measures Association and Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) supported the Sector’s 

proposal shown in the recommendation above. The Scale Manufacturers Association asked for further clarification 

on the meaning of the phrase “already apparent by the design.” 

The Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) discussed how paragraph G-S.5.2.4. requirements for 

values are not intended to apply to the nominal capacity statement and do little to help the customer determine the 

acceptability of a weight value. The WWMA agreed to the same wording shown in the Weighing Sector’s proposal 

and recommended the proposal move forward as a voting item. 

S&T - 17 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association concluded that this is an NTEP issue and “adjacent” is the 

correct terminology since it represents “abutting” or “next to.” 

The Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) agreed with the Weighing Sector’s proposal provided 

the unit of weight is identified in a manner that is consistent with requirements in paragraph G-S.5.2.4. Values for 

placing, as close as practicable, adequate and sufficient information to define graduations, indications, or recorded 

representations. The SWMA agreed that Example 2 is not correct; however, the placement of the nominal capacity 

and division marking would be correct if the unit of weight were properly marked adjacent to the weight display 

shown in Example 3. 

The NIST Technical Advisor to the Weighing Sector requested that the Sector consider an alternate NIST Weights 

and Measures Division (WMD) proposal amending Note 3 in Table S.6.3.b. to require markings “near” the weight 

display that do not reference the reading face as follows: 

LB 

Example 3 

3. The nominal capacity and value of the scale division shall be shown together (e.g., 50 000 x 5 kg, 100 000 x 

10 lb, 15 x 0.005 kg , or 30 x 0.01 lb) near adjacent to the weight display when the nominal capacity and 

value of the scale division are not immediately apparent. Each scale division value or weight unit shall be 

marked on multiple range or multi-interval scales. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1983] 

(Amended 200X)

The WMD proposal would also more closely align U.S. terminology with that used in OIML R76 “Non-automatic 

Weighing Instruments” paragraph 7.1.4 Presentation of descriptive markings, which specifies the descriptive 

markings shall be grouped together shall identify the Max, Min, e, and d, if “d” does not equal “e”, and shall be 

shown near the display of the weight result if they are not already located there. 

WMD was concerned that the Sector’s proposal deviates from the intent of General Code paragraph 

G-S.5.2.4. Values, which specifies that values shall be adequately defined and placed as close as practicable to the 

corresponding indication. WMD noted the Sector’s proposal allows information to be placed further away from the 

display and this becomes more difficult to locate as the font size of the lettering decreases. WMD disagreed with the 

premise that consumers do not value this information. WMD believes the information should be available to the 

customer as well as officials and service representatives. As currently written, Note 3 is not in conflict with the 

General Code paragraph G-S.5.2.4. Values. However, the proposal creates a conflict since it would permit markings 

that may not be placed as close as practical to the weight display. 

The Committee agreed that the Sector’s proposal shown above is acceptable and ready for a vote since it provides 

guidelines on the required information, yet allows some flexibility in the placement of that information. The 

Committee concurred with officials that the phrase “already apparent by the design” is a carryover from language 

developed to address mechanical beam and dial type scales, where the beam capacity and its “d” and the complete 

revolution of the dial and its “d” provided the nominal capacity and value of the scale division without the need for 

additional markings. The Committee concluded that Example 1 and Example 3 both comply with the proposal and 

show acceptable ways to mark the nominal capacity and value of the scale division (d) even though there is a 

S&T - 18 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

difference in where the information is placed on the display. Example 2 is not encouraged since it is the 

conspicuous supplemental marking of “LB” on the weight display that makes all of the information crystal clear. 

During the July 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee modified the proposal to also recognize formats used 

in international markings to designate the capacity and d, such as “max = 15 kg, d = 0.005 kg, where text or 

abbreviations may identify the required capacity and division size information. Marking the capacity and division 

information in the alternate format also requires that the information is located near the weight display. 

320-6 I N.1.3.1. Bench or Counter Scales, N.1.3.8. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging 

Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel–Load Weighers, and Portable Axle-Load Weighers, and 

Appendix D; Definitions of Bench Scale and Counter Scale 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector 

Recommendation: Delete paragraph N.1.3.1. and renumber subsequent paragraphs. 

N.1.3. Shift Test. 

N.1.3.1. Bench or Counter Scales. - A shift test shall be conducted with a half-capacity test load 

centered successively at four points equidistant between the center and the front, left, back, and right 

edges of the load-receiving element.

Renumber and amend paragraph N.1.3.8. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging Scales, Hopper Scales, 

Wheel–Load Weighers, and Portable Axle-Load Weighers as follows: 

N.1.3.87. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel-Load Weighers, 

and Portable Axle-Load Weighers. A shift test shall be conducted using the following prescribed test loads 

and test patterns. 

(a) For livestock scales, the with a nominal capacity greater than 150 kg (300 lb), a shift test load 

shall not exceed one-half the rated section may be conducted by either using one-third nominal

capacity or one-half the rated concentrated load test load centered as nearly as possible at the 

center of each quadrant of the load-receiving element as shown in Figure 1 below, or by using 

one-quarter nominal capacity, whichever is applicable. A shift test shall be conducted using 

either: load centered as nearly as possible, successively over each corner of the load-receiving 

element as shown in Figure 2 below.

(ab) A one-quarter For scales with a nominal capacity of 150 kg (300 lb) or less, a shift test load shall 

be conducted using one-third nominal capacity test load. The centered as nearly as possible, 

successively over each main load shall be applied centrally in the quadrant if a single weight is 

used, or applied uniformly over the quadrant, if several weights are used.support as shown in the 

diagram below; or 

(bc) A one-half nominal capacity For livestock scales, the shift test load centered as nearly as possible, 

successively at the center of each quarter of the load-receiving element shall not exceed one-half 

the rated section or concentrated load capacity using the prescribed test pattern as shown in the 

diagram Figure 1, or one quarter the section or concentrated load capacity as shown in Figure 2

below.

(Added 2003) 

(Amended 1987, and 2003, and 200X)

S&T - 19 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

 Figure 1 Figure 2

 

Position

3 

Position

1 

Position

4 

Position

2 

Position

1 

Position

2 

Position

4 

Position

3 

Delete Appendix D definitions for “bench scale” and “counter scale” as follows: 

bench scale. See "counter scale."[2.20]

counter scale. One that, by reason of its size, arrangement of parts, and moderate nominal capacity, is 

adapted for use on a counter or bench. Sometimes called "bench scale."[2.20]

The Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) recommended an alternate proposal to modify paragraph 

N.1.3.8. as follows: 

N.1.3.87. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel-Load Weighers, and 

Portable Axle-Load Weighers. A shift test shall be conducted using the following prescribed test loads and test 

patterns. 

(a) For livestock scales, the with a nominal capacity greater than 150 kg (300 lb) a shift test load shall 

not exceed one-half the rated section may be conducted by either using one-third nominal

capacity or one-half the rated concentrated load test load centered as nearly as possible at the 

center of each quarter of the load-receiving element as shown in Figure 1 below, or by using onequarter nominal capacity, whichever is applicable. A shift test shall be conducted using either:

load centered as nearly as possible, successively over each corner of the load-receiving element as 

shown in Figure 2 below.

(ab) A one-quarter For scales with a nominal capacity of 150 kg (300 lb) or less, a shift test load shall be 

conducted using one-third nominal capacity test load. The centered as nearly as possible, successively 

over each main load shall be applied centrally in the segment if a single weight is used, or applied 

uniformly over the segment, if several small weights are used support as shown in the diagram Figure 

1 below; or.

(bc) A one-half nominal capacity For livestock scales the shift test load centered as nearly as possible, 

successively at the center of each quarter of the load-receiving element shall not exceed one-half 

the rated section or concentrated load capacity using the prescribed test pattern as shown in the 

diagram Figure 1, or one-quarter of the section or concentrated load capacity as shown in Figure 

2 below.

(Added 2003) 

(Amended 1987, and 2003, and 200X)

S&T - 20 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

 Figure 1 Figure 2 

3 

1 

4 

2 = Load Bearing Point 

1 2 

4 3 

Discussion: The Committee was requested to reconsider a 2003 Weighing Sector proposal to clarify the appropriate 

shift test pattern and test loads for bench/counter scales and other platform-type scales. Currently, bench and 

counter scale shift tests are conducted with a one-half capacity test load centered successively at four points 

equidistant between the center and the front, left, back, right edges of the load-receiving element. Other platform 

scale shift tests are conducted with a one-half capacity test load centered, as nearly as possible, successively at the 

center of each quadrant. The proposal eliminates the bench and counter scale device types and prescribes the shift 

test load and test pattern based on either the scale’s nominal capacity or because the scale is used to weigh livestock. 

It should be noted that the proposal does not permit corner testing for scales with a nominal capacity less than or 

equal to 150 kg. Corner testing is allowed within permissible load limits if the scale has four load supports for 

scales with a nominal capacity greater than 150 kg. Currently, Table 4 Minimum Test Weights requires that scales 

with a capacity of 150 kg or less have test weights up to 100 % of the scale capacity. 

The Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) supported the Sector’s proposal, but pointed out that Figure 2 was 

inconsistent with the proposed requirement that describes the location of the test load. Consequently, the SMA 

recommended an alternate Figure 2, where the test loads were located on the outer corners of the platform. The 

SMA also noted other inconsistencies in the terminology in the proposal. Proposed paragraph N.1.3.7.(a) included 

the term “quarter,” whereas proposed paragraph N.1.3.7.(b) specified the term “segment.” The SMA recommended 

replacing both terms with the word “quadrant.” 

The SMA agreed that the Sector’s proposal provided for a shift test that is independent of the device’s design. The 

proposal is an improvement over the corresponding R76 requirement, which is design dependent. In keeping with 

the spirit of harmonization, the SMA recommended that NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) submit a 

similar proposal to OIML. 

The Committee heard similar comments from all regional weights and measures associations indicating that 

additional study is needed before presenting the issue for a vote. The associations indicated that additional data 

should be collected on shift tests to verify that the proposed test loads and positions are equivalent to existing test 

loads. On a general note regarding harmonization with OIML, the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association 

believes there may be instances where OIML should harmonize with U.S. requirements. Participants at the regional 

meetings were advised that all shift test data comparing existing and proposed test loads and positions should be sent 

to Steve Cook, NIST Technical Advisor to the NTETC Weighing Sector, at steven.cook@nist.gov, by fax at 

301-926-0647 or at NIST WMD, 100 Bureau Drive MS 2600, Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600. 

The Committee made the proposal an information item to allow sufficient time for comparison of data using existing 

and the proposed shift test procedures to ensure that devices passing current tests also meet the proposed 

requirements. The Committee acknowledged that the Weighing Sector proposal addressed the Committee’s 2004 

requests for a procedure where the official was not required to determine the scale’s design in order to conduct a 

shift test. In the spring of 2005, the proposal was posted on the Weights and Measures List Server to generate 

further discussion and data. The Committee agreed that the corrections noted by SMA to the Figure 2 diagram and 

terminology were appropriate and, therefore, modified the proposals accordingly. 

During the July 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee further modified Figure 2 by showing the test loads 

as squares because circles are used in other sections of Handbook 44 to represent load bearing points. The 

Committee kept the proposal as an information item to enable officials and the NTEP Laboratories to continue 

forwarding data on the proposed and current shift tests to the NIST Technical Advisor for evaluation. 

S&T - 21 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

320-7 I Table 6 Tolerances 

Source: NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) 

Recommendation: Amend Table 6 Maintenance Tolerances as follows: 

Table 6. 

Maintenance Tolerances 

(All values in this table are in verification scale divisions e)

Tolerance in verification scale divisions e

1 2 3 5 

Class Test Load 

I 0 - 50 000 50 001 - 200 000 200 001 + 

II 0 - 5 000 5 001 - 20 000 20 001 + 

III 0 - 500 501 - 2 000 2 001+ - 4 000 4 001 +

IIII 0 - 50 51 - 200 201+ - 400 401 +

III L 0 - 500 501 - 1 000 (Add 1 de for each additional 500 de or fraction thereof) 

(Amended 200X)

Discussion: During an August 2003 meeting, the U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) for R76 “Non-automatic 

Weighing Instruments” discussed the differences in the tolerances for Class III and IIII weighing instruments. The 

USNWG reconfirmed that the original intent of the step tolerances was to provide a relationship between scale 

accuracy and scale resolution. The USNWG agreed that NIST Handbook 44 Class III and Class IIII tolerances 

should be aligned with OIML R76. The manufacturers present reported that they build identically performing 

instruments and load cells for both U.S. and international markets. 

In September 2004 Hobart Corporation provided “production data” comparing different Class III tolerances. 

Hobart’s data demonstrated that their production scales would comply with Handbook 44 Table 6 tolerances up to 

10 000 e and OIML R76 tolerances up to approximately 7000 e. Hobart also reported that many scales and load 

cells with an nmax greater than 5000 e would have difficulty in complying with the temperature effect on zero in both 

Handbook 44 and OIML R76 standards. Currently, a scale’s performance takes advantage of the extra step in 

Handbook 44, and that is contrary to the intended relationship of scale resolution to accuracy. 

The NIST technical advisor to the Weighing Sector requested that it discuss whether or not there is any need to 

retain the Handbook 44 Accuracy Class III L tolerance or for proposing this tolerance be incorporated into 

OIML R76. The Class III L tolerance structure in Handbook 44 deviates from the intent of step tolerances since 

there is little relation of the value of the scale division (i.e., e = 20 lb resolution) to the accuracy required (i.e., ± 8 e 

at 80 000 lb maintenance tolerance). It should be noted that the tolerance values, zero-tracking limit, and motion 

detection requirements in Handbook 44 are roughly equivalent to an R76 instrument when e = 50 lb. 

The NTETC Weighing Sector withdrew this proposal from its agenda since it was not developed in response to 

problems encountered with Publication 14 test procedures and, hence, not under its purview. The Sector 

recommended the WMD and USNWG proposal become either an information item or developing item that is 

reviewed by the regional weights and measures associations as well as the NCWM S&T Committee. Several 

regional associations recommended that more data is needed before the proposal can move to a vote. 

Additional test data is needed to determine the effect of the proposed tolerances on Class III and IIII scales and on 

the apportionment of errors for single and multiple load cell applications. It is also recommended that consideration 

be given to the international recommendations for the apportionment of error and that further analysis be made on 

the proposal’s possible impact on load cells, separable weighing elements, and existing scales. One regional 

association noted that the Class III L scale tolerances for test loads greater than the proposed 1000 verification scale 

S&T - 22 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

divisions (e) are based on a test load value measured in scale divisions (d) rather than the proposed “e.” That 

association questioned whether these tolerances should be in “e;” however, it recognized that further modification 

may only add to the confusion. 

During the 2005 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee agreed that the proposal has merit. However, it made the 

proposal an information item in response to requests for more time to examine data from test results using the 

proposed tolerances and to determine if there are devices that cannot comply, unless they are granted the 5 d 

tolerance being eliminated from Table 6. The Committee also modified the Class III L tolerance structure for test 

loads greater than 1000 e to include units of “e” rather than “d” since it is appropriate to have like units in Table 6. 

During the 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) reiterated its opposition to 

the proposal because it believes a change of this magnitude is premature and should not take precedence over other 

harmonization issues. 

320-8 V T.N.4.5. Time Dependence, General, T.N.4.5.1. Time Dependence; Class II, III, and IIII Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments, T.N.4.5.2. Time Dependence; Class III L Non-automatic 

Weighing Instruments, T.N.4.6. Time Dependence (Creep) for Load Cells During Type 

Evaluation, T.N.4.6.1. Permissible Variations of Readings, T.N.4.6.2. Apportionment 

Factors, and Definitions of Dmax, Emax, and Non-automatic Weighing Instrument 

(This item was adopted.)

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Amend paragraph T.N.4.5. as follows: 

T.N.4.5. Time Dependence, General. - -At constant test conditions, the indication 20 seconds after the 

application of a load and the indication after 1 hour shall not differ by more than: A time dependence 

test shall be conducted during type evaluation and may be conducted during field verification provided 

test conditions remain constant.

(a) one-half of the absolute value of the applicable tolerance for the applied load for class III L 

devices; and

(b) the absolute value of the applicable tolerance for the applied load for all other devices.

(Amended 1989 and 2005) 

Add new paragraphs T.N.4.5.1. and T.N.4.5.2. as follows: 

T.N.4.5.1. Time Dependence; Class II, III, and IIII Non-automatic Weighing Instruments. - A nonautomatic weighing instrument of class II, III, and IIII shall meet the following requirements at constant 

test conditions:

(a) When any load is kept on an instrument, the difference between the indication obtained 

immediately after placing a load and the indication observed during the following 30 minutes 

shall not exceed 0.5 e. 

(b) However, the difference between the indication obtained at 15 minutes and that at 30 minutes 

shall not exceed 0.2 e. If these conditions are not met, the difference between the indication 

obtained immediately after placing a load on the instrument and the indication observed during 

the following four hours shall not exceed the absolute value of the maximum permissible error at 

the load applied.

(c) The deviation on returning to zero as soon as the indication has stabilized, after the removal of 

any load which has remained on the instrument for 30 minutes, shall not exceed 0.5 e.

For a multi-interval instrument, the deviation shall not exceed 0.5 e1 (first weighing segment).

S&T - 23 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

On a multiple range instrument, the deviation on returning to zero from Maxi (load in the 

applicable weighing range) shall not exceed 0.5 ei (interval of the weighing segment). 

Furthermore, after returning to zero from any load greater than Max1 (capacity of the first 

weighing range) and immediately after switching to the lowest weighing range, the indication 

near zero shall not vary by more than e1 (interval of the first weighing range) during the 

following 5 minutes.

(Added 2005)

T.N.4.5.2. Time Dependence; Class III L Non-automatic Weighing Instruments. - A non-automatic 

weighing instrument of class III L shall meet the following requirements:

(a) When any load is kept on an instrument, the difference between the indication obtained 

immediately after placing a load and the indication observed during the following 30 minutes 

shall not exceed 1.5 e. 

(b) However, the difference between the indication obtained at 15 minutes and that at 30 minutes 

shall not exceed 0.6 e. If these conditions are not met, the difference between the indication 

obtained immediately after placing a load on the instrument and the indication observed during 

the following 4 hours shall not exceed the absolute value of the maximum permissible error at 

the load applied.

(c) The deviation on returning to zero as soon as the indication has stabilized, after the removal of 

any

load which has remained on the instrument for 30 minutes, shall not exceed one-half of the 

absolute value of the applicable tolerance for the applied load for class III L devices.

(Added 2005)

Add new paragraphs T.N.4.6., T.N.4.6.1., T.N.4.6.2., T.N.4.6.3 and Table T.N.4.6.2 to include tolerances for load 

performance and zero repeatability that are aligned with OIML R 60. 

T.N.4.6. Time Dependence (Creep) for Load Cells During Type Evaluation. - A load cell (force 

transducer) marked with an accuracy Class shall meet the following requirements at constant test 

conditions:

(a) Permissible Variations of Readings. - With a constant maximum load for the measuring range, 

(Dmax) between 90 % and 100 % of maximum capacity (Emax) applied to the load cell, the 

difference between the initial reading and any reading obtained during the next 30 minutes shall 

not exceed the absolute value of the maximum permissible error (mpe) for the applied load (see 

Table T.N.4.6.). The difference between the reading obtained at 20 minutes and the reading 

obtained at 30 minutes shall not exceed 0.15 times the absolute value of the mpe (see Table 

T.N.4.6.).

(b) Apportionment Factors. - The mpe for creep shall be determined from Table T.N.4.6. Maximum 

Permissible Error (mpe)* for Load Cells using the following apportionment factors (pLC):

 

pLC = 0.7 for load cells marked with S (single load cell applications), and

pLC = 1.0 for load cells marked with M (multiple load cell applications)

(Added 2005)

S&T - 24 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Table T.N.4.6. 

Maximum Permissible Error (mpe)* for Load Cells 

During Type Evaluation

mpe in Load Cell Verifications Divisions (v) = pLC x Basic Tolerance in v

Class pLC x 0.5 v pLC x 1.0 v pLC x 1.5 v

I 0 - 50 000 v 50 001 v - 200 000 v 200 001 v +

II 0 - 5 000 v 5 001 v - 20 000 v 20 001 v +

III 0 - 500 v 501 v - 2 000 v 2 001 v +

IIII 0 - 50 v 51 v - 200 v 201 v +

III L 0 - 500 v 501 v - 1 000 v (Add 0.5 v to the basic tolerance for each additional 500 

v or fraction thereof up to a maximum load of 10 000 v)

v represents the load cell verification interval

pLC represents the apportionment factors applied to the basic tolerance

pLC = 0.7 for load cells marked with S (single load cell applications)

pLC = 1.0 for load cells marked with M (multiple load cell applications)

* mpe = pLC x Basic Tolerance in load cell verifications divisions (v)

(Table Added 2005)

Add new definitions of Dmax, Emax , and amend the current definition of non-automatic weighing systems as follows: 

Dmax (maximum load of the measuring range). Largest value of a quantity (mass) which is applied to a 

load cell during test or use. This value shall not be greater than Emax .[2.20] 

Emax (maximum capacity). Largest value of a quantity (mass) which may be applied to a load cell without 

exceeding the mpe.[2.20]

non-automatic weighing system instrument. A weighing instrument or system that requires the intervention 

of an operator during the weighing process to determine the weighing result or to decide that it is acceptable. 

[2.20, 2.24] 

Notes: Determining the weighing result includes any intelligent action of the operator that affects the result, 

such as deciding and taking an action when an indication is stable or adjusting the weight of the weighed load. 

Deciding that the weighing result is acceptable means making a decision regarding the acceptance of each 

weighing result on observing the indication or releasing a print out. The weighing process allows the operator to 

take an action which influences the weighing result in the case where the weighing result is not acceptable. 

(Added 2004) (Amended 2005)

Background/Discussion: The NIST Weights and Measures Division believes that this recommendation is a small 

step in the work to align U.S. and international requirements. Another possible alternative for aligning 

Handbook 44 and Publication 14 with OIML R60 “Load Cells” is to consider incorporating OIML R60 chapters 1 

through 7 by reference into Handbook 44 and OIML R60 Annexes A through E into Publication 14. Handbook 44 

and Publication 14 could further include paragraphs that state which requirements are not adopted, are different 

than, or are in addition to OIML R60. 

The following background information on the development of Handbook 44 Scales Code paragraph T.N.4.5. Time 

Dependence is provided by Mr. John Elengo (NIST Consultant), who prepared the comparison of Handbook 44, 

OIML R76 “Non-automatic Weighing Instruments,” and OIML R60. 

S&T - 25 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Prior to the adoption of Handbook 44 paragraph T.N.4.5., the United States had not established any requirements for 

“creep.” At that time, the OIML requirement for a creep test was based on a 4-hour period, which was considered 

excessive since the error is primarily contributed by the load cells used in a scale. Generally, the greatest amount of 

load cell creep occurs during a short period (minutes) immediately following the application of the load on the scale. 

After that point, the output becomes increasingly constant. Hence, the United States adopted a requirement that 

specifies a 1-hour period rather than a 4-hour period. Years later, during the revision of OIML R60, it became 

evident that most international evaluation laboratories were not conducting the 4-hour test but a shorter one, and the 

creep proved to stabilize sufficiently during this shorter test. The assumption was made that a device passing the 

shorter test would meet the 4-hour requirement. This assumption was verified by sample tests. Based on this 

experience and that gained in the international comparison of load cell evaluations, the OIML International Work 

Group for R60 concluded that a 30-minute test is sufficient provided that, in addition to measuring the difference 

over a 30-minute period, the difference occurring in the last 10 minutes of this period is also measured. A more 

restrictive allowance than the total allowance for the 30-minute period is applied to the 10-minute period difference 

in order to assure that the creep is becoming increasingly constant and not increasing. The R60 30-minute 

requirement has been incorporated into OIML R76. Thus, the requirement now applies not only to the load cell, but 

also to the instrument as a whole. If main components other than the load cell are a source of creep, they can be 

accounted for using the principle of apportionment of errors (including the assignment of fractions “pi” to those 

various separate main components of an instrument that can be evaluated separately). [Refer to R76-1 Section 3 

Metrological Requirements paragraph 3.5.4. Apportioning of Errors.] 

The NTEP Laboratories discussed this at the 2004 NTEP Participating Laboratories meeting and agreed to forward a 

proposal to align Handbook 44 with R76 and R60 to the Committee. 

The National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Weighing Sector withdrew this proposal from its 

agenda since it was not developed in response to problems with Publication 14 test procedures (and, hence, not 

under its purview) and due to time constraints. A member of the Weighing Sector also noted that the proposal does 

not recognize tolerances for Class I scales. 

The Western Weights and Measures Association recommended this item move forward as a voting item, but did not 

indicate its rationale for taking this position. 

The Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) agreed the proposal was an issue for the Weighing Sector 

requiring further development. Consequently, CWMA recommended the proposal move forward as an information 

item. 

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) recommended that for consistency the U.S. terms 

should be followed by the OIML equivalent terminology in parentheses. NEWMA also found that this is an 

example of the need for revising Handbook 44 into separate sections for field verification and type evaluation test 

procedures. 

The Southern Weights and Measures Association recommended that the proposal become a developing item on the 

NCWM S&T Agenda. 

The Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) recommended only the proposed modification to current Scales Code 

paragraph T.N.4.5. as follows: 

T.N.4.5. Time Dependence, General. - - At constant test conditions, the indication 20 seconds after the 

application of a load and the indication after 1 hour shall not differ by more than: A time dependence test 

shall be conducted during type evaluation.

(a) one-half of the absolute value of the applicable tolerance for the applied load for class III L devices; 

and

(b) the absolute value of the applicable tolerance for the applied load for all other devices.

(Amended 1989 and 2005) 

S&T - 26 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

The SMA agreed with the proposed tolerances and recommended that the remaining proposed subparagraphs be 

added to NCWM Publication 14 through the Weighing Sector. The SMA agreed that Publication 14 requirements 

should be traceable to NIST Handbook 44; however, there is no need to add additional text to Handbook 44 to 

provide traceability. The SMA agreed that its alternate proposal provides the necessary traceability. 

The SMA believes this is a harmonization issue. The SMA supports harmonization of U.S. and international 

requirements, but is concerned about the potential for unnecessarily increasing evaluation costs. However, the SMA 

does support this effort toward harmonization provided NTEP waives the resulting additional evaluation of existing 

devices. 

The Committee noted that the proposed tolerances are absent from Handbook 44 and that tolerances usually appear 

in Handbook 44 rather than Publication 14. One added benefit to adopting the proposed creep test tolerances is that 

it harmonizes U.S. and international requirements. The Committee agreed with SMA’s recommendation that time 

dependence test be performed as a type evaluation test and modified the proposal accordingly. Class I scales were 

intentionally omitted from the proposal because of the device’s sensitivity to even minimal changes in 

environmental factors. The Committee supports the NTEP policy that existing devices will not be required to be 

reevaluated since most devices are expected to already comply with the proposal. To clarify all terminology in the 

proposed requirements that is not already defined in Handbook 44, the Committee made editorial changes to several 

terms; added two new definitions (Dmax and Emax); amended the term “non-automatic weighing system” to read 

“non-automatic weighing instrument;” and included a reference to Section 2.20. 

 

During the 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard that there are jurisdictions that wish to continue to 

cite paragraph T.N.4.5. when a field inspection reveals an abnormal performance in a device’s indications. In some 

cases, those devices are out of compliance with General Code paragraph G-UR.4.2. Abnormal Performance. The 

Committee acknowledged there may be other instances where it is appropriate to perform a time dependence test in 

the field under controlled conditions, based on a specific Scales Code requirement. Consequently, the Committee 

agreed to move forward with the entire proposal with modifications only to paragraph T.N.4.5. in the proposal to 

include provisions for conducting a time dependence test in the field when there are constant test conditions. The 

Committee notes that it may be necessary to exercise the load-receiving element prior to performing the time 

dependence test. 

320-9 I List of International Symbols Noted as Acceptable 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Recommendation: Add a new Appendix E as follows: 

Appendix E

List of Acceptable Abbreviations/Symbols

Device Application Term Acceptable Not Acceptable

The following symbols are intended for operator controls, indications, and features. When they are also 

intended for the customer (including customer-operated devices) they cannot be used without additional 

descriptions, directions, or marks displayed or marked on the device. 

zero key or center of

zero indicator

“z” alone is not 

acceptable unless term is 

defined on device

Off (Power)

On (Power)

On/Off (Power)

S&T - 27 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Device Application Term Acceptable Not Acceptable

The following symbols are intended for operator controls, indications, and features. When they are also 

intended for the customer (including customer-operated devices) they cannot be used without additional 

descriptions, directions, or marks displayed or marked on the device. 

Print

Weighing

Scale n (n = 1. 2. ...)

Range n (n = 1, 2, ...)

High resolution

enter key

tare enter key

tare clear key

tare enter/tare clear

verify tare

Not for direct sales to the 

public

Combined zero/tare –

See S.2.1.6. for additional 

information

Taring

Mass/Weight

Money

Price Per weight unit

Piece count

Counter

Read Counter

Print certificate

Operational Controls,

Indications, Features:

Operational Controls,

Indications, Features:

Information

S&T - 28 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Discussion: The proposed list of symbols introduces officials to a set of international symbols for use in marking 

operator controls, indications, and device features. Recognition and use of these symbols is consistent with efforts 

to harmonize U.S. and international device requirements. 

Currently, the list of symbols is part of NCWM Publication 14 “Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures” 

for Weighing Devices. NTEP uses international symbols whenever possible. Style differences such as variations in 

the shape of arrows are acceptable. 

The Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) heard several concerns about the initial use of 

international symbols. Most weights and measures officials do not have access to Publication 14 or other 

international documents. Consequently, it was suggested that NCWM and NIST Weights and Measures Division 

post the list on their websites and incorporate the symbols into bulletins, examination procedure outlines, and 

inspector training modules. The increased number of customer-operated devices would require additional markings 

or descriptions to describe the less familiar symbols. This is especially true for symbols that represent “Not for 

Direct Sales,” “Total Money,” and “Price per Unit Weight,” which are not in widespread use in the United States. 

Once customers become familiar with the symbols, descriptions would no longer be necessary and the list of 

symbols would not be necessary in Handbook 44 or other documents. 

The SWMA agreed that the proposed list of symbols would best serve field officials if placed in NIST Handbook 44 

as an appendix. 

The Committee agreed with SWMA on the need to familiarize officials with international symbols and 

recommended the proposed list of acceptable new symbols become a new Appendix E in Handbook 44. The 

Committee made several editorial changes to the table and agreed the proposal should be a voting item at the 2005 

NCWM Annual Meeting. 

During the 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed that unless the table references a specific code, 

then the table applies to all types of devices. The Committee believes that if the table is to be used as an 

enforcement tool, then only symbols in the proposed list would be considered acceptable. The Committee preferred 

an all-inclusive list of acceptable symbols over a WMD alternate proposal to develop a list of acceptable symbols 

that includes a statement indicating other symbols may be used without prior approval. SMA suggested an alternate 

proposal to designate the table as a list of commonly used international symbols. However, the Committee believes 

the intended scope of the list is much broader. If the table is intended to be all-inclusive, the other acceptable 

symbols currently in use for all device types, such as the dollar sign ($) on retail motor-fuel dispensers and 

taximeters must be added to the list. The Committee considered SMA’s suggestion to eliminate the list of not 

acceptable symbols and retitle the columns to clarify that the symbols represents terms as well as functions. The 

Committee changed the status of the item from voting to an information item, to allow time to develop language that 

will link the table to specific codes and to assess whether or not the table should be all-inclusive. 

321 BELT-CONVEYOR SCALE SYSTEMS 

321-1 VC UR.3.4. Diversion or Loss of Measured Product 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Add new paragraph UR.3.4. as follows: 

UR.3.4. Diversion or Loss of Measured Product. - There shall be no operation(s) or condition(s) of use 

that result in loss or diversion that adversely affects the quantity of measured product.

(Added 2005)

Discussion: This proposal is intended to ensure that all product measured on the scale is delivered to the customer. 

There are several circumstances where the final amount of a commodity weighed on the system’s scale can be 

affected by operator practices. For instance, taking commodity samples or movement of commodities on belt 

S&T - 29 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

conveyors over long distances where product slippage from the belt can result in product loss before the customer 

has custody of the commodity. Without records, any major spillage results in an inaccurate payment for delivered 

product. The chain of custody of weighed material between the scale and the end point of a conveyor system should 

be maintained at all times. The diversion of a measured commodity by as much as 0.1 % becomes significant over a 

period of time and can affect royalty payments and taxes and can even have an environmental impact for some 

commodities. 

 

Originally, the Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) and Central Weights and Measures 

Association (CWMA) considered an industry proposal to amend existing paragraphs UR.3.2. Maintenance and 

UR.3.3. Retention of Maintenance, Test, and Analog or Digital Recorder Information to address diversion of 

commodities by requiring this material be measured and recorded. 

The WWMA heard comments from a manufacturer that supported the concept, but found the “measurable diversion 

of weighed material” somewhat ambiguous. The WWMA believed the intent of the proposal could be better stated 

and simplified. Consequently, the WWMA developed an alternate proposal similar in wording to the 

recommendation above adding a new paragraph UR.3.4. titled Diversion of Measured Product rather than suggest 

changes to existing paragraphs UR.3.2. and UR.3.3. 

The CWMA withdrew the issue from its agenda because no data was provided to demonstrate there is an issue with 

diverted product. 

At the 2005 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee further modified the language proposed by WWMA to clarify 

the requirement was intended to apply under conditions where weighed product is “loss” because it slips off the belt 

or is sampled and not returned to the end customer. The Committee agreed to present the item for a vote at the 

2005 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

322 AUTOMATIC BULK WEIGHING SYSTEMS 

322-1 W Tolerances 

(This item was withdrawn.) 

Source: Carryover Item 322-1. (This item originated from the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association 

(NEWMA) and first appeared on the Committee’s 2002 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Delete paragraphs T.1.4., T.2., T.2.1, T.3.2. and T.3.3.:

T.1.4. To Tests Involving Digital Indications or Representations. - To the tolerances that would otherwise 

be applied, there shall be added an amount equal to one-half the value of the scale division. This does not 

apply to digital indications or recorded representations that have been corrected for rounding using 

error weights.

T.2. Minimum Tolerance Values. - The minimum tolerance value shall not be less than half the value of 

the scale division.

T.2.1. For Systems used to Weigh Construction Materials. - The minimum maintenance and acceptance 

tolerance shall be 0.1 % of the weighing capacity of the system, or the value of the scale division, 

whichever is less. 

T.3.2. For Systems used to Weigh Grain. - The basic maintenance tolerance shall be 0.1 % of test load.

T.3.3. For all Other Systems. - The basic maintenance tolerance shall be 0.2 % of test load.

S&T - 30 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Renumber paragraph T.3. and renumber and modify T.3.1. as follows: 

 

T.3.2. Basic Tolerance Values. 

T.3.2.1. Acceptance Tolerance. -The basic acceptance tolerance shall be one-half the basic maintenance 

tolerance, but never less than 1 division.

(Amended 200X)

Add new paragraphs T.2.2., T.2.3., and T.2.3.1. and Table 1. and Table 2. as follows: 

T.2.2. General. - The tolerance applicable to devices not marked with an accuracy class shall have the 

tolerances applied as specified in Table 1. below.

Table 1. Tolerance for Unmarked Scales

Type of Device Tolerance Decreasing Load 

Multiplier

Other applicable 

Requirements

Grain Hoppers Class III, T.2.3 (table 2) 1.0 T.2.1., T.2.3.1

Other Systems Class III L, T.2.3 (table 2) 1.0 T.2.1., T.2.3.1

(Added 200X) 

T.2.3. Tolerances Applicable to Devices Marked III or III L.

T.2.3.1. Maintenance Tolerance Values - The maintenance tolerance values are specified in Table 2 

below.

Table 2. Maintenance Tolerance for Marked Scales

(All values in this table are in scale divisions)

Tolerance in scale divisions

1 2 3 5

Class Test Load

III 0 – 500 501 - 2000 2001 – 4000 4001 +

III L 0 – 500 501 - 1000 (Add 1d for each additional 500 d or fraction 

thereof)

(Added 200X)

Add a new footnote to Section 2.20 Scales Code Table 1.1.1. Tolerances for Unmarked Scales as follows: 

XAutomatic bulk weighing systems see Section 2.22 for specifications and tolerances.

(Added 200X)

Discussion: Since 2002, the Committee has considered a proposal to change the automatic bulk weighing systems 

tolerances from a percentage basis to division values, which are based on the device’s accuracy class. The proposal 

was intended to align tolerances in the Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems (ABWS) Code and the Scales Code. 

The Committee has kept the proposal as an information item to allow interested parties sufficient time to work 

through issues surrounding the permissible system errors and other concerns. The U.S. Grain Inspection, Packers 

and Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) opposed the proposed tolerances because of concerns about the allowable 

cumulative error in a system’s performance. GIPSA also cited its 17-year history of successful implementation of 

current ABWS code requirements. 

The Western Weights and Measures Association heard no comments on the proposal, but remains concerned about 

the potential cumulative effect of allowable errors that are the result of the proposed step tolerances. 

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) continues to welcome the opportunity for more 

discussion with the S&T Committee and GIPSA. NEWMA believes the minor differences in tolerance applications 

S&T - 31 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

on a few borderline cases do not justify having a unique code for a device that is identical in design and performance 

to devices evaluated under the Scales Code. NEWMA provided two contacts if anyone wanted to discuss the 

proposal; Bill Wilson (Clinton County, New York) at 518-565-4681, by fax at 518-565-4694, or at 

wilsonperu@aol.com or contact Ross Andersen (New York) at 518-457-3146, by fax at 518-457-5693, or at 

ross.andersen@agmkt.state.ny.us. 

The Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) expressed concern that the proposal might not have 

technical merit and was developed as the result of each regulatory agency’s preference for a particular code format. 

The CWMA was also concerned that adopting the proposal would effect step tolerances to the point that older 

devices with an nmax greater than 4000 would not comply. 

During the 2005 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard that NEWMA was continuing work on a survey to 

determine how officials apply the ABWS Code tolerances. The Committee decided at that time to keep the proposal 

an information item to allow GIPSA, NEWMA, the grain industry, and all other parties affected by the proposed 

changes to the ABWS tolerances additional time to compare data and agree on an appropriate set of tolerances for 

systems that fall under the ABWS Code. GIPSA did not comment at the meeting but it had reiterated its earlier 

opposition to the proposal to WMD in advance of the meeting. In anticipation that NEWMA would have the results 

of its survey at the July 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting the Committee kept this issue an information item, but 

planned to move the proposal to a developing item if no survey data was available in July 2005. 

At the July 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting, there were no new developments and NEWMA and GIPSA, still held 

differing positions on the proposal. The results from the survey distributed by NEWMA in July 2005 were not 

available. The Committee decided to withdraw this item because, after 3 years of deliberations, no consensus could 

be reached by the parties affected by the proposal. 

For more background information, refer to the 2002, 2003, and 2004 S&T Final Reports. 

330 LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES 

330-1 V S.1.6.1. Indication of Delivery; Electronic Devices 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Measuring Sector 

Recommendation: Modify Section 3.30. paragraph S.1.6.1. Indication of Delivery as follows: 

S.1.6.1. Indication of Delivery. – The device shall automatically show on its face the initial zero condition and 

the quantity delivered (up to the nominal capacity). 

(a) However, For electronic devices manufactured prior to January 1, 2006, the first 0.03 L (or 

0.009 gal) of a delivery and its associated total sales price need not be indicated.

(b) For electronic devices manufactured on or after January 1, 2006, the measurement, indication of 

delivered quantity, and the indication of total sales price shall be inhibited until the fueling position 

reaches conditions necessary to ensure that the delivery starts at zero.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2006]

(Added 2005)

(Amended 1982 and 2005)

Discussion/Background: At the 2004 NTETC Measuring Sector meeting, Maryland Weights and Measures stated 

that as the price for motor fuel nears or exceeds $2 per gallon, the number of complaints it receives regarding 

computer jump has increased. NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) has received numerous calls from 

jurisdictions related to this problem. It appears that the actual amount of jump or meter creep occurring because of 

internal pressure changes related to changes in temperature has not increased. However, at the higher unit prices 

this relatively small meter creep results in an indication of several cents. Concern was expressed that there was no 

S&T - 32 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

guidance in Handbook 44 regarding criteria or tolerances for “computer jump.” Prior to 1987 Handbook 44 had a 

test note (paragraph N.4.3.) and tolerance (paragraph T.2.4.) in the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code for conducting 

an elapsed time test. At the 1986 NCWM Annual Meeting the NCWM voted to delete those paragraphs. The 

discussion of that item indicates that a suggestion was received that all references to an elapsed time test should be 

removed because: (1) none are being conducted, and (2) the conditions that caused their inclusion in Handbook 44 

have for the most part been eliminated. In 1986, if a consumer experienced a computer jump that resulted in an 

indication of money value prior to opening the nozzle, the consumer normally could return the dispenser to the off 

position and start the delivery from “zero.” Currently, if a customer is making a fuel purchase using a credit or debit 

card at the pump, any indication of delivery is automatically charged to the customer’s account; therefore, returning 

the dispenser to the “off” position and re-starting the delivery from “zero” does not resolve the problem and the 

consumer is charged for undelivered product. Maryland and WMD provided a proposal to eliminate the indication 

of computer jump for the Sector to consider. The Sector agreed with the proposal in principle, but recommended 

some changes to the language (including the use of the term “fueling position”) as indicated in the recommendation 

and agreed to forward it to the NCWM and the Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) S&T 

Committees for consideration. A manufacturer of retail motor-fuel dispensers stated that “fueling position” is a 

recognized industry term that is preferable in this case to the term “dispenser.” Dispensers typically have hoses on 

two sides. The term “fueling position” is applicable to only one side at a time. 

At its October 2004 meeting, the SWMA heard no opposition to the Measuring Sector proposal. The SWMA agreed 

to forward the proposal to the Committee with the recommendation that it be a voting item on the 2005 NCWM 

S&T Agenda. The SWMA also recommended that the Committee consider adding similar requirements to 

Handbook 44 Section 3.32. as appropriate. 

At the 2005 Interim Meeting, several dispenser manufacturers expressed concern with the use of the term “normal 

delivery pressure,” in the original proposal, since the pressure within a system can vary during normal use. The 

Committee met with three dispenser manufacturers to develop new nonretroactive language in which the word 

“pressure” is changed to “condition” as indicated in the Recommendation. The new requirement does not allow the 

measurement of product until the fueling position reaches normal delivery condition (packed hose) up to the nozzle. 

If the system meets the new requirement, the dispenser will indicate zero until the nozzle is opened and product 

begins to flow. The Committee agreed that making the requirement nonretroactive was appropriate to provide 

manufacturers time to develop a mechanism for eliminating computer jump on new devices. For devices already in 

the field, officials can use paragraph UR.3.1. Return of Indicating and Recording Elements to Zero and General 

Code paragraph G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud to require that the primary indicating element be returned to zero prior 

to the start of each delivery. The Committee agreed this item should be presented for a vote at the 2005 NCWM 

Annual Meeting. 

At the 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee agreed that paragraph S.1.6.1. should be modified as shown in 

the recommendation above to clarify when the suppresion (masking) of indications is permitted and when the 

inhibition (prevention) of measurement and indication is required. The Committee further amended the proposal to 

clarify what is meant by “normal delivery conditions.” The Committee believes the proposal would eliminate 

“computer jump” on new devices installed in the field and over time will eliminate the problem on most retail motor 

fuel dispensers, similar to the near elimination of scales being found “off zero” after the automatic zero-setting 

mechanism requirement was added to the Scales Code. During the voting session, an official requested that 

additional language be added to the discussion to clarify how a dispenser would operate if this item were adopted. 

The Committee agreed to add the following language to the discussion: “To comply with the new requirement, a 

dispenser shall operate as follows. Begin with the valve in the nozzle “closed” and activate the dispenser. After 

initialization (i.e., first indication of zero) of the dispenser is complete, the display of volume and total price shall 

indicate “zero” and shall increment only in coincidence with product flow after the valve in the nozzle is opened.” 

330-2 VC N.4.2.2. Retail Motor-Fuel Devices 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Measuring Sector

S&T - 33 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Recommendation: Modify Section 3.30. paragraph N.4.2.2. Retail Motor-Fuel Devices as follows:

N.4.2.2. Retail Motor-Fuel Devices.

(a) Devices without a marked minimum flow-rate capacity less than 100 L (25 gal) per minute shall 

have a "special" test performed at the slower of the following rates: 

(1) 19 L (5 gal) per minute, or 

(2) the minimum discharge rate marked on the device, or 

(3) the minimum discharge rate at which the device will deliver when equipped with an automatic 

discharge nozzle set at its slowest setting. 

(b) Devices marked with a marked minimum flow-rate capacity 100 L (25 gal) or more per minute 

shall have a "special" test performed at or near the marked minimum flow rate. slowest of the 

following rates:

(1) the minimum discharge rate marked on the device, or

(2) the minimum discharge rate at which the device will deliver when equipped with an 

automatic discharge nozzle set at its slowest setting.

(Added 1984) (Amended 2005)

Discussion/Background: At its October 2004 meeting, the NTETC Measuring Sector discussed a test scenario in 

which a retail motor-fuel device (RMFD) was marked with flow rates of 60 gpm maximum and 12 gpm minimum, 

where the actual flow rate on the lowest setting of the automatic nozzle was 6 gpm. The laboratory posed the 

following questions regarding this situation: 

Paragraph S.4.4.1. Discharge Rates, requires that RMFDs with a designed maximum flow rate of 30 gpm or greater 

be marked with a minimum and maximum flow rate. RMFDs with a designed maximum flow rate of less than 

30 gpm are not required to have a maximum and minimum flow rate marking, but such a marking is not prohibited. 

Paragraph N.4.2.2. (b) in the LMD Code states that “Devices marked with a flow-rate capacity of 100 L (25 gal) or 

more per minute shall have a "special" test performed at the slowest of the following rates: (1) the minimum 

discharge rate marked on the device, or (2) the minimum discharge rate at which the device will deliver when 

equipped with an automatic discharge nozzle set at its slowest setting.” The question is if a RMFD is marked with a 

minimum flow rate, is it appropriate to operate the device below the marked minimum flow rate? 

There appears to be a conflict between the test notes and the user requirements for RFMDs that are marked with a 

maximum and minimum flow rate. General Code paragraph G-UR.3.1. Method of Operation states that a device is 

to be used in the manner that is indicated by instructions on the equipment. Paragraphs N.4.2.2. (a) and (b) both 

contain testing procedures that instruct a weights and measures official to conduct a test of a dispenser at a flow rate 

that is less than the minimum flow rate that may be marked on the device. The manufacturers of RMFDs present at 

the 2004 Measuring Sector meeting stated that it is not appropriate to require accuracy for a device when it is 

operated below the marked minimum flow rate. 

The Sector agreed that officials should not test below the minimum flow rate marked on the device because the 

device is not designed to operate accurately at lesser flow rates. The Sector also agreed to propose changing the 

flow rate of 25 gpm in paragraph N.4.2.2. to 30 gpm to agree with the marking requirements in paragraph S.4.4.1. 

The Sector agreed to forward a proposal that both issues to the NCWM and Southern Weights and Measures 

Association (SWMA) for consideration. 

At its October 2004 meeting, the SWMA heard concerns with the proposed changes to paragraph N.4.2.2. Retail 

Motor-Fuel Devices. The SWMA recommended that officials not test at a flow rate less than the minimum flow rate 

marked on a device. However, the Sector’s proposal as worded creates conflicts with other requirements in 

paragraph N.4.2.2. Consequently, the SWMA agreed that the proposal should not be forwarded to the Committee. 

S&T - 34 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Following the SWMA meeting, NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) developed the alternative shown 

above to address the concerns of the SWMA with the original Measuring Sector proposal. 

When first adopted, paragraph N.4.2.2. contained only two test criteria which stipulated that the slow flow test be 

made at the slower of 19 L (5 gal) per minute or the minimum flow rate marked on the device. In 1971, the 

Committee received several communications that RMFDs equipped with an automatic nozzle were often operated at 

a discharge rate established by the automatic nozzle when set at its slowest setting. Paragraph N.4.2.2. was modified 

to include the provision for testing with an automatic nozzle set on the lowest notch, if the flow rate at that setting 

was less than 19 L (5 gal) per minute, or the minimum flow rate marked on the device. In 1971 few, if any, RMFDs 

were marked with a minimum flow rate and the information provided by the manufacturer (and sometimes marked 

on the device) typically stated that the device was accurate at any flow rate. 

In 1984, when “high gallonage” dispensers gained popularity in the marketplace, paragraph S.4.4. Marking 

Requirements/For Retail Devices Only, (now paragraph S.4.4.1. Discharge Rates), was added to require dispensers 

with a maximum flow rate of 25 gpm or greater to be marked with maximum and minimum flow rates. At that time 

paragraph N.4.2.3., which later became the present paragraph N.4.2.2. (b), was added to the Handbook. It was the 

view of the Committee that the minimum flow rate for these dispensers would be greater than 5 gallons per minute 

so that specific flow rate was not included in the test criteria of new paragraph N.4.2.2. 

General Code paragraph G-UR.2.3. Installation, states “that equipment shall be operated only in the manner that is 

indicated by instructions on the equipment (minimum flow rate).” Some dispensers are equipped with a latch on the 

nozzle lever which, when set at its lowest setting, may cause the dispenser to operate below the marked minimum 

flow rate. WMD noted that the Committee may want to consider a user requirement in the LMD Code that does not 

allow a latch on the nozzle to create this situation since such a component would facilitate inappropriate and 

inaccurate use of the device. 

At the 2005 Interim and Annual Meeting, the Committee received no comments on this item. The Committee 

agreed that the alternate proposal prepared by WMD resolved the issue of what flow rates are appropriate when 

conducting a field examination of a RMFD and agreed to present the item for a vote. 

331 VEHICLE-TANK METERS 

331-1 I Temperature Compensation 

Source: Carryover Item 331-1 (This item originated from the Western Weights and Measures Association 

(WWMA) and first appeared on the Committee’s 2000 agenda.)

Recommendation: Modify Section 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters (VTM) Code by adding the following new 

paragraphs to recognize temperature compensation as follows: 

S.2.4. Automatic Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products. 

S.2.4.1. Automatic Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products. - A device may be 

equipped with an automatic means for adjusting the indication and registration of the measured 

volume of product to the volume at 15 °C (60 °F), where not prohibited by State Law.

S.2.4.2. Provision for Deactivating. - On a device equipped with an automatic temperaturecompensating mechanism that will indicate or record only in terms of liters (gallons) compensated to 

15 °C (60 °F), provision shall be made for deactivating the automatic temperature-compensating 

mechanism so that the meter can indicate and record, if it is equipped to record, in terms of the 

uncompensated volume.

S.2.4.3. Gross and Net Indications - A device equipped with automatic temperature compensation 

shall indicate and record, if equipped to record, both the gross (uncompensated) and net 

(compensated) volume for testing purposes. If both values cannot be displayed or recorded for the 

same test draft, means shall be provided to select either the gross or net indication for each test draft.

S&T - 35 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

S.2.4.4. Provision for Sealing Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems. - Adequate provision 

shall be made for an approved means of security (e.g., data change audit trail) or physically applying 

security seals in such a manner that an automatic temperature-compensating system cannot be 

disconnected and that no adjustment may be made to the system.

S.2.4.5. Temperature Determination with Automatic Temperature Compensation. - For test 

purposes, means shall be provided (e.g., thermometer well) to determine the temperature of the 

liquid either:

(a) In the liquid chamber of the meter, or

(b) Immediately adjacent to the meter in the meter inlet or discharge line.

(Added 200X)

S.5.6. Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products. - If a device is equipped with an 

automatic temperature compensator, the primary indicating elements, recording elements, and recording 

representation shall be clearly and conspicuously marked to show that the volume delivered has been 

adjusted to the volume at 15 °C (60 °F).

(Added 200X)

N.4.1.3. Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems for Refined Petroleum Products. - On 

devices equipped with automatic temperature-compensating systems, normal tests shall be 

conducted:

(a) by comparing the compensated volume indicated or recorded to the actual delivered volume 

corrected to 15 °C (60 °F); and

(b) with the temperature-compensating system deactivated, comparing the uncompensated 

volume indicated or recorded to the actual delivered volume.

The first test shall be performed with the automatic temperature-compensating system operating in 

the "as found" condition. On devices that indicate or record both the compensated and 

uncompensated volume for each delivery, the tests in (a) and (b) may be performed as a single test.

(Added 200X)

N.5. Temperature Correction for Refined Petroleum Products. - Corrections shall be made for any 

changes in volume resulting from the differences in liquid temperatures between the time of passage 

through the meter and time of volumetric determination in the prover. When adjustments are necessary, 

appropriate petroleum measurement tables should be used.

(Added 200X)

T.2.1. Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems. - The difference between the meter error 

(expressed as a percentage) for results determined with and without the automatic temperaturecompensating system activated shall not exceed:

(a) 0.4 % for mechanical automatic temperature-compensating systems; and

(b) 0.2 % for electronic automatic temperature-compensating systems.

The delivered quantities for each test shall be approximately the same size. The results of each test 

shall be within the applicable acceptance or maintenance tolerance.

(Added 200X)

S&T - 36 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

UR.2.5. Temperature Compensation for Refined Petroleum Products.

UR.2.5.1. Automatic.

UR.2.5.1.1. When to be Used. - In a State that does not prohibit, by law or regulation, the 

sale of temperature-compensated product a device equipped with an operable automatic 

temperature compensator shall be connected, operable, and in use at all times. An electronic 

or mechanical automatic temperature-compensating system may not be removed, nor may a 

compensated device be replaced with an uncompensated device, without the written 

approval of the responsible weights and measures jurisdiction.

[Note: This requirement does not specify the method of sale for product measured through 

a meter.]

UR.2.5.1.2. Invoices. - An invoice based on a reading of a device that is equipped with an 

automatic temperature compensator shall show that the volume delivered has been adjusted 

to the volume at 15 °C (60 °F).

(Added 200X)

Discussion/Background: When this item was originally submitted, several officials reportedly were confused 

about the specific meter applications covered by an NTEP Certificate of Conformance for a meter that included the 

temperature-compensation feature. The Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) acknowledged some 

jurisdictions permit temperature-compensated deliveries in applications that are not addressed by NIST 

Handbook 44. Some states do not allow the use of automatic temperature compensation for the delivery of products 

using a VTM. 

At the 2002 and 2003 NCWM Annual Meetings, this item did not achieve a majority vote to pass or fail and was, 

therefore, returned to the Committee for further consideration. 

At the 2004 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee stated its position on Item 331-1 as follows: 

The Committee believed that the Specifications, Test Notes, Tolerances, and User Requirements contained in the 

proposal are technically correct and provide both weights and measures officials and the NTEP laboratories with the 

proper criteria to use when evaluating a vehicle-tank meter (VTM) with temperature-compensation capability. The 

addition of this language to the VTM Code does not require, approve, nor solicit any jurisdiction to either prohibit or 

accept the use of temperature compensation in that jurisdiction. The Committee further stated that the adoption of a 

nationally accepted method of sale for temperature compensation by all jurisdictions will not be obtainable in the 

foreseeable future and encouraged each jurisdiction to adopt by either statute, rule, or regulation requirements that 

prohibit, permit, or require temperature compensation in their jurisdiction. 

The Committee agreed there were a sufficient number of states that needed the new requirements as an inspection 

tool to warrant adding the proposal to NIST Handbook 44 at that time without waiting for method of sale 

requirements to be added to NIST Handbook 130. 

At the 2004 NCWM Annual Meeting, this item did not achieve a majority vote to pass or fail and was, therefore, 

returned to the Committee for further consideration. 

At its September 2004 Interim Meeting, the Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) agreed with the 

Committee that nothing in this proposal requires a jurisdiction to permit or prohibit the sale of petroleum products 

that have been temperature compensated. The CWMA recognized the technical merit of the proposal and felt that 

requirements are needed in Handbook 44; however, the CWMA further agreed that this is also a “method of sale” 

issue and that the proposal should be retained as an information item until an accompanying method of sale 

requirement is added to Handbook 130. 

At its September 2004 meeting, the WWMA agreed with the Committee that nothing in this proposal requires a 

jurisdiction to permit or prohibit the sale of petroleum products that have been temperature compensated. The 

S&T - 37 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

WWMA continues its strong support of this proposal and recommends that this item go forward for adoption by the 

NCWM. 

At its October 2004 meeting, the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) members were 

informed that the L&R Committee requested that the Board of Directors fund a work group to determine if 

requirements for temperature compensation should be added to Handbook 130 and, if so, what wholesale and retail 

areas should be covered. Several participants believed a work group was unnecessary and that work groups should 

not be created just because a subject is controversial. These members felt there were other items where work groups 

could be better used. NEWMA also suggested removing the words “recognition of” from the title of Item 331-1. 

 

At the 2005 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee participated in a combined open hearing with the L&R 

Committee for discussion of this item and L&R Item 232-1 Temperature Compensation for Petroleum Products. A 

special forum was also held on the first day of the Interim Meeting to discuss temperature compensation issues. At 

both the forum and open hearing, the Committee received little or no new information on this item and considered 

withdrawing it from its agenda. However, the Committee was informed that the L&R Committee kept its Item 232-1 

as a developing issue. The L&R Committee considered modifying Item 232-1 to become two separate 

Items: 232-1A and 232-1B; Item 232-1A would address VTMs and Item 232-1B would address other meter types. 

However, the L&R Committee decided not to split the item. Instead, the L&R Committee modified Item 232-1 to 

allow temperature compensation for the sale of petroleum products other than LPG and products sold through retail 

motor-fuel devices and changed the status of the item to a “Developing” issue. 

 

During the 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting S&T Committee’s open hearing, a manufacturer stated that the number of 

requests from retailers for retail motor-fuel dispensers with temperature-compensation capability is increasing. The 

Committee agreed to keep the item on the agenda until the L&R Item 232-1 was further developed. (See L&R 

Item 232-1.) 

For additional background on this item, see the NCWM 2000 through 2004 S&T Final Reports. 

331-2 VC S.1.4.1. Display of Unit Price 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) Measuring Sector

Recommendation: Modify Section 3.31. paragraph S.1.4.1. Display of Unit Price as follows:

S.1.4.1. Display of Unit Price. - In a device of the computing type, means shall be provided for displaying on the 

outside of the device, in a manner clear to the operator and an observer, the unit price at which the device is set 

to compute. The unit price is not required to be displayed continuously.

 (Amended 1983 and 2005)

Discussion/Background: At the 2004 Measuring Sector meeting, a manufacturer of vehicle-tank meters (VTM) 

asked the Sector to provide input on the intent of Handbook 44 Section 3.31. paragraph S.1.4.1. Display of Unit 

Price. The Sector was asked to determine whether or not the unit price must be displayed continuously. The 

manufacturer referred to the final report of the 1983 NCWM S&T Committee. In that report under S&T Item 304-2 

the Committee stated its view that it is appropriate for a digital electronic indicating element associated with a VTM 

to utilize a shared display; that is, the same display area can be used to indicate the volume delivered, the unit price, 

and the total price. However, the information is not required to be displayed simultaneously. The Sector agreed the 

intent of the S&T Committee was clear and it decided to forward to the NCWM and the Southern Weights and 

Measures Association (SWMA) for consideration a recommendation to add text to clarify S.1.4.1. 

At its October 2004 meeting, the SWMA agreed with the Measuring Sector’s interpretation of the intent of S.1.4.1. 

and agreed to forward the recommendation shown above to the Committee as a voting item. 

At the 2005 NCWM Interim and Annual Meetings, the Committee heard no opposition to this item and agreed to 

present it for a vote. 

S&T - 38 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

331-3 VC S.2.4. Zero Set-Back Interlock, Vehicle-Tank Meters, Electronic 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Carryover Item 331-3. (This item originated from the Southern Weights and Measures Association 

(SWMA) and first appeared on the Committee’s 2004 agenda.) 

Recommendation: Add a new paragraph S.2.4. to Section 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters (VTM) as follows: 

S.2.4. Zero-Set-Back Interlock, Vehicle-Tank Meters, Electronic. – Except for vehicle-mounted metering 

systems used solely for the delivery of aviation fuel, a device shall be so constructed that after an individual 

or multiple deliveries at one location have been completed, an automatic interlock system shall engage to 

prevent a subsequent delivery until the indicating and, if equipped, recording elements have been returned to 

their zero position. For individual deliveries, if there is no product flow for 3 minutes the transaction must be 

completed before additional product flow is allowed. The 3-minute timeout shall be a sealable feature on an 

indicator. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2006]

(Added 2005)

Background/Discussion: The original SWMA proposal applied to both mechanical and electronic registers in 

VTM applications. The manufacturers of VTM registers agreed that it is not economically practical to modify 

existing mechanical registers to include a zero set-back interlock or to add that feature to new production of 

mechanical registers. At the October 2004 meeting of the Measuring Sector, the members developed an alternate 

recommendation to add a new paragraph S.2.4. to Handbook 44, Section 3.31. Vehicle-Tank Meters that applies 

only to electronic registers. The Sector agreed to forward the proposal to the NCWM S&T and the SWMA 

Committees for consideration. 

At its October 2004 meeting, the SWMA reviewed the Measuring Sector’s recommendation. The SWMA agreed 

with the proposal provided, that the 3-minute time-out feature be sealable and agreed that the word “may” be 

changed to “shall” in the last sentence. The SWMA agreed to forward its modified proposal to the S&T Committee 

with the recommendation that it be a voting item on the Committee’s 2005 Agenda.

At the 2005 NCWM Interim Meeting, one official stated that mechanical registers should be included in the 

requirement for a zero-set-back interlock. The Committee believes it is not practical to modify the mechanical 

registers currently in use in vehicle-tank meter applications and that attempting to include them in this requirement 

would significantly delay adoption of any requirement for a zero-set-back interlock. The Committee also believes 

the number of new mechanical registers being installed is declining and will continue to do so. The Committee 

recognizes that, while it is more difficult to detect and take enforcement action, paragraph UR.2.3. Ticket in Printing 

Device, provides a mechanism for stopping the “riding of tickets” between deliveries. The Committee agreed with 

the SWMA recommendation to modify the Measuring Sector’s proposal and to present the modified proposal in the 

recommendation above for a vote at the 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

For additional background on this item, see the NCWM 2004 S&T Final Report. 

 

At the 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Committee heard no opposition to this item. 

331-4 VC N.4.2. Special Tests (Except Milk-Measuring Systems), N.4.5. Product Depletion Test, T.4. 

Product Depletion Test, and Table T.4. tolerances for Vehicle-Tank Meters on Product 

Depletion Tests, Except Milk Meters 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Carryover Item 331-2. (This item originated from the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association 

(NEWMA) and first appeared on the Committee’s 2003 agenda.) 

S&T - 39 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Recommendation: Amend paragraph N.4.2. Special Tests (Except Milk-Measuring Systems) as follows: 

N.4.2. Special Tests (Except Milk-Measuring Systems). - “Special” tests shall be made to develop the 

operating characteristics of a measuring system and any special elements and accessories attached to or 

associated with the device. Any test except as set forth in N.4.1. and N.4.5. shall be considered a special test. 

Special tests of a measuring system shall be made as follows:

(a) at a minimum discharge rate of 20 % of the marked maximum discharge rate or at the minimum 

discharge rate marked on the device whichever is less;.

(Amended 2005) 

(b) to develop operating characteristics of the measuring system during a split compartment 

delivery.

Add new paragraphs N.4.5. Product Depletion Test and T.4. Product Depletion Test and Table T.4. Tolerances as 

follows: 

N.4.5. Product Depletion Test. - Except for vehicle-mounted metering systems used solely for the delivery 

of aviation fuel, the effectiveness of the vapor eliminator or vapor elimination means shall be tested by 

dispensing product at the normal flow rate until the product supply is depleted and continuing until the

lack of fluid causes the meter indication to stop completely for at least 10 seconds. If the meter indication 

fails to stop completely for at least 10 seconds, continue to operate the system for 3 minutes. Finish the 

test by switching to another compartment with sufficient product to complete the test on a multicompartment vehicle or by adding sufficient product to complete the test to a single compartment vehicle. 

When adding product to a single compartment vehicle, allow appropriate time for any entrapped vapor 

to disperse before continuing the test. Test drafts shall be of the same size and run at approximately the 

same flow rate. 

(Added 2005)

T.4. Product Depletion Test. - The range of the test results for the normal test and the product depletion 

test shall not exceed the tolerance shown in Table T.4. Test drafts shall be of the same size and run at 

approximately the same flow rate. 

[Note: The result of the product depletion test may fall outside of the applicable test tolerance as 

specified in Table T.2.]

(Added 2005)

Table T.4. Tolerances for Vehicle-Tank Meters

on Product Depletion Tests, Except Milk Meters

Meter Size Maintenance and Acceptance Tolerances

Up to but not including 50 mm (2 in) 1.70 L ( 104 in3)

1

From 50 mm (2 in) up to but not including 75 mm (3 in) 2.25 L ( 137 in3)

1

75 mm (3 in) or larger 3.75 L ( 229 in3)

1

1 Based on a test volume of at least 1 minute flow in accordance with N.3.

(Table Added 2005)

Discussion: The measurement of vapor when product is depleted during the vehicle-tank meter (VTM) “split 

compartment” test (product depletion test) is a system problem and the amount of vapor measured is not related to 

the size of the test draft. The proposal requires a product depletion test for single compartment vehicles to verify the 

performance of the air elimination mechanism. Currently paragraph N.4.2.(b) refers only to a “split-compartment” 

delivery, implying that the test should only be conducted on multi-compartment vehicles. The proposal 

S&T - 40 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

recommends modifying the tolerances so that the applicable tolerance is based on the meter’s flow rate and remains 

constant regardless of the size of the test draft and modifies the language to clarify that the product depletion test is 

to be conducted on both single- and multi-compartment vehicles. 

At its October 2004 meeting, the NTETC Measuring Sector reviewed an alternate proposal for a new Table T.4. 

developed by Maryland Weights and Measures and NIST WMD based on the Measurement Canada tolerance 

structure that categorizes meters by size (pipe diameter) for product depletion tests. The VTM manufacturers 

present at the meeting verified that there is a definite correlation between the meter size and the achievable 

maximum flow rate. The Sector agreed with the alternate proposal and provided an example of how the product 

depletion test would be applied and a note stating that the results of the product depletion test could fall outside of 

the applicable tolerance if the meter being tested were included in Table T.4. as shown in the recommendation 

above. The Sector agreed to forward the alternate proposal to the Southern Weights and Measures Association 

(SWMA) and the Committee for consideration. 

At the October 2004 NEWMA meeting, New York proposed that an NCWM work group be formed to research this 

item and supplied a discussion paper in support of the proposal. NEWMA agreed to forward its recommendation for 

a work group and the paper to the Committee for consideration. 

At its October 2004 Meeting, the SWMA heard no opposition to the Measuring Sector’s proposal. One official 

asked if a similar requirement should be added to the Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices for wholesale meters 

and to Section 3.32. LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring Devices. The SWMA agreed to forward the 

proposal to the NCWM S&T Committee with the recommendation that it be a voting item on the Committee’s 2005 

Agenda. The SWMA also recommended that the Committee consider adding similar appropriate requirements to 

Sections 3.30. and 3.32. for testing the effectiveness of vapor elimination means. 

Following the 2004 fall meetings of NEWMA, SWMA, and the NTETC Measuring Sector, New York Weights and 

Measures worked with WMD to add another category of meter sizes to the proposed Table T.4. from the NTETC 

Measuring Sector as shown in the recommendation above. This change was based on New York’s concern that a 

large number of vehicle-tank meters less than 2.0 inches are still in use in that state. The tolerance for meters 

smaller than 2.0 inches was developed based on the current tolerance for a draft of at least 1 minute’s flow for a 

typical meter of that size. However, the tolerance is not directly related to draft size and remains unchanged even if 

the draft size is increased. 

At the 2005 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard support for the proposal with the changes recommended 

by New York and WMD and agreed to present the modified proposal for a vote at the 2005 Annual Meeting. 

During the open hearing at the 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting, a manufacturer of vehicle-tank meters informed the 

Committee of safety concerns with conducting a product depletion test on an aircraft refueling system. The creation 

of vapor within the system during the conduct of a product depletion test can cause an explosion hazard. The 

technical advisor to the Committee from Measurement Canada concurred with this comment and advised that 

Measurement Canada no longer conducts such tests on meters used for aircraft refueling. The Committee agreed 

that, because there is a safety concern and that many aircraft refueling systems use effective means other than a 

“vapor eliminator” to prevent the passage of vapor or air though the meter, aircraft refueling systems should be 

exempt from the product depletion tests and proposed modifying paragraph N.4.5. Product Depletion Test, as shown 

in the recommendation above. 

For additional background on this item, see the NCWM 2003 and 2004 S&T Committee Final Reports. 

336 WATER METERS 

336-1 I Table N.4.2. Flow Rate and Draft Size for Water Meters Special Tests 

Source: Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA) 

S&T - 41 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Recommendation: Amend Table N.4.2. as follows: 

Table N.4.2. Flow Rate and Draft Size for Water Meters 

Special Tests 

Intermediate Rate Minimum Rate 

Meter indication/Test Draft Meter indication/Test Draft 

Meter size 

(inches) Rate of flow 

(gal/min) gal ft3

Rate of flow 

 (gal/min) gal ft3

Less than or 

equal to 5/8 2 10 1 1/4 510 1 

3/4 3 10 1 1/2 510 1 

1 4 10 1 3/4 510 1 

1 1/2 8 50 5 1 1/2 10 1 

2 15 50 5 2 10 1 

3 20 50 5 4 10 1 

4 40 100 10 7 50100 5 

6 60 100 10 12 50100 5 

(Table Added 2003) (Amended 200X)

Discussion/Background: At the fall 2004 NEWMA meeting, a manufacturer submitted the proposal revisions to 

Table N.4.2. shown above. The manufacturer explained that a test draft of 5 gallons is not large enough to provide 

repeatability for dial indicating water meters sized 1 inch and smaller. The dial indicator for these devices has 

100 graduations of 1/10 gallon, which means one complete revolution equals 10 gallons. The effect of parallax on 

the reading and gear backlash both contribute to the lack of repeatability of indications when using a 5-gallon test 

draft. The manufacturer recommended that any test of the device include, at a minimum, at least one complete 

revolution of the dial indicator. None of the jurisdictions represented at the NEWMA meeting routinely test water 

meters; therefore, they could not provide any input on the technical merits of the proposal. However, NEWMA 

agreed to forward the proposal to the Committee for consideration. 

At the 2005 NCWM Interim Meeting, the only concern the Committee heard was that the time required for some 

tests would increase significantly. The submitter of the proposal did not attend the Interim Meeting. The 

Committee agreed to make the proposal an information item to provide an opportunity for review and comment 

from the regional associations, especially jurisdictions routinely conducting water meter tests. If additional support 

and comments are not received by the 2006 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee may withdraw this item. 

At the 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting, there was no discussion on this item.

360 OTHER ITEMS 

360-1 V Proposed Section 5.59. Electronic Livestock, Meat, and Poultry Evaluation Systems and/or 

Devices -Tentative Code 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Southern Weights and Measures Association (SWMA) 

Recommendation: Add a Tentative Code Section 5.59. Livestock, Meat, and Poultry Evaluation Systems and/or 

Devices as follows: 

Sec. 5.59. Electronic Livestock, Meat, and Poultry Evaluation Systems and/or Devices - Tentative Code. -

This tentative code has only a trial or experimental status and is not intended to be enforced. The 

requirements are designed for study prior to the development and adoption of a final Code for Livestock, 

Meat, and Poultry Evaluation Systems and/or Devices. Officials wanting to conduct an official 

S&T - 42 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

examination of a device or system are advised to see paragraph G-A.3. Special and Unclassified 

Equipment.

(Tentative Code Added 2005)

A. Application

A.1. - This code applies to electronic devices or systems for measuring the composition or quality 

constituents of live animals, livestock and poultry carcasses, and individual cuts of meat or a combination 

thereof for the purpose of determining value.

A.2. - See also Sec. 1.10; General Code requirements.

A.3. - This code does not apply to scales used to weigh live animals, livestock and poultry carcasses, and 

individual cuts of meat unless the scales are part of an integrated system designed to measure 

composition or quality constituents. Scales used in integrated systems must also meet NIST Handbook 44 

Section 2.20. requirements.

S. Specifications

S.1. Design and Manufacture - All design and manufacturing specifications shall comply with ASTM 

Standard F 2342 Standard Specification for Design and Construction of Composition or Quality 

Constituent Measuring Devices or Systems.

N. Notes

N.1. Method of Test. - Performance tests shall be conducted in accordance with ASTM Standard F 2343 

Test Method for Livestock, Meat, and Poultry Evaluation Devices.

N.2. Testing Standards. - ASTM Standard F 2343 requires device or system users to maintain accurate 

reference standards that meet the tolerance expressed in NIST Handbook 44 Fundamental 

Considerations, paragraph 3.2. (i.e., one third of the smallest tolerance applied.)

N.3. Verification. - Device or system users are required to verify and document the accuracy of a device 

or system on each production day as specified by ASTM Standard F 2341 Standard Practice of User 

Requirements for Livestock, Meat, and Poultry Evaluation Devices or Systems.

N.3.1. Official Tests. - Officials are encouraged to periodically witness the required “in house” 

verification of accuracy. Officials may also conduct official tests using the on-site testing standards 

or other appropriate standards belonging to the jurisdiction with statutory authority over the device 

or system.

T. Tolerances

T.1. Tolerances on Individual Measurements. - Maintenance and acceptance tolerances on an 

individual measurement shall be as shown in Table T.1.

Table T.1. Tolerances

Individual linear measurement of a single 

constituent

∀ 1 mm (0.039 in)

Measurement of area ∀ 1.6 cm2

 (0.25 in2)

For measurements of other constituents As specified in ASTM Standard F 2343

S&T - 43 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

UR. User Requirements

UR.1. Installation Requirements. 

UR.1.1. Installation. - All devices and systems shall be installed in accordance with manufacturer’s 

instructions.

UR.2. Maintenance of Equipment.

UR.2.1. Maintenance. - All devices and systems shall be continually maintained in an accurate 

condition and in accordance with the manufacturer’s instructions and ASTM Standard F 2341.

UR.3. Use requirements.

UR.3.1. Limitation of Use. - All devices and systems shall be used to make measurements in a 

manner specified by the manufacturer.

UR.4. Testing Standards. - The user of a commercial device shall make available to the official with 

statutory authority over the device testing standards that meet the tolerance expressed in Fundamental 

Considerations, paragraph 3.2. (i.e., one third of the smallest tolerance applied). The accuracy of the 

testing standards shall be verified annually or on a frequency as required by the official with statutory 

authority and shall be traceable to a national standard.

Discussion: In 2000 the Grain Inspection, Packers, and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA) branch of the United 

States Department of Agriculture (USDA) approached NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD) and the 

NCWM to discuss the development of standards for devices used to measure fat content in animal carcasses. 

Because neither the NCWM nor NIST had the resources needed to develop such a standard, the American Society 

for Testing and Materials (ASTM) was asked to facilitate development of a standard. The ASTM agreed to develop 

standards, (now known as ASTM Standard F10) for Livestock, Meat, and Poultry Evaluation Systems for the 

measurement of fat and other quality constituents in animal carcasses. Some of these devices or systems will 

measure only a single constituent, which will be used to determine the value of the carcasses or primal cuts. Other 

systems may integrate the measurement of several constituents such as fat, lean, marbling, pH, and color, to 

determine carcass value. 

The NCWM agreed that if USDA was able to develop standards for these devices outside of the NCWM, the 

NCWM would consider adopting these standards as a tentative code in NIST Handbook 44. The code in 

Handbook 44 is needed to provide an enforcement tool for USDA and other jurisdictions wanting to have a 

mechanism for conducting inspections of these devices and approving or rejecting them according to the results of 

the inspection. The ASTM Standards are voluntary standards that only have the effect of law when they are adopted 

into regulation by a jurisdiction with statutory authority over these devices. Including or referencing such standards 

in Handbook 44 provides a method for that adoption. 

At its October 2004 meeting, the SWMA reviewed a draft tentative code for livestock, meat, and poultry evaluation 

systems and devices prepared by WMD. The SWMA agreed to forward the proposal to the Committee for addition 

to Handbook 44 as a tentative code with the recommendation that it be a voting item on the 2005 NCWM S&T 

Agenda. 

At the 2005 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee heard no opposition to this proposal and agreed to present it 

for a vote at the 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting. 

At the 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting, one official stated that the proposal was not ready for adoption and would not 

be used by weights and measures officials. Another official stated that Handbook 44 should not apply to devices 

used for grading purposes. Several individuals stated that the purpose of a tentative code is to provide a trial period 

and to facilitate necessary changes prior to making a code “permanent.” Attendees at the 2005 NCWM Annual 

Meeting and at the Spring 2005 Central and Northeastern Weights and Measures Associations Annual Meetings 

were provided with a list of “frequently asked questions and answers” relating to Electronic Livestock, Meat, and 

S&T - 44 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Poultry Evaluation Systems and/or Devices; these FAQs are included in Appendix B. The FAQs were also posted 

on the Weights and Measures Directors’ list server in June 2005. After consideration of the comments it received the 

Committee decided to recommend the item for adoption by the NCWM. 

360-2 V Appendix A Fundamental Considerations 3. Testing Apparatus; 3.1 Adequacy, 3.2 

Tolerances for Standards and Footnote 2, and 3.3 Accuracy of Standards 

(This item was adopted.) 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Amend Appendix A Fundamental Considerations 3.Testing Apparatus as follows: 

Add amended Footnote 2 to paragraph 3.1 Adequacy as follows: 

3. Testing Apparatus 

3.1. Adequacy.2

 - Tests can be made properly only if, among other things, adequate testing apparatus is 

available. Testing apparatus may be considered adequate only when it is properly designed for its intended use, 

when it is so constructed that it will retain its characteristics for a reasonable period under conditions of normal 

use, when it is available in denominations appropriate for a proper determination of the value or performance of 

the commercial equipment under test, and when it is accurately calibrated. 

2

Recommendations regarding the specifications and tolerances for suitable field standards may be 

obtained from the Weights and Measures Division of The numerical values of the tolerances 

recommended by the National Institute of Standards and Technology,. for the sStandards will meet the 

specifications of length, mass, and capacity used by weights and measures officials, may be obtained 

upon request from the Weights and Measures Division of the National Institute of Standards and 

Technology Handbook 105-Series standards (or other suitable and designated standards). This 

section shall not preclude the use of additional field standards and/or equipment, as approved by the 

Director, for uniform evaluation of device performance. 

Amend paragraphs 3.2 Tolerances for Standards and 3.3 Accuracy of Standards as follows: 

3.2. Tolerances for Standards.2 - The error in a standard used by a weights and measures official should 

be known and corrected for when the standard is used; or if the standard is to be used without 

correction, its error should be not greater than one-third of the smallest tolerance to be applied when the 

standard is used. The reason for this is to keep at a minimum the proportion of the tolerance on the item 

tested that will be used up by the error of the standard. Expressed differently, Except for work of 

relatively high precision, it is recommended that the accuracy of standards used in testing commercial 

weighing and measuring equipment be established and maintained so that the use of corrections is not 

necessary. When the standard is used without correction, its combined error and uncertainty must be 

less than one-third of the applicable device tolerance. 

Device testing is complicated to some degree when corrections to standards are applied. When using the 

correction of the standard, the uncertainty associated with the corrected value must be less than onethird of the applicable device tolerance. tThe reason for this requirement is to give the item device being 

tested as nearly as practicable the full benefit of its own tolerance. 

Field testing operations are complicated to some degree when corrections to standards are applied. 

Except for work of relatively high precision, it is recommended that the accuracy of standards used in 

testing commercial weighing and measuring equipment be so established and maintained that the use of 

corrections is not necessary. Also, whenever it can readily be done, it will be desirable to reduce the error 

on a standard below the one-third point previously mentioned.

3.3. Accuracy of Standards. - Prior to the official use of testing apparatus, its accuracy should invariably be 

verified. Field Sstandards should be re-verified calibrated as often as circumstances require. By their nature, 

S&T - 45 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

metal volumetric field standards are more susceptible to damage in handling than are standards of some other 

types. A field standard should be re-calibrated whenever damage is known or suspected to have occurred or 

significant repairs have been made. In addition, field standards, particularly volumetric standards, should be recalibrated with sufficient frequency to affirm their continued accuracy, so that the official may always be in an 

unassailable position with respect to the accuracy of his testing apparatus. Secondary field standards, such as 

special fabric testing tapes, should be verified much more frequently than such basic standards as steel tapes or 

volumetric provers to demonstrate their constancy of value or performance. 

Accurate and dependable results cannot be obtained with faulty or inadequate field standards. If either the 

service person or official is poorly equipped, their results cannot be expected to check consistently. 

Disagreements can be avoided and the servicing of commercial equipment can be expedited and improved if 

service persons and officials give equal attention to the adequacy and maintenance of their testing apparatus. 

Discussion: In July 2000, the Metrology Subcommittee began formal discussions on inconsistencies in laboratory 

calibration practices for ensuring the traceability of field standards. A NIST work group further developed the 

Subcommittee’s recommendations into proposals to modify NIST Handbook 44 as shown in the recommendation 

above. It also submitted proposals for changes to the requirements in NIST Handbook 130 “Uniform Laws and 

Regulations” to include guidelines for suitable reference standards, test procedures, and practices for determining 

whether or not to allow the use of field standards as test apparatus. 

Both Handbooks required updating for consistency and to recognize current accepted accreditation and recognition 

practices for field standards, where applicable. The Handbooks should be modified to align international and 

national metrological terminology and to adequately define and clarify terms already in use that relate to field 

standard verification such as: accreditation, calibration, recognition, standards (field, primary, reference, secondary, 

and working), traceability, uncertainty, and verification. The proposal added the term “field” to distinguish the type 

of physical standard in use for testing of devices. The proposal also specifies the appropriate documentary standards 

and specifies that the field standard’s combined error and uncertainty must be less than one-third of the applicable 

device tolerance. 

The Subcommittee recommended corresponding modifications to Handbook 130 (see L&R Agenda Item 221-1 and 

Item 234-1). Metrological terminology would be updated and, where permitted, calibration interval adjustments 

based on statistical data would be allowed to improve the accuracy of field standards in use and provide more costeffective use of resources. The Subcommittee further recommended that Handbook 130 reference the entire NIST 

Handbook 105 Series as well as other suitable designated standards. To expedite matters and recognize the latest 

technology, proposed amendments would permit “Placed in Service Reports” for registered service agencies to be 

forwarded electronically to the State Director rather than mailed. Finally, to ensure measurements are allowable, 

organizations issuing calibration reports must be recognized by NIST or approved by an accreditation body. 

The WWMA recommended the proposal as a voting item. 

The Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) believes that device tolerances already allow for 

uncertainties, which field officials find difficult to determine. The CWMA also believes that use of the term 

“calibrated” changes the intent of paragraph 3.3. Consequently, the CWMA withdrew the proposal from its Interim 

Agenda. 

The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association recommended the proposal become a developing item, but did 

not provide a rationale for taking that position. 

During the 2005 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Committee met jointly with the L&R Committee to discuss and to 

take testimony on this proposal. The Committee heard only a request that the terms “initial verification” and 

“subsequent verification” be identified in the corresponding L&R proposal. Both Committees agreed that the 

proposal will eliminate inconsistencies and provide for recognition of current metrological practices. Consequently, 

the Committee agreed that the issues should move forward for a vote in July 2005. Modifications were planned for 

L&R Item 221-1 to include adding new definitions of “initial verification” and “subsequent verification” since both 

terms are referenced in the proposed guidelines for examination and calibration or certification of standards and 

testing equipment. 

S&T - 46 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

A list of frequently asked questions (FAQs) was distributed at the July 2005 NCWM Annual Meeting and 

distributed on the Weights and Measures Directors list server in June 2005 to provide additional background 

information on the changes proposed to NIST Handbooks 130 and 44; these FAQs are included in Appendix C. One 

point not specified in the FAQs or proposal is the expanded uncertainty to an approximate 95 % confidence level. 

The three interrelated items passed with several modifications to L&R items that addressed the definitions of 

primary and secondary standards and the examination and certification of test standards. For more details on this 

item, see the 2005 L&R Final Report. 

360-3 I International Organization of Legal Metrology (OIML) Report 

Many issues before the OIML, the Asian-Pacific Legal Metrology Forum (APLMF), and other international groups 

are within the purview of the S&T Committee. Additional information on OIML activities is available in 

Appendix A of the 2005 Board of Directors Final Report and on the OIML website at http://www.oiml.org. NIST 

Weights and Measures Division (WMD) provided updates on OIML activities during the open hearing session on 

Monday, July 18, 2005. For more information on specific OIML device activities contact the WMD staff listed in 

the table below: 

NIST Weights and Measures Division Contact List 

Staff Telephone Email Device Type Postal Mail or 

Fax 

Steven Cook (LMD) 301-975-4003 steven.cook@nist.gov Automatic Weighing Systems 

Weighing Devices 

Richard Harshman 

(LMD) 301-975-8107 richard.harshman@nist.gov 

R134 “Weighing Road Vehicles 

In-Motion” 

R60 “Load Cells” 

Diane Lee McGowan 

(LMD) 301-975-4405 diane.lee@nist.gov R51 Grain Moisture Meters 

Near Infrared Grain Analyzers 

Ralph Richter (ILM) 301-975-4025 ralph.richter@nist.gov R117 “Measuring Systems for 

Liquids Other Than Water” 

R105 “Direct Mass Flow 

Measuring Systems for Quantities 

of Liquids” and Gas Meters 

Wayne Stiefel (ILM) 301-975-4011 s.stiefel@nist.gov Measuring Devices 

Dr. Ambler Thompson 

(ILM) 301-975-2333 ambler@nist.gov Electronic Measuring Devices 

Juana Williams 

(LMD) 301-975-3989 juana.williams@nist.gov R21 Taximeters 

NIST WMD 

100 Bureau Dr 

MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD

20899-2600 

Fax: 

301-926-0647

LMD - Legal Metrology Devices Group 

ILM - International Legal Metrology Group

360-4 I Add International Terms that are Synonymous to NIST Handbook 44 Terms in Appendix D; 

Definitions 

Source: Carryover Item 360-4. (This item originated from the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association 

(NEWMA) and first appeared on the Committee’s 2002 agenda.) 

 

Discussion: Many Handbook 44 and OIML technical concepts and procedures are in harmony, yet there are 

significant differences in the terminology used. The harmonization of language is not necessary to harmonize 

requirements, provided a state of equivalence exists; however, improvements should be promoted where the 

language is confusing or has the potential for misinterpretation. Currently, the U.S. National Work Group 

(USNWG) on R76 “Non-automatic Weighing Instruments” is working on a proposal to amend NIST Handbook 44 

Appendix D, Definitions to include international terminology that is synonymous with Handbook 44 definitions. 

This item is intended to familiarize the public and private sectors with the proposed approach to modify 

Appendix D. The USNWG will identify Handbook 44 terms or definitions that are equivalent to international 

vocabulary by placing the corresponding OIML term in parentheses adjacent to the Handbook term. 

S&T - 47 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

The development of this proposal will also clarify terminology for international participants in the proposed Mutual 

Acceptance Arrangement (MAA) (see the 2005 Board of Directors Final Report, Appendix A for more information), 

where it is imperative that all parties are aware of and understand each other’s requirements. Similar terms can have 

a different meaning in Handbook 44 than they do in R76. Handbook 44 is also inconsistent in the use of many terms 

such as “division,” “increment,” and “interval.” One additional goal is to eliminate any confusion about other 

frequently used terms such as “device,” “element,” “mechanism,” “scale,” “weigher,” and “balance.” 

NEWMA supports this item and views it as a first step toward familiarizing officials and other users of the Handbook 

with new terminology and believes that future efforts should include work to place terms in Handbook 44 with the goal 

of having one mutually acceptable set of terminology. 

At its 2004 meeting, the Western Weights and Measures Association requested that the USNWG continue to 

develop the terms and asked that the proposal remain an information item. 

The Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) believes international terms serve no purpose for the field 

official. The CWMA believes this is an issue for NCWM Publication 14, “NTEP Technical Policy, Checklists, and 

Test Procedures;” therefore, the proposal should be withdrawn from the S&T Agenda. 

The Scale Manufacturers Association supports the efforts of the USNWG and looks forward to reviewing the final 

proposal as an information item. 

The Committee concurred with NEWMA’s assessment that the proposal is a necessary step for harmonizing U.S. 

and international terminology and later standards. The Committee heard support from industry for the proposal. 

Industry requested an opportunity to review the final product. The Committee decided to keep this proposal as an 

information item on its agenda to update the weights and measures community on this important work in the 

harmonization of standards and to allow the work group sufficient time to complete its comparison of Handbook 44 

General Code and Scales Code terms with equivalent international terminology. 

360-5 D Developing Issues 

The NCWM established a mechanism to disseminate information about emerging issues that have merit and are of 

national interest. Developing issues have either not received sufficient review by parties affected by the proposal or 

may be insufficiently developed to warrant action by the Committee. These issues are currently under review by at 

least one regional association or technical committee. The developing issues are listed in Appendix A according to 

the specific NIST Handbook 44 Code Section under which they fall. 

The S&T Committee encourages interested parties to examine the proposals included in Appendix A and send their 

comments to the contact listed in each item. The Committee also asks that the regional weights and measures 

associations and National Type Evaluation Technical Committee Sectors continue their work to fully develop each 

proposal. Should an association or Sector decide to discontinue work on a developmental item, the Committee asks 

that it be notified. 

 

Jack Kane, Montana, Chairman 

Clark Cooney, Oregon 

Carol P. Fulmer, South Carolina 

Todd R. Lucas, Ohio 

Michael J. Sikula, New York 

Ted Kingsbury, Canada, Technical Advisor 

Richard Suiter, NIST, Technical Advisor 

Juana Williams, NIST, Technical Advisor 

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances 

S&T - 48 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix A - Item 360-1: Proposed Section 5.59 

Appendix A 

Item 360-1: Proposed Section 5.59. Electronic Livestock, Meat, 

and Poultry Evaluation Systems and/or Devices -Tentative Code 

Electronic Meat Evaluation Systems 

Frequently Asked Questions 

1. Why did ASTM develop 

these standards? 

In 2000, U.S. Department of Agriculture Grain Inspection and Packers and 

Stockyard Administration (GIPSA) approached NIST & NCWM to request the 

development of a standard for carcass evaluation devices. When it was determined 

that neither the NCWM nor NIST had the resources needed to develop such a 

standard, ASTM was asked to guide the task. After an initial meeting with 

representatives from GIPSA, NCWM, and NIST, ASTM agreed to form the 

Committee F10 to develop standards for devices and systems for the measurement 

of fat and other quality constituents in Livestock, Meat, and Poultry. 

2. What standards did 

ASTM develop? 

The ASTM Committee F10 developed four separate standards to address design, 

use, testing, and predictive accuracy for these devices and systems. 

They are designated as: 

F2340 – 04 “Standard Specification for Developing and Validating Prediction 

Equation(s) or Model(s) Used in Connection with Livestock, Meat, and Poultry 

Evaluation Devices(s) or System(s) to Determine Value” 

F2341 – 03 “Standard Practice for User Requirements for Livestock, Meat, and 

Poultry Evaluation Devices or Systems” 

F2342 – 03 “Design and Construction of Composition or Quality Constituent 

Measuring Devices or Systems” 

F 2343 – 04 “Standard Test Method for Livestock, Meat, and Poultry Evaluation 

Devices” 

3. What does the term 

“Predictive Accuracy” 

mean? 

The original title for the draft standard developed by ASTM Subcommittee F10 – 40 

was “Predictive Accuracy.” The title of the final document F2340 – 04 was changed 

to “Standard Specification for Developing and Validating Predication Equation(s) or 

Model(s).” The new title better describes statistical procedures and the scientific 

approach that system/device manufacturers must follow to establish equations, 

algorithms, etc., that predict fat content for an entire carcass. Manufacturers may 

use sampling methods, limited measurements, and formula similar to those used to 

determine quality constituents such as moisture, starch, or oil content, in grain. 

4. Were all interested 

parties involved in the 

standards development 

process? 

The F10 Committee and Subcommittees included representatives from device 

manufacturers, meat packers, livestock producer associations, GIPSA, USDA 

Agriculture Marketing Service (AMS), NIST, NCWM, and University Meat Science 

Programs. 

5. Do the ASTM standards 

follow the same format as 

NIST Handbook 44? 

Three of the Standards are each similar in format to the Specifications (F2342 – 03), 

Test Notes and Tolerances (F 2343 – 04), and User Requirements (F2341 – 03), 

sections of a Handbook 44 code. The Standard for Prediction of Value 

(F 2340 - 04) is not; however, this is not a weights and measures issue. 

6. Why should a tentative 

code for these devices be 

added to Handbook 44? 

The devices and systems covered by these standards are commercial devices that 

have impacted over 80 % of the sale and harvesting of over 100 million hogs and 

over 35 million cattle with a value of billions of dollars (the latest estimate [2005] is 

$38.8 billion). 

ASTM standards are voluntary standards and are only “legal requirements” when 

they are cited in a law or regulation. Having a code in Handbook 44 will provide 

States who wish to include these devices in their registration and inspection 

programs with the legal authority to do so through the adoption of Handbook 44. 

S&T - A1 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix A - Item 360-1: Proposed Section 5.59 

7. Will W&M jurisdictions 

have to purchase the ASTM 

standards? 

States may want to have one reference set of some or all four of the standards in 

their main office. W&M Regional training funds left over at the end of the year 

could also be used to purchase copies of the standards. The cost is currently $28 

each. 

8. Why shouldn’t the 

NCWM/NIST just develop a 

new code for Handbook 44? 

Resources are still not available to conduct what would now be a duplication of 

effort. 

9. What is “in it” for 

weights and measures? 

Similar to regulation of other commercial devices, programs will be able to verify 

the accuracy of the devices and systems that measure the constituents used to 

determine the value of livestock, meat, and poultry being produced and sold within 

their jurisdiction. 

10. Won’t weights and 

measures officials require 

training to be able to test 

these devices? Who will 

provide the necessary 

training? 

Yes – GIPSA and NIST plan to discuss the development of a training program for 

these devices. The scope of the training will be developed in these discussions. 

11. What types of certified 

standards are necessary to 

verify device accuracy? 

The manufacturers of various devices can supply calibration standards with the 

devices at time of installation. The users of the devices are required to have the 

standards verified annually, to an appropriate tolerance (#1/3 of device tolerance), at 

an appropriate laboratory. 

12. What additional 

equipment must be 

purchased in order to test 

these devices? 

The users of the devices are required to have appropriate certified standards on site 

for testing the devices. Weights and measures jurisdictions may want to, but will 

not be forced to, have their own standards in order to conduct inspections 

13. If devices use different 

technologies to make similar 

measurements will the end 

result be the same? 

The standards were written to be applicable regardless of the type of measurement 

technology utilized. If two different technologies are used to make the same type of 

measurement (either within the same facility or at two different facilities) and the 

same formula is used to determine value, the end result should be the same. 

14. Why doesn’t USDA 

GIPSA just test these 

devices themselves? 

Similar to livestock scales and in-motion monorail scales GIPSA will have 

requirements for accuracy verification of these devices. GIPSA will test these 

devices during investigations; however, GIPSA does not have the manpower to 

handle the routine inspections. 

15. Why isn’t there a 

standard formula for 

calculating the price 

adjustments made based on 

measurements from these 

devices? 

At present, different packing companies have different criteria for what they 

consider to be their preferred characteristics for the animals they purchase. In the 

future competition may drive “standard formula” to be adopted across the industry. 

16. If the formula can vary 

from packer to packer what 

is the value of testing the 

measurement devices? 

Equity in the transactions begins with, and can only be assured with, accurate 

devices. From that point, the livestock producer can determine which packing 

company provides the best pricing structure for the particular characteristics of the 

animals he or she offers for sale. 

17. Will the USDA GIPSA 

require these devices to be 

tested? 

Yes, GIPSA is drafting regulations similar to those that require livestock scales and 

monorail scales to be tested for accuracy on a regular basis. These regulations will 

reference NIST Handbook 44 requirements. 

S&T - A2 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix B - Item 360-2: Fundamental Considerations 

Appendix B 

Item 360-2: Appendix A Fundamental Considerations 

3. Testing Apparatus; 3.1 Adequacy, 3.2 Tolerances for Standards and Footnote 2, 

and 3.3 Accuracy of Standards 

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) 

Proposed NIST Handbook (HB) 44Changes for Test Standards 

A work group was formed to review and modify the original proposed technical updates to NIST Handbooks 130 

and 44. This group carefully reviewed each change, modified wording to assure clarity and brevity, and evaluated 

the effect of each change on individual weights and measures programs. Changes are proposed for NIST 

Handbook 130 “Uniform Laws and Regulations” Weights and Measures Law and Voluntary Registration 

Regulation, and NIST Handbook 44 “Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing 

and Measuring Devices, Appendix A Fundamental Considerations. 

What are the key points of the changes? 

Specifically, one change would update terminology in both handbooks. Updates were planned for terms such as 

“primary” and “secondary” standard to reflect the international usage of each term. Additional terms and their 

definitions would be added, such as “reference standard,” “field standard,” “traceability,” and “uncertainty.” Terms 

would be added only if they are used elsewhere in the document. 

Some of the proposed changes would allow State directors more discretion when evaluating calibration intervals, 

referencing documentary standards, and accepting calibration reports. Handbook 130 currently states that field 

standards must be calibrated annually. The proposed language would allow adjustment of field standard calibration 

intervals based on historical calibration data. Intervals could be increased for standards such as stainless steel 

weights or decreased for standards such as weight carts or cast iron weights. State directors would also be able to 

reference documentary standards other than in NIST documents when defining specifications for field standards. 

Currently, there are some standards used in the field with no corresponding NIST document defining their 

specifications. Allowing American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM), International Organization of Legal 

Metrology (OIML) or other documentary standards to be referenced would fill this void. Finally, State directors 

would be able to accept calibration reports from both State laboratories and accredited industry laboratories 

recognized by NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD). Some states are already accepting accredited 

calibrations from private industry. The new language would provide guidance for making the decision about which 

labs are acceptable and what additional information is necessary before accepting their calibration reports. 

Another change clarifies the uncertainty to tolerance ratios required when selecting field standards. The tolerance 

ratio is currently described as a “3 to 1” ratio, with no additional explanation. The new language clearly defines 

what this means and will help State directors and weights and measures officials select appropriate equipment when 

conducting field tests. 

Why are these changes being proposed? 

Changes are being proposed to these sections of Handbook 130 and Handbook 44 for several reasons. First, there is 

a need to update terminology in both handbooks in order to conform to international definitions. Second, many 

states have changed calibration intervals on field standards. Allowing for adjustment of calibration intervals based 

on statistical data is in alignment with reality, and is sound rationale for varying from annual intervals. Third, 

expanding acceptable references to a generic list of documentary standards allows jurisdictions to adopt industry or 

international standards, in addition to the standards developed by NIST. Fourth, allowing states to determine which 

calibration reports are acceptable for calibration of field equipment gives more options to each jurisdiction. It is 

especially important to understand that the concept of traceability is evaluated by formal accreditation and 

recognition methods. Self-declaration and the use of NIST test numbers are no longer considered acceptable 

indications of traceability. Finally, the tolerance ratios described in Handbook 130 need additional explanation and 

clarification. 

S&T - B1 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix B - Item 360-2: Fundamental Considerations 

What does this mean to our State program?

These proposed changes would have a relatively small effect on state and local weights and measures programs. 

There is no mandate for a jurisdiction to change the way it currently operates; however, the changes would allow 

local control and flexibility with respect to field standards and their calibration intervals. Additionally, the new 

language documents what is already being done in practice in many states. It promotes international uniformity and 

would allow the use of industry and international documentary standards in addition to NIST Handbooks. 

How do I set appropriate calibration intervals?

When setting initial calibration intervals, it is recommended that a jurisdiction set a base interval of one year. For 

additional information on setting initial intervals for a variety of field standards, see the list of recommendations at 

the end of this document. In order to adjust or change a calibration interval, it is necessary to have sufficient 

historical calibration data, which includes “as-found” measurement data. In addition to data, it is also necessary to 

have a statistically valid approach for modifying the intervals. The laboratory metrologist should be familiar with 

adjusting calibration intervals for laboratory standards, and may be a useful resource for both providing data and 

statistical analysis. For more information on statistical approaches to changing calibration intervals, consult 

National Conference of Standards Laboratories International (NCSLI) RP #1 on Setting and Adjusting Calibration 

Intervals. It is important to remember that suitable care and handling is essential when using field standards. 

Jurisdictions may require verification and oversight of field standards even if not providing a full calibration. 

Why should we allow adjustment of calibration intervals? 

One of the reasons for allowing the adjustment of calibration intervals is to save money and time by having 

calibrations done at suitable frequencies rather than at arbitrary fixed intervals. It will also lead to improved 

accuracy, by ensuring that field standards are within tolerance during the entire calibration interval. The goal is to 

“calibrate the day before an item goes out of tolerance,” but the reality is simply cost-effective risk management. 

Accurate analysis of calibration intervals can provide evidence needed to defend the tolerance of field standards, but 

this requires calibration data, analysis, and accompanying documentation of the program. 

How do I know which documentary standards to reference?

When referencing documentary standards, refer to the sample list provided with this document and consult your 

laboratory metrologist for input. For unique equipment, it may be necessary to consult the manufacturer. NIST, 

OIML, and ASTM provide many field standard specifications. Determine if suitable industry or international 

standards are available. If no documentary standard exists for a field standard, it may be necessary to write one. To 

do this, the specifications, tolerances, and requirements must be identified and documented. It may be useful to 

consult the manufacturer when writing the specifications. The State director must also assess uncertainties for the 

field standard and its measurement impact, and evaluate their laboratory’s ability to calibrate or obtain a calibration 

for the field standard. 

What do we do with field standards that don’t meet the specifications? What about measurement areas 

where we don’t have documentary standards?

When a field standard does not meet specifications outlined in an accepted documentary standard, a State director 

must evaluate the impact of the deviation on the measurement results, as well as the functionality, efficiency, and 

safety of the device. State directors have local authority and flexibility to accept and designate field standards and to 

allow grandfathering and deviations from standard specifications. They may require unique calibration intervals for 

these field standards or they may reject and/or confiscate the standard based on evaluation results. 

How do I know if a laboratory’s calibration reports are acceptable? How do we create the “accepted list?”

In order to determine which calibration reports are acceptable, several criteria must be evaluated. First, determine if 

the laboratory providing the calibration report is accredited by a National Cooperation for Laboratory Accreditation 

(NACLA) approved accreditation body or recognized by WMD as capable of providing traceable measurement 

results. If the lab passes this first step, evaluate the scope of accreditation or recognition and assess the laboratory’s 

S&T - B2 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix B - Item 360-2: Fundamental Considerations 

best measurement uncertainty to make sure that they can provide the services needed. Be sure that the calibration 

report provided contains values and associated uncertainties. State metrologists or technical experts at NIST may be 

able to assist in evaluating the acceptability of outside calibration reports. 

Why do we need to have initial verification of field standards? 

Even when a laboratory provides an accredited calibration report meeting the uncertainty to tolerance requirements 

specified, there is no guarantee that the field equipment meets specifications. It may be necessary for field standards 

to have an initial evaluation by a weights and measures jurisdiction before being put into service. It is the 

responsibility of a weights and measures agency to ensure that suitable field standards are used for official 

inspections. Accreditation is not conformity assessment and should not be used for that purpose. New field 

standards must be evaluated for compliance with specifications and for impact on measurement results. 

How do we evaluate the uncertainties versus the tolerance requirements in the Fundamental Considerations? 

Where can I get more information? 

In determining the suitability of a field standard, it is necessary to evaluate the uncertainty to tolerance ratio. In 

order to do this, both the uncertainty of the field standard and the tolerance of the device to be tested must be known. 

Additionally, it is important to know whether or not the field standard has been adjusted to its nominal value. If an 

adjustment has been made, a comparison between the uncertainty and tolerance is all that is necessary. Here, the 

uncertainty should be no more than one-third of the tolerance. The calibration report for the field standard should 

contain the uncertainty of the measurement. If the field standard has been left with an associated correction, the 

correction and the uncertainty must be combined before making the comparison with the tolerance. Both the 

correction and the uncertainty should be listed on the calibration report. When added together, their sum should be 

no more than one-third of the tolerance of the device under test. State metrologists should be able to provide 

additional information regarding evaluating uncertainties of field standards.

Sample list of documentary standards that can be used as specifications and tolerances for “field standards.”

Sample List of Documentary Standards and Calibration Intervals 

Standards Device Calibration Interval Comments 

HB 105-1, Cast iron Class III, IIIL, IV scales 6 month to 1 year 

HB 105-1, Stainless steel Class III, IIIL, IV scales 5 year 

OIML R111, Class F1 

ASTM E 617-97, Class 2 

Class II scales 1 year 

HB 105-2, glassware Package testing 10 year 

HB 105-3, test measures (hand-held and 

5 gal truck/trailer mounted) 

Gas pumps 1 year 

HB 105-3, large provers Meters 1 year 

HB 105-4, LPG provers LPG meters 1 year 

HB 105-5, stopwatches Taxi meters, timing 

devices, parking meters, 

Laundromats 

1 year 

HB 105-6, thermometers 

ASTM E1 

Temperature 

corrections, 

refrigeration specs, 

package checking 

5 year Inspection required 

annually 

HB 105-7, small volume provers Meters 6 months, extendable 

to 1 year 

Need EPO for field 

testing. 

API document in development Master Meters for 

petroleum 

S&T - B3 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix B - Item 360-2: Fundamental Considerations 

Sample List of Documentary Standards and Calibration Intervals 

Standards Device Calibration Interval Comments 

ASTM E 74, proving rings and load 

cells 

Wheel load weighers, 

weight carts, large mass 

standards 

Rings: 5 years 

Cells: 6 months if 

used for wheel load 

weighers; evaluate 

with use for 

substitution weighing 

Depends on use. 

HB 105-8, weight carts Vehicle scales 6 months to 1 year; 

recalibration for any 

repair 

Need EPO for field 

use. 

ASTM E 100, hydrometers Petroleum products; 

bulk oil meters 

1 year 

Federal Specification GGG – standard; 

Length standards, tapes 

Taxi meters, fabric, 

scale decks, firewood, 

lobster gauges 

5 years; inspection 

before use 

Containers (HB 133) Bulk mulch 

HB 44, Berry Baskets Berry quantity 

API - American Petroleum Institute 

HB 105 Series - A series of NIST technical documents that include “Specifications and Tolerances for Reference 

Standards and Field Standard Weights and Measures” 

HB 133 - A NIST technical document that includes specifications and other requirements for “Checking the Net 

Contents of Packaged Goods” 

S&T - B4 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C - Item 360-5: Developing Issues 

Appendix C 

Item 360-5: Developing Issues 

Part 1, Item 1 General Code: G-S.5.6.1. Recorded Representation of 

Metric Units on Equipment with Limited Character Sets 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) 

Recommendation: Modify paragraph G-S.5.6.1. as follows: 

G-S.5.6.1. Recorded Representation of Metric Units on Equipment with Limited Character Sets

Acceptable Abbreviations for Recorded and Indicated Representation of Units on Equipment. - The 

appropriate defining symbols are shown in Table 1. 

Add the following new abbreviations to Table 1 Representation of Units to the General Code: 

Common 

Use 

Symbol

Representation Common 

Use 

Symbol

Representation

Form I Form II Form I Form II

Name of Unit

(double 

case)

(single 

lower 

case)

(single 

case 

upper)

Name of 

Unit

(double 

case)

(single 

lower 

case)

(single 

case 

upper)

Inches in In in IN deciliter dL dL

Foot ft ft ft FT Kiloliter kL kL

Yard yd yd yd YD cubic meter M3 m3 m3 M3

milligram mg mg mg cubic inches in3 in3 in3 IN3

megagram Mg Mg cubic foot ft3 ft3 ft3 FT3

Grain gr gr gr cubic yard yd3 yd3 yd3 YD3

Dram dr dr dr Gills gi gi Gi GI

Ounce oz oz oz OZ Pint pt pt pt PT

Pound lb lb lb LB Quart qt qt qt QT

hundredweight cwt cwt cwt CWT Gallon gal gal gal GAL

pennyweight dwt dwt dwt DWT Ampere A, I A, I A, I

ounce troy oz t oz t oz t OZ T resistance ohms ohms ohms OHMS

milliliters mL mL

centiliter cL cL

Discussion: The WWMA notes that the current General Code Table 1 Representation of Units does not include 

many units that are in common use today. 

At its 2004 meeting, the WWMA indicated that unless it receives a report on the development of the table, the 

proposal will be withdrawn from its September 2005 agenda. 

To provide input on this proposal, contact Gary Castro, California Division of Measurement Standards, by at 

(916) 229-3018, by fax at (916) 229-3015, or at gcastro@cdfa.ca.gov. 

Part 2, Item 1 Scales: Table 4. Minimum Test Weights and Test Loads 

Source: Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA)

Recommendation: Modify Table 4. Minimum Test Weights and Test Loads as follows: 

S&T - C1 
S&T Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix C - Item 360-5: Developing Issues 

 

 

Table 4. 

Minimum Test Weights and Test Loads1

Minimums (in terms of device capacity) Device capacity Test weights (greater of) Test loads2 (where practicable) 

0 to 150 kg 

(0 to 300 lb) 100 % 

151 to 1 500 kg 

(301 to 3 000 lb) 25 % or 150 kg (300 lb) 75 % 

1 501 to 20 000 kg 

(3 001 to 40 000 lb) 12.5 % or 500 kg (1 000 lb) 50 % 

20 001 kg+ to 

250 000 kg (40 001 lb+

to 500 000 lb)

12.5 % or 5 000 kg (10 

000 lb) 

25 %3

Test weights to dial face capacity, 

1 000 d, or test load to used capacity, 

if greater than minimums specified 

During initial verification, a scale 

should be tested to capacity.

1

 If the amount of test weight in Table 4 combined with the load on the scale would result in an unsafe condition, 

then the appropriate load will be determined by the official with statutory authority. 

2

The term "test load" means the sum of the combination of field standard test weights and any other applied load 

used in the conduct of a test using substitution test methods. Not more than three substitutions shall be used during 

substitution testing, after which the tolerances for strain load tests shall be applied to each set of test loads. 

3

 The scale shall be tested from zero to at least 12.5 % of scale capacity using known test weights, and then to at 

least 25 % of scale capacity using either a substitution or strain load test that utilizes known test weights of at least 

12.5 % of scale capacity. Whenever practical, a strain load test should be conducted to the used capacity of the 

scale. When a strain load test is conducted, the tolerances apply only to the test weights or substitution test loads. 

(Amended 1988, 1989, 1994, and 2003 and 200X) 

Discussion: Jurisdictions encounter scales with 1 000 000 lb nominal capacity and must determine the minimum 

test load. NEWMA finds that NIST Handbook 44 is flexible, but does not provide any definitive guidelines on test 

loads for large-capacity scales. NEWMA modified its original proposal by reducing the scale maximum capacity 

from 1 000 000 lb to 500 000 lb and removing a proposed new footnote that permitted officials to establish the 

minimum test load. Industry and other regional associations have developed alternate proposals to address their 

concerns that the proposal does not address the minimum test load and test weights requirements for a scale with a 

nominal capacity greater than 500 000 lb. 

The Committee agreed that Table 4 is the appropriate place in Handbook 44 to provide guidance on the appropriate 

minimum test load for tests on scales that exceed capacities of 400 000 lb. The Committee believes this issue is a 

high priority but requires further review and input from both the public and private sectors. 

To provide input on this proposal contact Michael Sikula, New York Bureau of Weights and Measures at 

(518) 457-3452, by fax at (518) 457-2552 or at mike.sikula@agmkt.state.ny.us. 

S&T - C2 
PDC 2005 Final Report 

Report of the Professional Development Committee 

Kenneth Deitzler, Chairman 

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture Bureau of Ride and Measurement Standards 

Harrisburg, Pennsylvania 

Reference 

Key Number 

400 INTRODUCTION 

This is the report of the Professional Development Committee (hereinafter referred to as "Committee" or PDC) for 

the 90th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). It is based on the Interim 

Report offered in NCWM Publication 16, testimony heard at public hearings, comments received from the Regional 

Weights and Measures Associations and other parties, the Addendum Sheets issued at the Annual Meeting, and 

actions taken by the membership at the Voting Session of the Annual Meeting. The informational items presented 

below were adopted as presented when the Committee’s report was approved. 

Table A identifies the agenda items in the Report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The item 

numbers are those assigned in the Interim Meeting Agenda. A voting item is indicated with a “V” after the item number. 

An item marked with an “I” after the reference key number is an information item. An item marked with a “D” after the 

reference key number is a developing issue. The developing designation indicates an item has merit; however, the item 

was returned to the submitter for further development before any action can be taken at the national level. An item marked 

with a “W” was withdrawn by the Committee and generally will be referred to the regional weights and measures 

associations because it either needs additional development, analysis, and input or does not have sufficient Committee 

support to bring it before the NCWM. 

Note: The policy of NIST is to use metric units of measurement in all of its publications; however, 

recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been printed in this publication as they were 

submitted and may, therefore, contain references to inch-pound units. 

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference 

Key Number Title of Item Page 

400 INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................................1

401 EDUCATION...................................................................................................................................................2 

401-1 I National Training Program (NTP)........................................................................................................2

401-2 W Professional Development....................................................................................................................3

401-3 W Identify Partners ...................................................................................................................................3

401-4 I Create a Curriculum Plan .....................................................................................................................3

401-5 W Curriculum Coordination......................................................................................................................4

401-6 W Training Innovations.............................................................................................................................5

401-7 D Instructor Improvement ........................................................................................................................5

401-8 D Certification..........................................................................................................................................5

401-9 W NCWM Training ..................................................................................................................................7

401-10 D Recommended Topics for Conference Training...................................................................................8

402 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT .......................................................................................................................8

402-1 W Voluntary Quality Assurance Assessment............................................................................................8

402-2 W NCWM Associate Membership Scholarships ......................................................................................9

402-3 I Safety Awareness .................................................................................................................................9

402-4 I Standard Categories of Weighing and Measuring Devices ..................................................................9 

PDC - 1 
PDC 2005 Final Report 

Table B 

Appendix

Appendix Title Page 

A Strategic Direction for the Professional Development Committee......................................................................A1

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

401 EDUCATION 

401-1 I National Training Program (NTP) 

Source: The Committee 

The Board of Directors established the Committee at the 2003 NCWM Annual Meeting in Sparks, Nevada. The 

first critical charge given to the Committee was to develop a national weights and measures professional 

development program in cooperation with its partners including:

• State and local weights and measures departments; 

• Private industry at all levels; and 

• Technical advisors from NIST Weights and Measures Division and Measurement Canada 

The NTP will address the following tasks in order of priority: 

1. The education and professional development of weights and measures officials and the promotion of 

uniformity and consistency in the application of weights and measures laws and regulations; 

2. The education of industry personnel with regard to weights and measures laws and regulations, including 

all areas from device manufacturer to service technician; 

3. Quality standards for weights and measures activities and programs; 

4. Safety awareness for weights and measures-related activities; and

5. Development of a firm partnership with the state and local weights and measures departments, private 

industry at all levels, and the NCWM. It is critical that NIST Weights and Measures Division (NIST 

WMD) partner with the Committee and, where appropriate, provide technical advice. Measurement 

Canada is also encouraged to participate in Committee activities. 

Discussion: The Committee began developing the concept of a National Certification Program for weights and 

measures officials during the 2004 NCWM Annual Meeting (see developmental Item 401-8 below). In December 

2004 several Committee members met in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, to further develop the Committee’s overall 

strategic direction of a National Certification Program. The participants agreed that the NTP should take the 

following directions: 

• The training responsibility should fall directly on state and local jurisdictions. 

• Administrator training must be added to the curriculum. 

• The Committee should consider looking outside the NCWM for training and structure. 

• The Central Weights and Measures Association (CWMA) will assist the Committee in determining what 

knowledge and prerequisites are required for three tiers of the NTP: beginning, intermediate, and 

advanced. 

• The Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) recommended the Committee establish 

identifiable course outlines that would result in shorter training courses. 

PDC - 2 
PDC 2005 Final Report 

The strategic direction is summarized in Appendix A. 

At the Annual Meeting comments from the floor indicated support for the Committee’s direction on the item. Other 

comments indicated that the Committee should not lose sight of training of supervisors, managers, and service 

personnel. A recommendation was made to set parameters and benchmarks and let the states do the work in training 

the inspectors. 

401-2 W Professional Development 

Source: The Committee 

Discussion: The Committee withdrew this item because the scope and content of this item is inherent in the tasks 

outlined in the information items on the agenda. 

The Committee created and distributed an informational survey during the 2004 Annual Meeting to identify the 

needs of jurisdictions and to create a consensus position in the development of the National Training Program. The 

Committee reported the results of the survey at the 2005 Interim Meeting. The data showed that a Handbook 44 

course was a top priority followed by a course on small scales. The state of California offered its support and the 

training material used in that state. The CWMA agreed that Committee’s efforts to establish a training and 

certification program should be the first step of providing professional development for all NCWM stakeholders. 

401-3 W Identify Partners 

Source: The Committee

Identify appropriate roles in implementing an educational process for each of the partners (e.g., NCWM, state and 

local weights and measures jurisdictions, private industry at all levels, NIST Weights and Measures Division, and 

Measurement Canada). 

Discussion: The development of a training program should follow the steps listed below: 

1. Study training programs of outside agencies, as well as those of state and local jurisdictions. 

2. Establish knowledge goals for weights and measures officials and administrators. 

3. Develop curriculum based upon the findings and results of the steps 1 and 2. 

4. Develop exams or tests. 

The Committee moved “the development of training program steps” to Item 401-4 and withdrew this item. 

401-4 I Create a Curriculum Plan 

Source: The Committee 

The Committee agreed the following steps must be addressed for the NTP to be viable: 

(a) Develop and maintain a curriculum plan in cooperation with our partners that establishes uniform and 

consistent training objectives for weights and measures professionals in all fields and at all levels. 

(b) Develop objectives of the curriculum plan representative of a consensus of our partners and organize those 

objectives by scope, sequence, and level of complexity to assist those developing the curriculum materials. 

The development of a training program should follow the steps below: 

1. Study training programs of outside agencies, as well as those of state and local jurisdictions. 

2. Establish knowledge goals for weights and measures officials and administrators. 

PDC - 3 
PDC 2005 Final Report 

3. Develop curriculum based upon the findings and results of the steps 1 - 2 above. 

(a) Coordinate the development of curriculum materials to be used in the delivery of training (i.e., lesson 

plans, digital presentations, slide shows, testing guides, etc.) using a variety of formats (e.g., self-study, 

traditional instruction). 

(b) Consider creating a network of interested parties to establish priorities, share training resources, foster 

cooperation to reduce redundancy, and promote uniformity and consistency. 

4. Develop examinations, quizzes or tests based on the content of the materials developed under Item 3. 

5. Gather and share information from trainers on highly effective techniques, visual aids and other materials 

that have been used to facilitate learning. Use as many of these resources as available. 

The Committee reviewed the notes from the NIST-sponsored administrators’ workshops held in Denver, Colorado, 

and Baltimore, Maryland, and plans to explore many of these ideas. 

Discussion: During the 2004 Annual Meeting, the Committee discussed the idea of using work groups to develop 

courses that could be used for self-study or for traditional classroom settings. The Committee agreed that the initial 

priority should be high profile devices (e.g., motor-fuel dispensers and retail computing scales). The Committee 

will study the survey results to determine the membership’s needs and desires. 

There were several recommendations submitted by the regional associations. The CWMA commented that the 

Committee should draw upon other sources, both external and internal, for establishment of curricula. The WWMA 

recommended the Committee review current training courses on the NIST website at http://www.nist.gov/owm to 

establish and identify various levels of training. They also suggested the Committee review and update all existing 

NIST training courses and post them on the NIST website. The Northeast Weights and Measures Association 

(NEWMA) recommended the Committee set standards for education that include provisions for field tests. 

During the 2005 Interim Meeting the Committee received recommendations to develop course curriculum with 

specific learning objectives and develop tests to determine mastery of the learning objectives. The responsibility for 

providing training to meet the objectives would rest with the jurisdictions. It was also recommended the Committee 

develop tests to be administered at the end of each course. Upon successful completion of the tests, individuals 

would be issued certificates. Schemes for controlling the tests and preserving the integrity of the system would need 

to be developed. 

At the 2005 Annual Meeting the State of New York indicated that it will provide the Committee with information on 

this subject. 

401-5 W Curriculum Coordination 

Source: The Committee

In order to achieve the goal of curriculum development, the Committee discussed the following: 

(a) Coordination of the development of curriculum materials to be used in the delivery of training (i.e., testing 

guides, digital presentations, slide shows, lesson plans, etc.) using a variety of formats (e.g., self-study, 

traditional instruction). 

(b) Creation of a network of interested parties to establish priorities, share training resources, foster 

cooperation to reduce redundancy, and promote uniformity and consistency. 

The Committee should consider curricula from other sources to develop a National Training Program. The CWMA 

agreed that the Committee should draw upon several sources, both external and internal, for the establishment of 

curricula. 

PDC - 4 
PDC 2005 Final Report 

Discussion: Since this item had substantial overlap with the preceding item, the Committee withdrew it and placed 

portions of it in Item 401-4. 

401-6 W Training Innovations 

Source: The Committee

To achieve the objective of developing creative training innovations, the Committee agreed to gather and share 

information from trainers on highly effective techniques, visual aids, etc., that have been used to facilitate learning 

and to use as many resources as available. The Committee reviewed the notes from the NIST-sponsored 

administrators’ workshops held in Denver and Baltimore and plans to explore many of these ideas. 

The CWMA Professional Development Committee recommends focus groups be used to identify training 

innovations and that each group be assigned at least one person with teaching or training background to ensure 

different learning styles are recognized and utilized in developing the final product. 

Discussion: The Committee incorporated some information from Item 401-6 into Item 401-4 and withdrew this 

item. 

401-7 D Instructor Improvement 

Source: The Committee

One goal of the Committee is to coordinate with all interested parties activities to improve the competence of 

instructors and the uniformity of delivery of the curriculum. 

Discussion: The Committee concluded there are two parts of an instructor—improvement strategy. The first part is 

educating trainers in effective methods of instruction. A variety of courses and training methods are available from 

state, federal, and private sources to develop instructional skills and techniques. Jurisdictions are encouraged to seek 

out and send selected staff to this type of training. 

The second area of instructor improvement is to provide trainers with the knowledge of the technical aspects of all 

types of devices. The Committee will look to NIST WMD for leadership and participation as a valuable asset in this 

aspect of training and recommends that WMD assume the task of providing the technical training of instructors. 

The Committee will look to WMD as a resource to consult with trainers and to work with the Committee on keeping 

the curricula current as changes to the Handbooks occur, new technologies are deployed, and emerging issues 

develop. The Committee invites discussion from WMD on this topic. The Committee decided this is currently a 

low priority for 2005. However, the item will be retained as a developing item. 

At the Annual Meeting industry representatives offered continued support on training for the new weighing and 

measuring device technology. WMD indicated that they would continue to provide technical training for the 

trainers. 

401-8 D Certification 

Source: The Committee

The Committee believes that an NCWM certification program should be developed based on the curriculum plan 

with measurable levels of competency. 

Discussion: The Committee agrees that weights and measures officials must pass written examinations to receive 

certification. Certificates could be presented at the Annual Meeting to administrators and weights and measures 

officials who complete training classes and pass the course examination. In 2004 Chairman Dennis Ehrhart 

expressed his support for certification and indicated the Board of Directors would consider requests to fund training. 

The Committee is exploring certification of weights and measures officials as a means to demonstrate competency. 

PDC - 5 
PDC 2005 Final Report 

The WWMA and CWMA submitted extensive comments and recommendations regarding this item prior to the 

2004 NCWM Annual Meeting. The Committee has designated this item as developmental. 

At the Annual Meeting the Committee considered and agreed to include the following proposal on state-issued 

certification. 

State-Issued NCWM Certification Proposal 

Background

The PDC strategic direction has established a plan for a certification program for individuals and programs. The 

Professional Development Committee has been charged with developing an NCWM certification program based on 

the curriculum plan with measurable levels of competency. 

A full certification proposal was developed and submitted for consideration at the NCWM 2005 Interim Meeting. 

Questions were raised over the availability of NCWM resources needed to maintain a full NCWM certification 

program. Feedback from the membership in attendance showed there was interest in development of the stateissued certificate of competency since the states already have responsibility for maintaining training records and are 

ultimately responsible for the competency of inspectors in their jurisdictions. This proposal is for a state-issued 

certificate based upon a National certification testing program. 

During the open discussion some members indicated they would prefer NCWM issue the certificates and the states 

be responsible for the training. 

Implementation

Step One: Each State Director will identify a State Certification Coordinator (SCC) for its state to work with 

the PDC and NCWM. The SCC would be the main state contact and collection point for materials and information 

related to certification. The SCC would be responsible for: 

1. Assisting the PDC in developing: 

a. Test questions (or recommending work group members who could) 

b. Test protocol 

c. Certification criteria 

d. Certification templates 

2. Implementing certification testing in their state. 

3. Maintaining confidentiality of testing and test materials 

4. Scoring certification tests 

5. Issuing state certificates 

6. Reviewing their state’s submitted questions annually for adherence to the handbook changes 

7. Maintaining state certification files 

Step Two: The PDC will establish work groups to identify core competencies and knowledge requirements for 

basic (beginning) and advanced (journey level) inspectors for a general W&M inspector, for specific devices and 

W&M disciplines as identified in the training outline already developed by the PDC. The PDC and SCC can work 

together to assist in establishing work groups for specialty areas to ensure the correct level of expertise. 

Step Three: The work groups will develop certification tests and field competency verification methods to test 

the core competencies and knowledge requirements as established in step two. Allow members of the work groups 

to utilize a secure area of the NCWM website to conduct their work without having costly meetings or conference 

calls. Each work group would submit questions to be used in the development of the test that would demonstrate the 

core competencies and knowledge requirements. This will establish a pool of potential questions for the PDC and 

SCC to use in development of certification tests. Use the ISWM 900-Question model and others for “developing,” 

“recycling” and “updating” test questions as needed. SCCs should review the questions they developed annually 

and update if necessary. This will ensure that as handbook requirements change all questions will remain current 

PDC - 6 
PDC 2005 Final Report 

and in agreement with the conference documents. Reviewing only a few questions should not be overly burdensome 

on any one jurisdiction or organization. Development of the tests must also include the testing minimums for 

certification of every test for each device and discipline for certification (i.e., must pass 75 % of the questions to be 

certified). 

PDC would maintain a master list of questions for each test to be given, who submitted each question, when it was 

last reviewed and then generate the test questions using a random selection method. The test would be changed 

annually. Once a test has been developed, the PDC would submit the test questions (along with the answers) to the 

SCC for their use in certification. 

Step Four: The PDC will establish confidentiality, testing and field verification protocol for the tests to ensure 

the integrity of the test and testing validity are maintained. This is crucial given the wide scope of testing and the 

need to offer testing in every state. This ISWM testing protocol and other successful testing procedures should be 

studied to build on current successes. PDC or BOD determines what, if any, involvement the NCWM will have in 

the actual printing and issuance of Certificates and what recognition, if any, the NCWM will give to certificate 

holders. The SCC in each state will be responsible for printing all testing materials and instructions, giving the tests, 

and grading the tests, the SCC must monitor to see that testing protocol is followed. 

Certification program expected outcome: consistency of enforcement, uniformity, respect, integrity, and acceptance 

of end product. Inspectors will be able to compete in marketplace for fair wages and be recognized as professionals 

in their field. 

Other things to consider: 

1. Each state must also ensure field competency along with certification. 

2. Should certificates be required to be renewed? 

3. Should there be a fee associated with certification as a revenue source or to cover the basic cost of 

administering the test? 

4. Should study guides or workshops be developed as a revenue source for the NCWM or as increased value 

to NCWM membership and attendance at meetings? 

401-9 W NCWM Training 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA)

Recommendation: The WWMA recommended that the NCWM establish and maintain a database of classroom 

training programs completed by individual weights and measures officials where the training uses NCWM courses 

(or equivalent) and certified trainers. The NCWM should also issue certificates to individual weights and measures 

officials for course completion. 

Background: The WWMA recognized the value of formal training for inspection staff and the credibility these 

programs provide. Some jurisdictions have formal licensing programs for weights and measures staff and rely on 

informal programs. The WWMA recognized that the NCWM is a logical entity to provide standardized training and 

accreditation programs. 

Discussion: The Committee acknowledges the comments from WWMA. Such comments will be taken under 

advisement during the formulation of any training effort. The Committee would like to know if NIST will 

participate in the NCWM training and certification program and would like to see a NIST liaison added to the 

Committee. The Committee would like to maintain NIST involvement with the National Training Program. NIST 

reported they have and will continue to develop training materials that will be made available for use in a wide 

variety of training classes. The standards used to inspect devices are technical; therefore, the training and 

development of these standards require a wide variety of technical expertise. NEWMA stated technical and 

administrative support for the Committee should come from NIST. The Committee will solicit partnerships with 

other interested parties. 

PDC - 7 
PDC 2005 Final Report 

During the 2005 Interim Meeting, it appeared there was a consensus among the membership that this should be a 

responsibility of the states. Based on that consensus, the Committee withdrew this item. 

401-10 D Recommended Topics for Conference Training 

At the 2005 Interim Meeting, the Committee recommended a number of topics for possible training seminars, round 

tables or symposia that would be suitable for presentation at the 2006 National Conference. 

They are: 

• Risk-based inspections, 

• Marketplace surveys, 

• Auditing the performance of field staff, 

• Device inspections using a sampling model, and 

• Emerging issues. 

Will Wotthlie, MD, volunteered to lead a session on auditing field staff. 

Robert Williams, TN, volunteered to present their state’s RMFD testing program. 

Jerry Buendel, WA, volunteered to lead a session on marketplace surveys. 

All members are encouraged to submit their ideas for topics to the Committee members and to volunteer to lead, 

present or moderate a topic. 

402 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 

402-1 W Voluntary Quality Assurance Assessment 

Source: The Committee 

The Committee will continue to promote the development of quality programs through the Voluntary Quality 

Assurance Assessments (VQAA). The Committee would like to see more participation in the VQAA. The 

Committee discussed the use of the ISO/IEC/EN 17025 “General Requirements for the Competence of Calibration 

and Testing Laboratories” for state and local field enforcement programs but concluded that the ISO 17025 standard 

does not apply to state and local field enforcement programs. The Committee recommends that the NCWM develop 

its own certification standards for state and local field enforcement programs. The Committee encourages all 

member states to utilize the VQAA and provide information to the Committee. The assessments can be a valuable 

tool in determining training needs. The Committee noted that in 2003 several certificates were presented at the 

Annual Meeting, but no requests for review were received in 2004. The Committee would like to remind the 

membership that the VQAA forms and other information are available on the NCWM website and the results are 

confidential. The CWMA believes jurisdictions interested in having the assessments made have already done so and 

reported that there is no interest among its membership in developing additional VQAAs checklists. 

Discussion: The Committee has withdrawn this item because of inactivity or lack of interest for the past three 

years. The forms can still be obtained on the NCWM website or by contacting one of the Committee members. 

PDC - 8 
PDC 2005 Final Report 

402-2 W NCWM Associate Membership Scholarships 

Source: The Committee 

In past years when funding was available from the Associate Membership Committee (AMC), the Committee 

oversaw a system to evaluate applications and award scholarships. The Committee then provided a report on the 

scholarships awarded each year. No funds were made available for scholarships for the calendar year 2004. 

Guidelines for the Associate Membership Committee scholarships can be found in NIST Special Publication 992, 

Report of the 87th NCWM (2003). Continued interest in scholarships has been expressed by several state and local 

jurisdictions. The WWMA expressed appreciation to the AMC for its continued support of various NCWM needs 

and encourages the associate membership to fund training scholarships in the future if possible. 

Discussion: The Committee withdrew this item. The Associate Membership Committee will decide how its money 

is to be used and define the criteria for applying for the funds and the NCWM’s management company will provide 

administrative support. 

402-3 I Safety Awareness 

Source: The Committee 

In the past the Committee’s responsibility extended to the identification of safety issues in the weights and measures 

field and included efforts to increase safety awareness. 

Recommendation: This is an area where activities should be increased to promote safety awareness. 

Discussion: Past-Chairman Dennis Ehrhart explained that the Voluntary Quality Assurance Assessment program, 

the NCWM Associate Membership Scholarships, and Safety Awareness efforts were carryover items from the 

Committee on Administration and Public Affairs and recommended that the Committee make training its highest 

priority. 

The Committee encourages jurisdictions to send the safety reports and issues to their regional safety liaison, who in 

turn forwards them to Charles Gardner, the NCWM Safety Coordinator, who recommends the reports or summaries 

of the reports be published in the NCWM newsletter. At the 2005 Interim Meeting a CD-ROM on safety produced 

for the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency was made available for review. The Committee agreed to ensure that 

safety awareness is a part of every aspect of training for NCWM stakeholders. 

402-4 I Standard Categories of Weighing and Measuring Devices 

Source: Western Weights and Measures Association 

Discussion: The Western Weights and Measures Association (WWMA) Administration and Public Affairs (A&P) 

Committee recommended that standard categories of weighing and measuring devices be adopted to facilitate 

development of technical standards, inspector training, data collection, and program management. 

Background: The final report of the Survey of Inspection Statistics Collected by State Weights and Measures 

Programs [2002], conducted during mid-2003, observed the absence of standard categories for weighing and 

measuring devices was a serious obstacle to data collection. For example, the way weights and measures programs 

categorize scales by type, use, or capacity and capacity ranges often vary considerably. Retail motor-fuel dispensers 

are currently being counted either by dispenser, grade, or number of hoses or meters. The need for reliable weights 

and measures statistics is summarized in the final report conclusion as follows: 

Accurate statistics would be helpful in many ways at both the state and national level. For instance, it is 

difficult to develop performance measures without statistics. Also, work plans require accurate and detailed 

statistics. In addition, budget, staffing, and other elements of each state program demand statistics on inspection 

workloads. Finally, neither individual states nor the NCWM will be able to estimate and advertise the value of 

the nation’s weights and measures programs unless reliable statistics are available. 

PDC - 9 
PDC 2005 Final Report 

To correct this problem, the WWMA has developed Standard Categories for Weighing and Measuring Devices and 

recommends that standard categories for weighing and measuring devices be adopted to facilitate the development 

of technical standards, inspector training, inspection data collection, and weights and measures program 

management.

At the 2005 Interim Meeting the Committee agreed this item should remain informational at this time because 

standardized categories of weighing and measuring devices have merit and should be considered in the future. 

At the Annual Meeting NEWMA recommended use of the categories from Handbook 44 instead of recreating new 

ones. The WWMA Administrative and Public Affairs Committee drafted the following recommendation for 

consideration by the Committee. The standard categories of weighing and measuring devices are based on capacity 

ranges rather than type or use. It is assumed that the inspection test procedures for scales and meters within these 

capacity ranges are generally similar. Weights and measures programs can adopt the recommended standard 

categories without changing the manner in which they presently keep records of device inspections by simply 

adding an extra data field. 

NCWM DEVICE CATEGORY CODES

DEVICE 

CODE CATEGORY CAPACITY EXAMPLES 

SP Scale, Precision < 5 g scale division jewelry, prescription scales 

SS Scale, Small < 100 lbs. retail computing scales 

SM Scale, Medium 100 – 5000 lb dormant, platform scales 

SL Scale, Large > 5000 lb livestock, recycler scales 

SV Scale, Vehicle >40 000 lb vehicle, railway track scales 

MS Meter, Small <30 gpm1 retail motor fuel dispensers 

MM Meter, Medium 30-100 gpm loading rack, vehicle-tank meters 

ML Meter, Large >100 gpm agri-chemical meters 

MF Meter, Mass Flow All heated tanks of corn syrup (soft drinks) 

MW Meter, Water All water sub-meters for mobile homes & apartments 

MG Meter, LPG All propane sales 

MT Meter, Taxi All Taximeters 

DT Device, Timing All clocks in parking garages 

DL Device, Length Measuring All cordage meters 

Two-letter device category codes could be employed to categorize devices in weights and measures jurisdictions for 

reporting to the NCWM during annual surveys. Otherwise, the data collection procedures already in place would be 

unaffected. It would be helpful also to add the two-letter device category code to inspection reports. 

Other measuring devices (e.g., MFM, LPG, LMD, etc.) may not require capacity-based categories like scales or 

liquid measuring devices. 

This briefing paper was provided by the WWMA to serve as a basis for further discussion and development of this 

item. 

 

1

 Retail motor-fuel dispenser counts should be based on meters except that mid-grades should be added for blenders. 

PDC - 10 
PDC 2005 Final Report 

Additional Considerations: 

The Committee recognized that many aspects of their work would need to be documented and presented. The 

Committee and Board should consider the publication of a handbook or similar document. 

 

Kenneth Deitzler, Pennsylvania, Chairman 

Celeste Bennett, Michigan 

Jerry Buendel, Washington 

Agatha Shields, Franklin County, Ohio 

Stuart Strnad, Texas 

Richard W. Wotthlie, Maryland 

C. Gardner, Suffolk County, New York, Safety Liaison 

NCWM Executive Staff: Beverly I. Levy, CAE 

Professional Development Committee 

PDC - 11 
PDC 2005 Final Report 

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 

PDC - 12 
PDC 2005 Final Report 

Appendix A – Strategic Direction for the PDC 

Appendix A 

Strategic Direction for the Professional Development Committee 

The Committee developed their strategic direction to define its roles and responsibilities to the NCWM and the 

weights and measures community. The Committee members wrote principles to guide them in their deliberations 

and defined four main areas to focus their efforts. The Committee recognizes that its direction and responsibilities 

may be changed by the Board of Directors. 

The guiding principles of the group were: 

• Keep things simple, 

• Develop programs that are realistic and achievable, 

• Minimize redundancy and administrative tasks, 

• Recognize that no one size fits all, and 

• Meet the needs of W&M officials, service companies, industry and manufacturers. 

The four main areas for focusing their efforts were: 

National Training Program – the focus of the national training program would be to increase technical knowledge, 

strengthen credibility and improve the professionalism of the individual weights and measures official. A strong 

national training program will work to promote uniformity across the nation. 

National Certification System – a national certification system would be developed to recognize or accredit weights 

and measures programs as competent or capable. The program would include requirements around individual 

training, proper test standards, use of national handbooks and a data gathering system. 

Conference Training Topics – the Committee would be the focal point for gathering and recommending workshops 

or symposia on leadership, management and emerging issues to be presented during the annual conference. These 

topics would provide a forum for the exchange of ideas and discussion of changes in the marketplace. 

 

Uniformity of Data – the Committee would work to develop standard categories for devices and inspection areas so 

that such things as the number of devices, compliance rates, frequency of inspection and other areas could be 

compiled and compared at the national level. These statistics could be used to benchmark organizations and to 

communicate the value of weights and measures to the public and to decision makers (see Item 402-4). 

PDC - A1 
PDC 2005 Final Report 

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 

PDC - A2 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Report of the 

National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee

Jim Truex 

Chief 

Ohio Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures 

Reference 

Key Number 

500 INTRODUCTION 

The National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee (“Committee") submits its Report for consideration by 

the 90th National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This consists of the Interim Report presented in 

NCWM Publication 16 as amended in the Addendum Sheets issued during the Annual Meeting that was held July 

10-14, 2005, in Orlando, Florida. The Committee considered communications received prior to and during the 90th

Annual Meeting that are noted in this report 

Table A identifies the agenda items in the Report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. The 

item numbers are those assigned in the Committee’s Interim Meeting Agenda. A voting item is indicated with a “V” 

after the item number or, if the item was part of the consent calendar, by the suffix “VC”. An item marked with an 

“I” after the reference key number is an information item. An item marked with a “W” was withdrawn by the 

Committee and generally will be referred to the regional weights and measures associations because it either needs 

additional development, analysis, and input or does not have sufficient Committee support to bring it before the 

NCWM. Table B lists the appendices to the report, and Table C provides a summary of the results of the voting on 

the Committee’s items and the report in entirety. 

This Report contains many recommendations to revise or amend National Conference on Weights and Measures 

(NCWM) Publication 14, Administrative Procedures, Technical Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures or other 

documents. Proposed revisions to the publication(s) are shown in bold face print by striking out information to be 

deleted, and underlining information to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are printed 

in italics. 

Note: The policy of NIST is to use metric units of measurement in all of its publications; however, 

recommendations received by the NCWM technical committees have been printed in this publication as they were 

submitted and may, therefore, contain references to inch-pound units. 

Table A 

Index to Reference Key Items 

Reference 

Key Number Title of Item Page 

Introduction ...................................................................................................................................................................1

1. Test Data Exchange Agreements............................................................................................................................2

2. Adoption of Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation by States ............................................................3

3. NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Reports....................................................................................3

4. NTETC Sector Reports...........................................................................................................................................3

5. NTEP Participation in U.S. National Work Group on Harmonization of NIST Handbook 44, NCWM 

Publication 14 and OIML R 76 and R 60...............................................................................................................5

6. Mix and Match Elements........................................................................................................................................5

7. Software Evaluations..............................................................................................................................................6

NTEP - 1 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Table B 

Appendices 

Appendix Title Page 

A NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Report ..................................................................................A1

B NTETC - GMM and NIR Sector Annual Meetings, Summary of Decisions ...................................................... B1

C NTETC - Measuring Sector Annual Meeting, Summary of Decisions ............................................................... C1

D NTETC - Weighing Sector Annual Meeting, Summary of Decisions.................................................................D1

E Provisional Committee on Participation Review (CPR) Meeting Summary....................................................... E1

Table C 

Voting Results 

House of Representatives House of Delegates Reference Key Number

Yeas Nays Yeas Nays

Results

500 (Report in Its 

Entirety) 

Voice Vote 

All Yeas No Nays All Yeas No Nays Passed

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

1. Test Data Exchange Agreements 

Background/Discussion: This item was included on the Committee’s agenda in 1998 to provide an update on 

NTEP’s work to establish bilateral and multilateral agreements. Under such agreements and arrangements, 

manufacturers would be able to submit their equipment to any of the participating countries for testing to OIMLrecommended requirements. The resulting test data would be accepted by other participants as a basis for issuing 

each country’s own type approval certificate. Following is a report on the three types of test data exchange 

agreements: 

Mutual Acceptance Arrangement (MAA): 

Stephen Patoray reported on the first meeting of the MAA Committee on Participation Review (CPR) during 

June 15 - 16, 2005, in Lyon, France. A copy of the report is contained in Appendix E General Summary of the June 

2005 Provisional CPR Meeting in Lyon, France. 

The NCWM will notify the BIML of any decision made by the NCWM regarding becoming a “Utilizing 

Participant” or "Issuing Participant" for R76, “Non-automatic Weighing Instruments” and R60, “Metrological 

Regulation for Load Cells.” 

See related BOD Agenda Item 10 for additional information on the MAA. 

Bilateral Agreements: No additional discussions have been held on this topic. Additional discussions may be held 

pending the outcome of the MAA discussions. 

NTEP - 2 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

NTEP-Canada Mutual Recognition Program (MRA): No additional discussions or meetings have been held on this 

subject. Future discussions may include extending the MRA to include Multiple Dimension Measuring Devices. 

2. Adoption of Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation by States 

Background/Discussion: The Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) hosted NTEP adoption and implementation 

meetings for state directors at each regional weights and measures association conference. These meetings enable 

jurisdictions to share information about adopting and implementing NTEP in their respective jurisdictions, 

encourage non-NTEP jurisdictions to adopt the regulation, and allow current NTEP jurisdictions to share ideas on 

how to make enforcement more effective and uniform among the States. The meetings also provide NTEP 

management with information related to areas in which the operation and implementation of the program can be 

improved. Several questions have been posed at these meetings regarding issues associated with NTEP 

interpretation or practice. Comments from 1997 to 2004 have been summarized, without attribution, and are 

available for review and download on the SMA website at http://www.scalemanufacturers.org. 

SMA representative, Darrell Flocken, updated the NTEP Committee on the status of SMA's drive to assist States to 

adopt the Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation (URNTE) and the Uniform Regulation for the 

Voluntary Registration of Servicepersons and Service Agencies (VRSA). Mr. Flocken indicated the SMA decided it 

would be more useful to show which States require NTEP Certificates before allowing weighing and measuring 

devices to be certified as legal for trade regardless of their adoption of the NIST/NTEP URNTE. SMA developed a 

new map that shows that status. The SMA, deciding that it would be more useful to show which States require 

Registration of Service Agencies and Service Personnel regardless of their adoption of VRSA, developed separate 

maps that show that status. Such maps are available for review and download on the SMA website at 

http://www.scalemanufacturers.org. 

At the request of the SMA, the NTEP Committee is considering discontinuing this item from the Agenda. 

3. NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Reports 

NTEP Director, Steve Patoray provided the Committee with a report of the NTEP Laboratory and administrative 

activities since the October 1, 2002, to June 2005. Additionally, he provided the NCWM an update on the status on 

the update of NCWM Publication 14 checklists for Automatic Weighing Systems (AWS) and Multiple Dimension 

Measuring Devices (MDMD) as a result of the change in the status of the AWS and MDMD codes from provisional 

to full code status in NIST Handbook 44. In addition, several MDMD devices are currently undergoing NTEP 

evaluation. 

A report of the activities was distributed to the NTEP Committee at the 2004 NCWM Annual Meeting and is 

included in the Final Report of the NTEP Committee as Appendix A. 

The laboratory meeting was held April 3 through 6, 2005, in Columbus, OH. 

4. NTETC Sector Reports 

The Committee received an update on the activities of the National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Sectors at the 2005 NCWM Interim Meeting. Outlined below is a brief summary of Sector activities since the 2004 

NCWM Annual Meeting. 

The NTEP Committee accepted recommendations from the Weighing Sector, the Measuring Sector, and the Grain 

Analyzer Sector. 

There was additional discussion on editorial updates to the Taximeter section of NCWM Publication 14. These 

updates were reviewed and accepted by the NTEP Committee. 

There was also discussion on the accepted section of NCWM Publication 14 Checklist for Cash Acceptors for 

weighing devices. After the sector recommended cash acceptor checklist language, a device incorporating cash 

NTEP - 3 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

acceptors was submitted for evaluation. During the evaluation, it became evident to the NTEP laboratory evaluator 

that some items in the recommended checklist were either vague or missing from the proposed Publication 14 

language. The items identified by the laboratory were: 

(1) insufficient paper to print a receipt and complete a transaction, and 

(2) insufficient funds to return the correct change or return the correct amount inserted into the machine should 

a transaction be canceled. 

The NIST technical advisor, Steve Cook, proposed some additional language. This language attempts to ensure that 

in case of an error the customer would receive information regarding the error in a printed receipt or be informed 

that they need to contact an attendant or store manager. The NTEP Committee agreed to add the additional 

language as "ad hoc" language in the 2005 update of NCWM Publication 14. The Committee discussed several 

additional “cash acceptor” issues that may require clarification or additional checklist requirements. An agenda item 

will be presented during the 2005 meeting of the Weighing Sector to address these issues. These items may also 

need to be addressed in other sections of NCWM Publication 14. 

The NTEP Committee discussed an additional issue brought forward by a manufacturer regarding the title of 

Section 8.2 of NCWM Publication 14 Digital Electronic Scales, Additional criteria for vehicle scales, railway track 

scales, combination vehicle/railway track scales, and other platform scales greater than 200 000 lb. Information 

from the 1998 and 2000 Sector meetings was reviewed. The NTEP Committee instructed the NTEP director to 

correct the Publication 14 language to reflect previous decisions of the sectors, identify the changes clearly in the 

Publication 14, and place this item on the agenda for the 2005 meeting of the Weighing Sector for additional 

comments and recommendations. 

The NTEP Committee reviewed a request from the Grain Moisture Meter and Near-Infrared Protein Analyzer Sectors to 

combine the two sectors and change the name to “Grain Analyzer Sector.” The Committee accepted these 

recommendations. 

Grain Analyzer Sector: The NTETC Grain Moisture Meter and NIR Protein Analyzer Sectors held a joint meeting 

in Kansas City, MO, on August 26 - 27, 2004. 

The next meeting of the Grain Analyzer Sector is scheduled for August 24 - 25, 2005, in Kansas City, MO. For 

questions on the current status of Sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the Sector 

technical advisors: 

Diane Lee Jack Barber 

NIST WMD J.B. Associates 

100 Bureau Drive – Stop 2600 10349 Old Indian Trail 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 Glenarm, IL 62536 

Phone: 301-975-4405 Phone: 217-483-4232 

Fax: 301-926-0647 e-mail: jbarber@motion.net 

e-mail: diane.lee@nist.gov 

Measuring Sector: The NTETC Measuring Sector met October 21 - 22, 2004, in Gulfport, MS. 

The next meeting of the Measuring Sector is scheduled for October 21 - 22, 2005, in Nashville, TN, conjunction 

with the Southern Weights and Measures Association’s Annual Meeting. For questions on the current status of 

Sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the Sector technical advisor: 

Richard Suiter 

NIST WMD 

100 Bureau Drive – Stop 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Phone: 301-975-4406 

Fax: 301-926-0647 

e-mail: rsuiter@nist.gov 

NTEP - 4 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Weighing Sector: The NTETC Weighing Sector met August 29 - 31, 2004, in Ottawa, Canada. 

The next Weighing Sector meeting is scheduled for September 25 - 27, 2005, in Columbus, OH. For questions on 

the current status of Sector work or to propose items for a future meeting, please contact the Sector technical 

advisor: 

Steven Cook 

NIST WMD 

100 Bureau Drive – Stop 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

Phone: 301-975-4003 

Fax: 301-926-0647 

e-mail: stevenc@nist.gov 

NTETC Sector Summaries: Past NTETC Sector summaries are available upon request from NCWM and the NIST 

Sector technical advisors: 

NCWM Inc. or NIST WMD Technical Advisor, Steve Cook 

Phone: 240-632-9454 (See contact information above) 

email: ncwm@mgmtsol.com 

5. NTEP Participation in U.S. National Work Group on Harmonization of NIST 

Handbook 44, NCWM Publication 14 and OIML R 76 and R 60 

Steve Cook, NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD), reported during the BOD meeting that NIST WMD, 

with input from the U.S. National Work Group (USNWG), submitted several comments on the 1st Committee Draft 

(1st CD) of OIML R76-1 “Non-automatic Weighing Instruments” and that WMD voted against advancing the CD to 

a Draft Recommendation Status. The Secretariat for OIML TC9/SC1 recently submitted the result of the vote and a 

list of comments received from the participating members of the subcommittee. The result of the vote was 20 

Participating (P) members voted YES, four P members voted NO, and one P member abstained. Although there was 

a two-thirds majority in favor, the Secretariat decided to develop a 2nd CD due to the number of comments. The 

Secretariat anticipates completion of the 2nd CD by the end of October 2005. Steve Cook further reported that 

meeting of the USNWG was held on Sunday, July 10, 2005, during the Annual Meeting of the NCWM. The 

purpose of the meeting was to review comments that may result in amendments to the 1st CD that may prevent the 

United States from supporting the 2nd CD. The attendees included three manufacturers, two regulators, 

Measurement Canada, and NIST WMD. 

6. Mix and Match Elements 

In 2004 Ross Andersen provided the Committee with an update on this item. He indicated that some U.S. 

manufacturers had questioned him about the possibility of using the OIML system of apportionment of errors in the 

evaluation of separate main elements (OIML calls them modules). The U.S. system applies a 0.7 fraction of the 

tolerance to any weighing/measuring or indicating element. In contrast, the OIML system recognizes that there may 

be more than two elements in the system that contribute error. The OIML allows the manufacturer to apply different 

fractions of error to each element (module), from 0.3 to 0.8, provided the sum of the squares is less than or equal to 

1 for the combined system. OIML also has specific criteria for evaluating compatibility of elements. At present 

NTEP Certificates specify that the separate main elements must be interfaced with compatible equipment but 

provide no guidance on how to evaluate compatibility. It appears that this issue will become more important over 

time. Mr. Andersen advised that the United States should be looking closely at the issues involved and the changes 

that might be required in NIST Handbook 44 to allow the OIML system to be used here. 

There have been no additional comments or alternate proposals since the 2004 Annual Meeting. This item needs to 

be submitted as a specific agenda item to a regional Specifications and Tolerances Committee or to the NTETC 

Weighing Sector for additional action if there is continued interest. 

NTEP - 5 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

7. Software Evaluations 

The NTEP Committee discussed the pros and cons of software evaluation. General concerns relate to difficulties 

identifying software and determining traceability to an NTEP Certificate of Conformance during field verification 

and providing NTEP laboratories with a meaningful and functional checklist for evaluating software security and 

functions. 

NCWM staff gathered the costs involved with forming a Sector and the costs to conduct a Sector meeting. This 

information, along with a detailed action plan for the development of the sector charges, were presented and 

reviewed by the NCWM Board of Directors at its meeting in March 2005. 

At the 2004 NCWM Annual Meeting, the NTEP committee heard various comments from the floor both supporting 

and questioning the merits of forming an NTEP technical committee, sector or subcommittee. Also, there were 

comments regarding the importance of this project and if it should have a higher or lower priority than other current 

projects being considered by the BOD. 

Based on the comments from the floor, Chairman Jim Truex reported that the NTEP Committee has three possible 

alternatives: 

1. Leave the Status Quo 

2. Create an NTETC Software Sector 

3. Create an S&T Subcommittee 

The NTEP Committee discussed this item after the open hearing discussions. The Committee unanimously supports 

the formation of a NTETC Software Sector. The Committee believes that the Conference Chair, the NTEP Chair 

and the NTEP Director will provide the Sector with initial guidance and direction on scope and purpose of their 

charge. 

Jim Truex, OH, NTEP Committee Chair 

Wes Diggs, VA 

Don Onwiler, NB 

Charles Carroll, MA 

Stephen Pahl, TX 

NTEP Technical Advisor, S. Patoray, NTEP Director 

NTEP Technical Advisor, S. Cook, NIST WMD 

National Type Evaluation Program Committee

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 

NTEP - 6 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Report 

Appendix A 

NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Report 

NTEP Application Statistics 

2003 - 2004 

10/1/03 - 

6/13//04

2004 - 2005 

10/1/04 -

6/13/05 

Grand Total 

10/1/00 - 

6/13/05 

Applications Processed (Reactivations) (1) 188 (2) 198 (44) 1232 

Applications Completed 140 53 865 

New Certificates Issued 165 131 1073 

Certificates Distributed to State Directors 228 134 1055 

Certificates Posted to Web Site 219 134 3592 

Active NTEP Certificates 1532 

Average Median 

Time for NCWM to Assign an Evaluation 10 days 8 days 

Time for NCWM to Review a Draft Certificate 8 days 6 days 

Time For Complete Evaluation 166 days 112 days 

NTEP - A1 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix A – NTEP Participating Laboratories and Evaluations Report 

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK. 

NTEP - A2 
NTEP Committee 2005 Annual Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

Appendix B 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) and NIR Sector Annual Meetings 

August 26-27, 2004 - Kansas City, Missouri 

Summary of Decisions

Agenda Items 

1. Report on GIPSA/NIST Interagency Agreement Renewal ....................................................................................1

2. Report on OCP (Phase II) Testing..........................................................................................................................2

3. Publication 14 – GMM Tolerances for Calibration Performance...........................................................................2

4. Proposed Change to Publication 14 – Test Weight per Bushel Range for Test Weight Accuracy, Precision 

and Reproducibility Tests.......................................................................................................................................6

5. Proposed Change to Publication 14 – Repeatability Tolerances for Test Weight ..................................................9

6. Handbook 44, § 5.56(a) Paragraph S.2.6. Determination of Quantity and Temperature......................................10

7. Report on OIML IR 59 "Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds".........................................................11

8. Report on NTEP Type Evaluations......................................................................................................................12

9. Should the Grain Moisture Meter Sector and the NIR Grain Analyzer Sectors Merge? ......................................13

10. Report on the 2004 NCWM Annual Meeting.......................................................................................................13

11. Multiple Application Certificates.........................................................................................................................14

12. Time and Place for Next Meeting.........................................................................................................................15

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Moisture Meter Sector 

Recommendations for Amendments to Publication 14 ...................................................................................16

Note: Because of common interest, agenda items 8 through 12, above, were considered in a joint session of the NIR 

Grain Analyzer and the Grain Moisture Meter Sectors. 

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

1. Report on GIPSA/NIST Interagency Agreement Renewal 

Background: The current five-year Interagency Agreement between GIPSA and NIST that provides funding for 

the Grain Moisture Meter On-going Calibration Program (OCP) expires at the end of the Federal Government’s 

Fiscal Year (FY) 2004 (September 30, 2004). Under the terms of the present agreement NIST and GIPSA each 

contribute one-third the cost of the program subject to an annual maximum of $18,000 each. The balance of costs is 

borne by manufacturers and depends on the number of meter models in the NTEP "pool" according to a fee 

schedule. The fee schedule has remained fixed since October 1, 1999. NIST and GIPSA have reviewed costs 

associated with the program and a revised fee schedule has been proposed. At the Sector's 2003 meeting Dr. Richard 

Pierce, GIPSA, briefed the Sector on the proposed fee schedule, a draft of which is shown below. Implementation of 

the proposed fee schedule, which would become effective at the start of FY 2005 (October 1, 2004), is subject to 

approval by both agencies. Dr. Pierce reported that the fee schedule in the proposed agreement has been the subject 

of serious discussion at GIPSA. GIPSA has had to increase its hourly fees for services by 50 % to 100 % over the 

rates used when the proposed fee schedule was calculated. However, at the time of the Sector meeting, it appeared 

likely that GIPSA would agree to absorb the added costs at least for the coming year. Costs will be reviewed at the 

end of each year and manufacturers are likely to see a fee increase in subsequent years even if the number of meters 

remained constant. A copy of the proposed agreement has been forwarded for signing, but as of 

September 11, 2004, no signatures were in place. 

NTEP - B1 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

Proposed NTEP On-Going Calibration Program Fee Schedule 

For Fiscal Year 2005 to 2009

(1) Funding Contribution from Participants 

Total Meters 

(including 

official meter) 

(2) 

Meters in 

NTEP 

Pool 

(3) 

Cost per 

NTEP Pool 

Meter 

(4) 

Total 

Program 

Cost 

(5) 

NIST 

(6) 

GIPSA 

(7) 

Manufacturers 

(total funding from mfg's) 

(8) 

Cost per 

Meter Type 

2 1 19,875 19,875 6,625 6,625 6,625 3,315 

3 2 19,875 39,750 13,250 13,250 13,250 4,415 

4 3 19,875 59,625 19,875 19,875 19,875 4,970 

5 4 19,875 79,500 26,500 26,500 26,500 5,300 

6 5 19,875 99,375 26,500 26,500 46,375 7,730 

7 6 19,875 119,250 26,500 26,500 66,250 9,465 

8 7 19,875 139,125 26,500 26,500 86,125 10,765 

9 8 19,875 159,000 26,500 26,500 106,000 11,775 

2. Report on OCP (Phase II) Testing 

Phase II On-going Calibration Program (OCP) data for the 2003 crop year was in manufacturers' hands by 

February 1, 2004. Cathy Brenner of the Grain Inspection, Processors and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA, 

formerly FGIS), the NTEP Participating Laboratory for Grain Moisture Meters, reported that billing for the 2004 

cycle was sent out in June 2004 based on the Interagency Agreement currently in place. Five models will be 

enrolled in Phase II for the 2004 harvest. 

 DICKEY-john GAC2100 

Foss Infratec 1229, Infratec 1241 

 Seedburo 1200A 

 Steinlite SL95 

3. Publication 14 – GMM Tolerances for Calibration Performance 

Background: To address concerns that different meter types were not as closely aligned with the air oven as they 

could be, the Sector, at their August 2003 meeting, recommended a change to Publication 14 that would require a 

calibration to meet Phase I tolerances (without the application of a confidence interval) for each 2 % interval of the 

basic 6 % moisture range in order for that calibration to remain on the Certificate of Conformance. 

During the discussion on this issue, Dr. Charles Hurburgh, Jr., Iowa State University, pointed out that if there is a 

statistically significant bias between two meters and both meet “Approved” tolerances, then the tolerance is too 

broad. It was suggested that statistics are needed to show that meters as a cluster are aligned with each other in 

addition to aligning with the air oven. A subcommittee was formed to look at approval tolerances and uniformity 

among meters. When the subcommittee met, it became clear that a major obstacle to further study this matter by the 

committee would be greatly hindered by the fact that manufacturers consider On-going Calibration Program (OCP) 

data proprietary, and the NTEP Laboratory is not free to release this data. Dr. Richard Pierce, GIPSA (the NTEP 

Laboratory), offered to look further into the matter and have GIPSA's statistician prepare a report. 

Discussion: Dr. Pierce presented data showing the performance of NTEP meters compared to the air oven. These 

data were based on the last three crop years (2001 - 2003) using calibrations updated for use during the 2004 harvest 

season. Dr. Pierce reported that the data for the most recent three-year period is similar to data presented to the 

Sector five years ago. Addressing the results for corn, Dr. Pierce conceded that alignment (between meters) could 

be improved. With the exception of one model, agreement between meters was good over the basic 6 % moisture 

range. Dr. Hurburgh pointed out that each point on the graphs represents an average of a significant number of 

samples; thus, there is an implied "error bar" for each point. As a result, on individual samples there could be a wide 

dispersion in measurements between two different meter models. The results for corn, soybeans, and hard red 

winter wheat are shown graphically below. 

NTEP - B2 
NTEP Committee 2005 Annual Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

Moisture Meter Comparison - Corn

2001-2003 Crop Years

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

10 - 12% 13 12 - 14% 67 14 - 16% 113 16 - 18% 106 18 - 20% 99 20 - 22% 59 22 - 24% 45 24 - 26% 41 26 - 28% 33 28 - 30% 27

Moisture Interval / Number of Samples

Bias with respect to oven

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Moisture Meter Comparison - Soybeans

2001-2003 Crop Years

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

 8 - 10% 43 10 - 12% 

169 

 12 - 14% 

113 

 14 - 16% 

95 

 16 - 18% 

28 

 18 - 20% 10 

Moisture Interval / Number of Samples

Bias with respect to oven

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

NTEP - B3 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

Moisture Meter Comparison - Hard Red Winter Wheat

2001-2003 Crop Years

-0.5

-0.4

-0.3

-0.2

-0.1

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

 10 - 12% 52 12 - 14% 45 14 - 16% 47 

Moisture Interval / Number of Samples

Bias with respect to oven

Model 1

Model 2

Model 3

Model 4

Model 5

Dr. Pierce explained that wet corn is a problem. Above 20 % moisture, the number of available samples drops 

significantly with each 2 % interval of increasing moisture. In addition, year-to-year variability can be significant. 

In response to a suggestion that a tighter tolerance be applied to a three-year rolling average of the bias for each 2 % 

interval above 20 % moisture, Dr. Pierce replied that the problem lies in the imperfect sample set for moistures 

above 20 % moisture where meters show the most year-to-year variability. There are a limited number of samples, 

and the samples are not fully representative of the population. As a result, even three-year rolling averages may 

vary from year to year for each 2 % interval above 20 % moisture. This is the reason that Publication 14 applies 

confidence intervals to the tolerances for each 2 % interval above the basic 6 % moisture range. 

Calling attention to the substantial difference between Models 1 and 5 on corn, Rich Flaugh, GSF, Inc., urged the 

Sector to work harder on this issue, noting that GSF had performed studies showing that the discrepancies above 

20 % moisture (on corn) have been present for a number of years. He also pointed out that 2 to 4 million bushels of 

corn run through one meter (with a + 0.6 % bias) could cost producers $250,000 in excess shrink and drying 

charges. 

It was suggested that the alignment problem could be solved if comparative data identifying each model by 

manufacturer were to be published. (Such data is presently considered proprietary according to the terms of the 

interagency agreement.) An informal poll of manufacturers indicated they were generally opposed to publishing this 

data or including a chart or graph of biases for their individual meters on the Certificate of Conformance. There was 

concern that this data might be misinterpreted and might lead to unnecessary calibration changes. Dr. Pierce 

cautioned that tolerances should not be so tight as to require calibration changes every year. Calibration changes to 

the official meter are upsetting to the grain trade as they can have a substantial effect on the value of grain 

inventories. 

As presently written, there is nothing in the Grain Moisture Meter chapter of Publication 14 to force a calibration 

change for a meter exhibiting bias characteristics similar to those shown for meter Model 1 on corn moisture. Dr. 

Pierce suggested the Sector might want to consider an "overall bias" requirement similar to GIPSA's "Rule for 

sustained biases" cited below, but with a 0.20 limit on overall bias: 

NTEP - B4 
NTEP Committee 2005 Annual Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

A calibration is considered for bias correction when all of the following conditions are met: 

(1) The three-year average calibration bias (the three-year average bias over the entire range) exceeds 

0.15 % moisture, 

(2) The most recent three-year average calibration bias exceeds twice the standard deviation of past threeyear average calibration biases. 

One Sector member originally opposed an "overall bias" rule, believing this would not improve performance of 

meters in the field. This opposition was withdrawn when it was explained that: 1) moisture meter calibrations are 

always based on historical data; 2) although based on raw data collected over a three-year period, a calibration 

having a smaller bias with respect to air oven on that data has a greater probability of exhibiting a smaller bias on 

next year's crop; and 3) assuming that meters of like type in the field are aligned with the NTEP laboratory meter, 

the bias of meters in the field will also be reduced. Another member originally opposed an "overall bias" rule on the 

grounds that it was trying to hit a moving target. This objection was also withdrawn after considering that any 

proposed rule would incorporate a bias tolerance wider than the 0.15 % moisture used by GIPSA. The Sector then 

agreed to consider a written proposal to add an "overall bias" rule to Publication 14. 

During discussion of proposed wording, questions were raised about handling new meters where less than three 

years of data were available. It was recognized that calibrations for a new meter might have to change each year 

until enough data could be accumulated. One Sector member recalled that this, in fact, did happen for some meters 

in the first few years of the OCP. The Sector agreed that an "overall bias" rule should apply to all available OCP 

data for the most recent three-year period. If only one year of data is available, the rule will apply to that year's data. 

The requirement that the most recent three-year average calibration bias exceed twice the standard deviation of past 

three-year average calibration biases was dropped for two reasons: 1) at least four years of data are required before 

this requirement can be evaluated, and 2) an overall average calibration bias limit of 0.20 would catch the worst 

offenders and would not cause unnecessary calibration changes. 

Conclusion and Recommendation: The Sector agreed to recommend the addition of an overall calibration bias 

requirement based on up to three years of available Ongoing Calibration Program data collected by the NTEP 

Laboratory to § IV. Tolerances for Calibration Performance of the Grain Moisture Meter Chapter of the 2004 

edition of Publication 14 as shown below: 

IV. Tolerances for Calibration Performance 

Calibration performance must be tested against established criteria at the following stages of the type evaluation 

process: 

1. Evaluation of the calibration data supplied by the manufacturer with the application for type 

evaluation. 

2. Evaluating instrument and calibration performance over the 6 % moisture range for corn, HRW wheat 

and soybeans (accuracy test discussed earlier). 

3. Initial calibration approval for grains other than corn, HRW wheat, and soybeans. 

4. Review of ongoing calibration data collected as part of the national calibration program. 

. 

. 

. 

.

New calibrations will be approved based upon the re-predicted moisture values. Approval tolerances will be 

one-half of the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance and will be applied in 2 % intervals over the range of 

available data. Additionally, for up to three years of available data: 

NTEP - B5 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

a. The difference between the average bias to air oven for all samples in a given year and the average bias 

to air oven for any other year shall not exceed: 0.90 for corn; 0.80 for rice, oats, sunflowers and 

sorghum; and 0.70 for wheat, soybeans, and barley. 

b. The range of year-to-year differences in bias to air oven shall not exceed the Handbook 44 tolerances 

for three or more consecutive 2 % moisture intervals. Only moisture intervals consisting of five or 

more samples per year will be considered for this comparison. 

c. The average calibration bias with respect to air oven shall not exceed 0.20 % moisture, calculated 

using the most recent calibration and all available raw data collected within the last 3 years for the 

entire moisture range. 

Failure to meet the requirements in either item a, b, or c above will cause a "No Longer Approved for Use" 

status to be assigned to the affected grain type(s) on the NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) for that 

instrument. Calibration coefficients will not be listed for any calibration failing these requirements. 

. 

. 

.

4. Proposed Change to Publication 14 – Test Weight per Bushel Range for Test Weight 

Accuracy, Precision and Reproducibility Tests 

Background/Discussion: Publication 14 stipulates that samples used for Test Weight per Bushel (TW) type 

approval tests for accuracy, precision, and reproducibility are to be selected to meet the following conditions: 

a) A total of 12 samples are required per grain type; 

b) Samples should be selected from the same 6 % moisture range used for GMM Phase I tests; 

c) No less than 8 samples should come from the lowest two-thirds of the 6 % moisture range; 

d) No less than 2 samples should come from the highest one-third of the 6 % moisture range; 

e) The range of sample TWs should be no less than the range that is grade determining; and 

f) Samples should represent a distribution of Test Weights per Bushel (TW) that minimizes the correlation 

between TW and moisture. 

The specific requirements for the test samples are spelled out for each grain type in a table in § VII. B. of the 2004 

Edition of the Grain Moisture Meters chapter of Publication 14. 

In an attempt to assemble a set of test samples, the NTEP Laboratory screened a group of samples from the 1998 – 

2003 Phase II moisture survey supplemented by additional samples collected from GIPSA field offices to eliminate 

those not within the specified 6 % moisture range. From the remaining samples, attempts were made to meet the 

distribution requirements by first selecting those with TWs close to the low end of the specified TW range in each 

2 % moisture interval. There were problems locating samples of sufficient volume (the quart kettle reference 

method for TW requires "enough grain to overflow the kettle) within the specified moisture range, test weight range, 

and correlation requirements. The following table shows the current Publication 14 TW ranges, the percentage of 

Phase II samples in those ranges, and the actual TW range of the sets the Lab was able to use for evaluation 

purposes. 

NTEP - B6 
NTEP Committee 2005 Annual Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

Type of Grain Moisture 

Range 

Publication 14 

Min Test Weight 

 per Bushel Range

% Useable 

Within Current 

TW Range 

Range used 

for Sets 

Corn 12 - 18 % 52 - 56 8 52.6 - 57.3 

Soybeans 10 - 16 % 52 - 56 11 51.5 - 56.9 

Hard Red Winter Wheat 10 - 16 % 56 - 60 17 57.2 - 61.4 

Durum Wheat 10 - 16 % 56 - 60 21 57.3 - 61.9 

Soft White Wheat 10 - 16 % 56 - 60 22 57.1 - 62.1 

Hard Red Spring Wheat 10 - 16 % 55 - 58 6 55.2 - 59.5 

Soft Red Winter Wheat 10 - 16 % 56 - 60 37 55.6 - 60.1 

Hard White Wheat 8 - 14 % 56 - 60 4 56.6 - 63.6 

Two-Row Barley 10 - 16 % 43 - 47 4 45.8 - 52.6 

Six-Row Barley 10 - 16 % 43 - 47 31 43.5 - 48.6 

Oats 10 - 16 % 30 - 36 31 31.4 - 38.2 

Sunflower Seed 6 - 12 % 24 - 27 3 26.5 - 31.3 

Long Grain Rough Rice 10 - 16 % 42 - 46 50 42.0 - 46.7 

Medium Grain Rough Rice 10 - 16 % 44 - 48 56 44.2 - 48.6 

Grain Sorghum 10 - 16 % 53 - 57 4 56.0 - 60.9 

Soybeans 1998 - 2003

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Moisture

Test Weight per Bushel

Current Ranges Phase II Samples

Corn 1998 - 2003

49

51

53

55

57

59

61

63

65

12 13 14 15 16 17 18

Moisture

Test Weight per Bushel

Current Ranges Phase II Samples

HRW 1998 - 2003

53

55

57

59

61

63

65

67

10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Moisture

Test Weight per Bushel

Current Ranges Phase II Samples

The difficulty in locating samples of sufficient size for the 

quart kettle reference test weight measurement within the 

moisture range, test weight range, and correlation 

requirement can be seen by examining graphs of TW vs. 

moisture for Phase II samples from the six most recent 

crop years (1998 – 2003) for corn, soybeans, and hard red 

winter wheat. It is even more difficult to locate qualified 

samples for some of the less widely traded grains. 

Samples represented by diamonds on the graphs are 

samples that meet the current selection criteria. 

By changing the TW Range required for the test sample sets, many more samples could be made available for 

selection. The following chart shows the grade-determining minimum TWs for grades 1, 2, and 3 (or in parenthesis 

the current Publication 14 range if different); the proposed TW range (which in most cases includes the minimum 

TWs for grades 1 and 2); and the percentage of 1998 – 2003 Phase II samples that would be available for selection 

with the proposed TW range compared to the percentage available with the current range. 

NTEP - B7 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

Minimum TW for Grade 

(pounds/bushel) 

Proposed 

Range 

Percent 

Available 

with 

Proposed 

Range 

Percent 

Available 

with 

Current 

Range 

Grain Type 

Grade 3 Grade 2 Grade 1 --- --- --- 

Corn 52 54 56 54 - 58 26 8 

Soybeans 52 54 56 55 - 59 73 11 

Hard Red Winter 

Wheat 56 58 60 59 - 63 54 17 

Durum Wheat 56 58 60 59 - 63 50 21 

Soft White Wheat 56 58 60 58 - 62 50 22 

Hard Red Spring 

Wheat 55 57 58 58 - 61 37 6 

Soft Red Winter 

Wheat 56 58 60 56 - 60 37 37 

Hard White Wheat 56 58 60 60 - 64 28 4 

Two-Row Malting 

Barley (43-47) 48 48 50 47 - 51 32 4 

Six-Row Barley 43 45 47 43 - 47 31 31 

Oats 30 33 36 33 - 39 47 31 

Sunflower Seed 

(24-27) 25 25 28 - 31 32 3 

Long Grain Rough 

Rice (42-46) 43 - 47 60 50 

Medium Grain 

Rough Rice (44-48) 44 - 48 56 56 

Grain Sorghum 53 55 57 58 - 62 56 54 

 

One Sector member expressed concern that meters won't be evaluated in the range where (for corn) discounts are 

most likely to be applied. The user presumes that the meter has been evaluated over the entire operating range, 

when, in fact, it will have been evaluated only at the upper range of operation. Dr. Hurburgh, explained that the main 

use of test weight (for corn) is in certifying warehouse volume. TW is not widely discounted for corn. Low TW for 

corn is a rare occurrence, which is why low TW corn samples are difficult to obtain. Furthermore, in contrast to 

moisture, the measurement of TW is inherently linear. There is not a problem extrapolating to lower TWs. 

The Sector agreed to the following recommendation. 

Recommendation: Change the Minimum Test Weight per Bushel Range in the Table in § VII.B. of the 

2004 Edition of the Grain Moisture Meters chapter of Publication 14 on the following page: 

NTEP - B8 
NTEP Committee 2005 Annual Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

Type of Grain Moisture 

Range 

Minimum Test Weight 

per Bushel Range Criteria for Sample Selection

Corn 12 - 18 % 54 - 58 

Soybeans 10 - 16 % 55 - 59 

Hard Red Winter Wheat 10 - 16 % 59 - 63 

Durum Wheat 10 - 16 % 59 - 63 

Soft White Wheat (except 

White Club) 

10 - 16 % 58 - 62 

Hard Red Spring Wheat (and 

White Club) 

10 - 16 % 58 - 61 

Soft Red Winter Wheat 10 - 16 % 56 - 60 

Hard White Wheat 8 - 14 % 60 - 64 

Two-Row Barley 10 - 16 % 47 - 51 

Six-Row Barley 10 - 16 % 43 - 47 

Oats 10 - 16 % 33 - 39 

Sunflower Seed (Oil Type) 6 - 12 % 28 - 31 

Long Grain Rough Rice 10 - 16 % 43 - 47 

Medium Grain Rough Rice 10 - 16 % 44 - 48 

Grain Sorghum or Milo 10 - 16 % 58 - 62 

a). No less than 8 samples 

should come from the 

lowest two-thirds of the 

6 % moisture range. 

b). No less than 2 samples 

should come from the 

highest one-third of the 

6 % moisture range. 

c). Samples should represent 

a distribution of Test 

Weights per Bushel (TW) 

that minimizes the 

correlation between TW 

and moisture. 

5. Proposed Change to Publication 14 – Repeatability Tolerances for Test Weight 

Discussion: The tolerance for the Test Weight per Bushel repeatability test of Publication 14 is marginally too tight 

for corn and for oats. The present limit is 0.4 times the absolute value of the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance of 

0.8 pounds per bushel for corn and oats. At the time the Sector recommended a multiplier of 0.4 for repeatability, 

which translates to a tolerance of 0.32 pounds per bushel, it was a "best estimate" value with little data available to 

show if this limit would be marginal with the sample test set specified in Publication 14. Subsequent testing 

indicates that 0.40 pounds per bushel is a more realistic repeatability tolerance for corn and oats. 

 

Certificates of Conformance have been issued for the 2004 crop year. One device met the present repeatability 

tolerance for corn (admittedly by a very small margin). No devices have met the present repeatability tolerance for 

oats. 

The Sector agreed by consensus to recommend the following change in repeatability tolerances for Test Weight in 

Publication 14. 

Recommendation: Change tolerances for repeatability for corn and oats in § VII. B. of the Grain Moisture Meter 

chapter of the 2004 edition of Publication 14 as follows: 

Tolerances for repeatability for all grain types except corn and oats are 0.4 times the absolute value of the 

Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance. The tolerance for repeatability for corn and oats is 0.5 times the 

absolute value of the Handbook 44 acceptance tolerance. Specific tolerances are: 

NTEP - B9 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

Grain Type Tolerance 

Corn, oats 0.40 pounds per bushel 

All wheat classes 0.20 pounds per bushel 

Soybeans, barley, rice, sunflower, sorghum 0.28 pounds per bushel 

6. Handbook 44, § 5.56(a) Paragraph S.2.6. Determination of Quantity and Temperature 

Background: In August 2002 the Sector considered whether their recommended changes to NIST Handbook 44, 

§ 5.56(a), paragraph S.2.6., relating to a means of sensing adequate sample volume, should be retroactive or 

nonretroactive. Discussion centered on the requirement that meters measuring TW must provide some means to 

ensure that measurements of TW are not allowed to be displayed or printed when insufficient sample volume has 

been supplied. (Although the code does not specify how this is to be accomplished, it is generally assumed that the 

means will include a sensor of some sort installed in either the sample hopper or the test cell.) 

Those favoring making the proposed code retroactive reminded the Sector that although moisture measurements are not 

significantly affected when samples are not of sufficient size to completely fill the measuring cell of a GMM, the TW 

measurement is greatly affected when the cell is not filled. Measurement of TW requires determination of two 

parameters: volume and mass. The vast majority of GMM’s with TW capability presently in the field do not have 

means to assure that the measuring cell is completely full. If the cell is not filled completely, TW indications will be 

lower than they should be to the disadvantage of the producer selling grain. Some sector members favoring making the 

code nonretroactive felt that GMM’s with a window, through which the test cell could be seen, provided adequate 

means to verify that the cell had been filled. A grain industry member expressed the belief that compared to how test 

weight measurements are being made now, the worry about a sensor was trivial. As long as the GMM could produce 

an accurate TW measurement when properly used, whether or not the hopper had a sensor, was not important. Some 

thought this was a facilitation of fraud issue and favored making the sensor requirement retroactive. Others thought 

that making the code retroactive would unfairly penalize users of existing NTEP meters with TW capability. By a vote 

of 9 to 4, the Sector agreed that the addition to paragraph S.2.6. relating to a means of sensing adequate sample volume 

should be nonretroactive. As adopted by the Conference, this paragraph currently reads: 

S.2.6. Determination of Quantity and Temperature. - The moisture meter system shall not require the 

operator to judge the precise volume or weight and temperature needed to make an accurate moisture 

determination. External grinding, weighing, and temperature measurement operations are not permitted. In 

addition, if the meter is capable of measuring test weight per bushel, determination of sample volume and 

weight for this measurement shall be fully automatic and means shall be provided to ensure that measurements 

of test weight per bushel are not allowed to be displayed or printed when an insufficient sample volume is 

available to provide an accurate measurement.

(Added 1994)(Amended 1995 and 2003) 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004] 

Discussion: Handbook 44, § 1.10. General Code, Paragraph G-A.6. states: 

Nonretroactive Requirements. "Nonretroactive" requirements are enforceable after the effective date for: 

(a) devices manufactured within a State after the effective date; 

(b) both new and used devices brought into a State after the effective date; and 

(c) devices used in noncommercial applications which are placed into commercial use after the effective date. 

Nonretroactive requirements are not enforceable with respect to devices that are in commercial service in 

the State as of the effective date or to new equipment in the stock of a manufacturer or a dealer in the State 

as of the effective date. 

(Nonretroactive requirements are printed in italic type)] 

(Amended 1989) 

NTEP - B10 
NTEP Committee 2005 Annual Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

Thus, as Handbook 44 is currently written, a State can test the TW feature of any GMM placed into commercial 

service in that State prior to January 1, 2004, and approve or reject it, whether or not the device has the means to 

ensure that sufficient volume is available for an accurate test. However, some States have indicated they will not 

allow the use of a TW feature unless an active Certificate of Conformance (CC) covers the TW feature of the device. 

NCWM, Inc., is accepting applications for NTEP testing for TW capability for only those GMMs incorporating a 

volume sensor. 

During development of the Handbook 44 Code relating to TW, several Sector members made a strong case for 

requiring that GMMs with TW capability be able to prevent a TW indication and printout if insufficient volume of 

grain is present for an accurate reading. 

The Sector considered the following questions: 

• How are states enforcing this requirement? 

• Are meters without a volume sensor being tested for TW? 

• If a volume sensor is important for accurate TW measurement, should this requirement be retroactive 

(perhaps with a future effective date) or should it remain nonretroactive? 

Diane Lee, NIST WMD, reported that based on the calls she had received from State W&M personnel, the states 

were not enforcing this portion of the code uniformly. One State W&M representative reported that to date they 

have not been approving meters for TW if they did not have volume sensors. For survey purposes, they had tested a 

group of meters not having volume sensors. A large portion of that group did not pass the tests for TW. It was 

suggested that these failures were most likely due to poor maintenance rather than inadequate volume of sample. 

Although a W&M representative was not present from Illinois, it was reported that Illinois was conducting TW tests 

on all meters in place before January 1, 2004, whether or not they had volume sensors. Illinois was reportedly 

testing only with wheat. There was concern that testing with a single grain might not be adequate indication the 

device would perform accurately on other grains as some devices are adjusted to grain type. This "adjustment to 

type" frequently takes the form of grain-specific TW calibration constants (slope or bias terms) that compensate for 

differences in packing density between the GMM test cell and the standard TW quart cup for each grain. This 

concern is most serious with devices that haven't received NTEP approval for TW. Devices that have been NTEP 

approved for TW will be using TW calibrations that have been evaluated for each grain type, so testing with a single 

grain at least verifies the weighing mechanism is functioning properly. 

Conclusion: The Sector agreed that its earlier decision to make the requirement for a volume sensor nonretroactive 

was correct, and it will stand. 

7. Report on OIML IR59 "Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds" 

Background: At an OIML TC17/SC1 meeting in Berlin on June 22, 2001, the U.S. delegation put forth a series of 

proposals to revise OIML IR59 "Moisture Meters for Cereal Grains and Oilseeds." These proposals were well 

received, and it was requested that the U.S. prepare a draft based on the U.S. NTEP program. A rough draft of this 

document was reviewed at the August 2002 GMM Sector meeting. A working draft, incorporating changes 

suggested by the Sector, was submitted to U.S. and International Work Groups in February 2003 for comment. 

NIST Weights and Measures Division (WMD), now responsible for U.S. participation and representation in the 

technical activities of the OIML, compiled comments to the working draft for review by representatives of the U.S. 

National Work Group (USNWG). The working draft was modified to address comments where it was judged 

appropriate. The modified working draft and a table of responses to the comments received to the working draft

were distributed to USNWG members May 28, 2003. Subsequently, the Secretariat (the Peoples Republic of China) 

distributed the revised working draft as the “First Committee Draft” (1st CD) to OIML TC17/SC1 for review and 

comment by the member states of the subcommittee. Comments to the 1st CD were addressed by OIML TC17/SC1 

at a meeting held in Beijing October 15 – 16, 2003. A revised 1st CD, dated April 2004 incorporating changes 

agreed to at the Beijing meeting has been distributed to member countries. USNWG members were asked to return 

their comments on the latest draft to Diane Lee, NIST WMD, no later than July 30, 2004. 

NTEP - B11 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

A meeting of TC17/SC1 was held September 20 - 21, 2004, in Paris to discuss the latest draft of R59. 

Discussion: Diane Lee reported that Japan had objected to the required minimum sample size of 100 g or 400 

kernels or seeds, which ever is smaller, for dielectric meters (and 20 g for near-infrared meters), because it ruled out 

meters based on the electrical resistivity of grain. These meters are used mainly for small grains, but at least one 

type can also measure moisture in soybeans. About 70 % of the grain moisture meters in Asia are of this type. 

During the Sector's discussion of this issue, it was reported that the sample size for these meters, on small grains, 

was 0.5 g. Some members questioned this size, wondering if a larger sample might be ground up and mixed before 

0.5 g was extracted and placed between electrodes for measurement. Subsequent to the meeting, at least two models 

of resistive meters were found to utilize only 18 – 22 kernels when measuring short grain brown or white rice, which 

approximates 0.4 g.. The April 2004 draft had included the following note to address Japan's concerns about sample 

size: 

(Note: if another meter technology is used which requires a smaller sample size than noted above, additional 

testing is required to ensure that proper sampling techniques can be applied to the measurement to ensure that 

the measurement is representative of the grain sample.) 

It was suggested that a class of "small sample size" instruments might be needed to address Japan's concerns with 

that class being excluded from use in the U.S. Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, pointed out that should the U.S. enter 

into a grain moisture meter mutual recognition agreement with OIML, the U.S. would have to have sound technical 

basis for excluding this class from U.S. use. 

Subsequent to the Sector meeting, comments on the April 2004 draft of R59 were received from other OIML 

member countries. Comments were for the most part positive. The most serious objections were from Japan. They 

included: 

1) In clause 6.1.5 the meaning of "representative size grain sample" is not clear because the statistical 

population is not defined in this draft. Meters could not be designed to measure the moisture content of 

representative size of grain samples because representativeness does not depend on the size of sample but 

on preparation such as mixing sample and on way of measurement. Therefore this clause should be deleted, 

or we should just note that the sample should be homogeneous. 

2) The present draft seems to require all types of grain moisture meters to measure the temperature of a loaded 

sample. As we pointed out at the meeting in Beijing, it is almost impossible for resistance type moisture 

meters to comply with the requirement due to geometrical and mechanical restriction. Therefore the present 

descriptions concerning temperature measurement of the sample, if they are not changed, would lead to 

exclude the resistance type moisture meters, whose market share is about 70 % in Asian countries. 

Japan proposed removing all requirements regarding inhibiting display of moisture value when certain grain or 

instrument temperature limits had been exceeded. 

Diane Lee has compiled the comments received from other OIML member countries and circulated a comment form 

to the U.S. work group soliciting comments in hopes of receiving feedback on the comments prior to the next 

meeting of OIML TC17/SC1 scheduled for September 20 – 21, 2004, in Paris, France. 

8. Report on NTEP Type Evaluations 

Cathy Brenner of the Grain Inspection, Processors and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA, formerly FGIS), the 

NTEP Participating Laboratory for Grain Analyzers (Grain Moisture Meters and Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers) 

reported on Type Evaluation activity. In addition to regular grain moisture meter calibration updates, two 

certificates were updated to add new features following successful evaluations: 

1. CC 01-063A4 – Foss Infratec 1241 

a) added protein and oil for corn and soybeans 

b) added protein for the following wheats: Durum, HRS, HRW, Hard White, SRW, Soft White; and for 

both 6-row and 2-row Barley 

NTEP - B12 
NTEP Committee 2005 Annual Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

2. CC 97-073A7 – Steinlite SL95 (only units with funnel sensor are approved for TW) 

a) added test weight per bushel for all grains except Oats 

Evaluations are currently underway for two additional devices: one for test weight per bushel and one for protein 

and oil combined. 

9. Should the Grain Moisture Meter Sector and the NIR Grain Analyzer Sectors Merge? 

Discussion: The Grain Moisture Meter Sector and the Near-Infrared Grain Analyzer Sector (originally the NearInfrared Protein Analyzer) first met in Kansas City in December 1991. Since their beginning, the two Sectors have 

met separately on successive days, often meeting jointly for part of that time to consider items of common interest. 

The advent of CCs listing multiple applications evaluated under either or both the Grain Moisture Meter Code and 

the Near-Infrared Analyzer Code has increased the number of issues common to both groups. Furthermore, the 

Sector chair, the technical advisors, and the vast majority of Sector members are common to both Sectors. These 

facts suggest that it would be more efficient for the two Sectors to merge into a single new Sector called the "Grain 

Analyzer Sector." In the past, when items required in-depth consideration of technical matters or development of 

detailed procedures, ad hoc subcommittees or work groups were formed to develop background information and to 

suggest action for consideration by the Sectors. It is envisioned that such sub-committees or work groups can be of 

equal or greater importance to a merged Sector dealing with more mature issues. 

Following are few of the benefits of merging into a single sector: 

• One meeting agenda instead of two; 

• One meeting summary instead of two; 

• More flexibility in dealing with items of common interest; 

• Consistency between GMM and NIR Code and Checklists. 

Recommendation: By consensus the Sector agreed to recommend that the NCWM Board of Directors merge the 

Grain Moisture Meter Sector and the Near-Infrared Grain Analyzer Sector into a new Sector to be called the Grain 

Analyzer Sector. 

10. Report on the 2004 NCWM Annual Meeting 

Background/Discussion: The 89th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures 

(NCWM) was held July 11 - 15, 2004, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

No Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) or Near-Infrared (NIR) Grain Analyzer items appeared in the Specifications and 

Tolerances (S&T) Committee Interim Report for consideration by the NCWM at the 2004 Annual Meeting. 

The National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee Interim Report contained an item relating to NTEP's 

work to establish bilateral and multilateral test data exchange agreements. Under such agreements and arrangements, 

manufacturers would be able to submit their equipment to any of the participating countries for testing to OIMLrecommended requirements. The resulting test data would be accepted by other participants, as a basis for issuing 

each country’s own type approval certificate. One such agreement or arrangement is the Mutual Acceptance 

Arrangement (MAA) on OIML Type Evaluations recently adopted by the International Committee on Legal 

Metrology (CIML) at their November 2003 meeting. For additional background refer to Committee Reports for the 

89th Annual Meeting, NCWM Publication 16. 

By way of background, Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, explained that the U.S. and Canada have a bilateral MAA 

covering weighing devices. Under this MAA, a U.S. NTEP test report on a weighing device can be sent to Canada 

where a Canadian Certificate of Approval will be issued without further testing (and vice versa). A bilateral MAA 

agreement covering retail motor-fuel dispensers has been signed recently between the U.S. and Canada, but to date 

no dispensers have been evaluated under this MAA. 

NTEP - B13 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

Mr. Patoray also reported that progress was being made to establish an OIML MAA program. An additional 

International Bureau of Legal Metrology (BIML) staff member will be hired by January 1, 2005, to undertake the 

new tasks resulting from the implementation of the MAA. Initially this MAA will cover R76 (non-automatic 

weighing devices) and R60 (load cells). A four-year time plan has been set for implementation. This will be a 

multilateral agreement with many countries signing a declaration of mutual confidence. Much work has yet to be 

done to harmonize NTEP requirements with the OIML recommendations for these devices. A major issue in 

establishing MAAs is confidence in the data. Testing laboratories will be assessed either by accreditation or peer 

assessment using criteria that comply with ISO/IEC 17025. 

With OIML International recommendations still in the draft stage for GMMs and NIR analyzers, it will be some 

time before MAAs are in place for these devices. This is, however, an issue that the Sector members may want to 

watch closely to see how MAAs might impact future type evaluation testing and certification of GMMs and NIR 

Grain Analyzers. 

11. Multiple Application Certificates 

Background: During the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting in Jacksonville, Florida, the NTEP Committee reviewed 

the Sector's recommendation to issue a single Certificate of Conformance to devices evaluated using two interrelated codes. Since that time there has been the possibility of dual certification for moisture plus protein and oil, 

and now test weight per bushel. The first dual certificates became effective July 1, 2004, (97-073A7 and 01-

063A4). The two areas of change are in the "For:" box on page 1 and on the last page with the calibration 

information. 

In the "For:" box, the certificates now identify the device as a Grain Analyzer instead of a Grain Moisture Meter or 

Near-Infrared Grain Analyzer. The device type is then followed by the Application(s) that the device is approved 

for, in alphabetical order (Moisture, Oil, Protein, Starch, Test Weight). This information matches the current NTEP 

Certificate of Conformance searchable database. 

The page for the calibration information also lists the applications in alphabetical order. For example, if a meter 

were approved for moisture, oil, protein, and test weight per bushel for corn, the calibration listing for corn would be 

listed as: 

Corn 

Designation: CORN 

Moisture: ABC123 

Moisture Range - Approved: 10 % to 30 % 

Moisture Range - Pending: 8 % to 40 % 

Oil: BCD234 

Protein: CDE345 

Native Moisture Basis: 0 % 

Test Weight per Bushel: Approved 

Discussion: The Sectors reviewed the new dual certificates. The Sector agreed that the revised certificates 

generally looked good and commended Cathy Brenner for a job well done. The following suggestions were made to 

clarify some of the information on the Calibration page: 

a. Separate the moisture calibration information from the information on calibrations for other constituents 

(Protein, Oil, Starch), perhaps using a dotted line. 

b. Make it clear that the Approved and Pending moisture ranges apply only to moisture measurements. An 

approved moisture range of 8 % to 40 % does NOT mean that accurate Protein measurements can be made 

on samples having 40 % moisture. 

c. Make it clear that the Intercept (Bias) note "Varies by instrument" applies only to calibrations for 

constituents other than moisture (e.g., Protein, Oil, Starch). It does NOT apply to the Moisture calibration. 

If a moisture bias term is used, it MUST be part of the grain moisture calibration and be the same for all 

instruments of like type. [Ref., Handbook 44, § 5.56(a), Paragraph S.2.4.3.]. 

NTEP - B14 
NTEP Committee 2005 Annual Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

In a related matter, it was pointed out that the revised application form for NTEP testing is unclear. Steve Patoray, 

NTEP Director, suggested that information could be added to the "Evaluation Description" section to indicate which 

parts of the form must be completed when a box was checked for the type of evaluation being requested. 

Questions were also raised about fees involved in Phase I evaluations and Phase II (Ongoing Calibration Program). 

These fees (for NCWM members) and their frequency are summarized in the table below: 

NTEP Laboratory 

fees Frequency 

Phase I 

NTEP Evaluation 

Non-refundable 

application fee 

$800 

Certificate 

processing fee 

$150 

At NTEP Lab hourly 

rates based on actual 

hours. 

($10,000 -$25,000 

and up depending on 

tests involved.) 

Once per 

type/pattern. 

Maintenance fee $350 Annually 

Phase II 

Ongoing Calibration 

Program. 

(applicable to grain 

moisture meters 

only) 

Certificate 

processing fee 

$150 

Per Interagency 

Agreement. 

Depends on total 

number of meter 

types in the OCP 

Annually 

12. Time and Place for Next Meeting 

The next meeting is tentatively planned for the week of August 22, 2005, in the Kansas City, MO, area. Meetings 

will be held in one of the meeting rooms at the National Weather Service Training Center if available. The meeting 

room will be reserved for Wednesday, August 24 and Thursday, August 25. Sector members are asked to hold both 

these days open pending determination of exact meeting times and meeting duration. Final meeting details will be 

announced by late April 2005. 

If you would like to submit an agenda item for the 2005 meeting, please contact Steve Patoray, NTEP technical 

director, at spatoray@mgmtsol.com, G. Diane Lee, NIST technical advisor, at diane.lee@nist.gov, or Jack Barber, 

technical advisor, at jbarber@motion.net by April 1, 2005. 

NTEP - B15 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

Appendix A – NTETC Grain Moisture Meter Sector Recommendations for Amendments 

to Publication 14 

Grain Moisture Meters 

Recommended Amendments and Changes to the 2004 Edition of Publication 14 

Section Number Amendment/Change Page Source 

Section IV. Tolerances for 

Calibration Performance 

Add item c. to establish an overall calibration bias 

requirement based on up to three years of available 

data. Change wording in paragraph preceding item a. 

and in paragraph following item c. to reflect addition 

of item c. 

GMM-5 

through 

GMM-6 

08/04 GMM 

Sector Item 3 

Section VII.B. Accuracy, 

Precision, and 

Reproducibility 

Change the Minimum Test Weight per Bushel 

Ranges in the Table in § VII.B. to facilitate selection 

of test-set samples. 

GMM-11 08/04 GMM 

Sector Item 4 

Section VII.B. Accuracy, 

Precision, and 

Reproducibility 

Change tolerances for repeatability (precision) for 

Corn and Oats to more realistic value. 

GMM-13 08/04 GMM 

Sector Item 5 

NTEP - B16 
NTEP Committee 2005 Annual Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee (NTETC) 

Near-Infrared (NIR) Grain Analyzer Sector Annual Meeting 

August 26 - 27, 2004 - Kansas City, Missouri 

Draft Summary of Decisions 

Agenda Items 

1. Report on NTEP Type Evaluations......................................................................................................................17

2. Should the Grain Moisture Meter Sector and the NIR Grain Analyzer Sectors Merge? ......................................17

3. Report on the 2004 NCWM Annual Meeting.......................................................................................................18

4. Multiple Application Certificates.........................................................................................................................18

5. Time and Place for Next Meeting.........................................................................................................................20

6. Report on OIML TC17/SC8 IR for Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain .........................................20

Note: Because of common interest, items 1 through 5, above, were considered in a joint session of the NIR Grain 

Analyzer and the Grain Moisture Meter Sectors

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

1. Report on NTEP Type Evaluations 

Cathy Brenner of the Grain Inspection, Processors and Stockyards Administration (GIPSA, formerly FGIS), the 

NTEP Participating Laboratory for Grain Analyzers (Grain Moisture Meters and Near-Infrared Grain Analyzers) 

reported on Type Evaluation activity. In addition to regular grain moisture meter calibration updates, two 

certificates were updated to add new features following successful evaluations: 

1) CC 01-063A4 – Foss Infratec 1241 

a) added protein and oil for Corn and Soybeans 

b) added protein for the following wheats: Durum, HRS, HRW, Hard White, SRW, Soft White; and for 

both 6-row and 2-row Barley 

2) CC 97-073A7 – Steinlite SL95 (only units with funnel sensor are approved for TW) 

a) added test weight per bushel for all grains except Oats 

Evaluations are currently underway for two additional devices: one for test weight per bushel and one for protein 

and oil combined. 

2. Should the Grain Moisture Meter Sector and the NIR Grain Analyzer Sectors Merge? 

Discussion: The Grain Moisture Meter Sector and the Near-Infrared Grain Analyzer Sector (originally the NearInfrared Protein Analyzer) first met in Kansas City in December 1991. Since their beginning, the two Sectors have 

met separately on successive days, often meeting jointly for part of that time to consider items of common interest. 

The advent of CCs listing multiple applications evaluated under either or both the Grain Moisture Meter Code and 

the Near-Infrared Analyzer Code has increased the number of issues common to both groups. Furthermore, the 

Sector chair, the technical advisors, and the vast majority of Sector members are common to both Sectors. These 

facts suggest that it would be more efficient for the two Sectors to merge into a single new Sector called the "Grain 

Analyzer Sector." In the past, when items required in-depth consideration of technical matters or development of 

detailed procedures, ad hoc subcommittees or work groups were formed to develop background information and to 

suggest action for consideration by the Sectors. It is envisioned that such sub-committees or work groups can be of 

equal or greater importance to a merged Sector dealing with more mature issues. 

NTEP - B17 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

A few of the benefits of merging into a single sector: 

• One meeting agenda instead of two; 

• One meeting summary instead of two; 

• More flexibility in dealing with items of common interest; 

• Consistency between GMM and NIR Code and Checklists. 

Recommendation: By consensus the Sector agreed to recommend that the NCWM Board of Directors merge the 

Grain Moisture Meter Sector and the Near Infrared Grain Analyzer Sector into a new Sector to be called the Grain 

Analyzer Sector. 

3. Report on the 2004 NCWM Annual Meeting 

Background/Discussion: The 89th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures 

(NCWM) was held July 11 - 15, 2004, in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania. 

No Grain Moisture Meter (GMM) or Near Infrared (NIR) Grain Analyzer items appeared in the Specifications and 

Tolerances (S&T) Committee Interim Report for consideration by the NCWM at the 2004 Annual Meeting. 

The National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP) Committee Interim Report contained an item relating to NTEP's 

work to establish bilateral and multilateral test data exchange agreements. Under such agreements and arrangements, 

manufacturers would be able to submit their equipment to any of the participating countries for testing to OIML 

recommended requirements. The resulting test data would be accepted by other participants, as a basis for issuing 

each country’s own type approval certificate. One such agreement or arrangement is the Mutual Acceptance 

Arrangement (MAA) on OIML Type Evaluations recently adopted by the International Committee on Legal 

Metrology (CIML) at their November 2003 meeting. For additional background refer to Committee Reports for the 

89th Annual Meeting, NCWM Publication 16. 

By way of background, Steve Patoray, NTEP Director, explained that the U.S. and Canada have a bilateral MAA 

covering weighing devices. Under this MAA, a U.S. NTEP test report on a weighing device can be sent to Canada 

where a Canadian Certificate of Approval will be issued without further testing (and vice versa). A bilateral MAA 

agreement covering retail motor-fuel dispensers has been signed recently between the U.S. and Canada, but to date 

no dispensers have been evaluated under this MAA. 

Steve also reported that progress was being made to establish an OIML MAA program. An additional International 

Bureau of Legal Metrology (BIML) staff member will be hired by January 1, 2005, undertake the new tasks 

resulting from the implementation of the MAA. Initially this MAA will cover R76 (Non-automatic weighing 

devices) and R60 (Load Cells). A four-year time plan has been set for implementation. This will be a multilateral 

agreement with many countries signing a declaration of mutual confidence. Much work has yet to be done to 

harmonize NTEP requirements with the OIML recommendations for these devices. A major issue in establishing 

MAAs is confidence in the data. Testing laboratories will be assessed either by accreditation or peer assessment 

using criteria that comply with ISO/IEC 17025. 

With OIML International recommendations still in the draft stage for GMMs and NIR analyzers, it will be some 

time before MAAs are in place for these devices. This is, however, an issue that the Sector members may want to 

watch closely to see how MAAs might impact future type evaluation testing and certification of GMMs and NIR 

Grain Analyzers. 

4. Multiple Application Certificates 

Background: During the 2003 NCWM Interim Meeting in Jacksonville, Florida, the NTEP Committee reviewed 

the Sectors' recommendation to issue a single Certificate of Conformance to devices evaluated using two interrelated codes. Since that time there has been the possibility of dual certification for moisture plus protein and oil, 

and now test weight per bushel. The first dual certificates became effective July 1, 2004 (97-073A7 and 01-063A4). 

The two areas of change are in the "For:" box on page 1 and on the last page with the calibration information. 

NTEP - B18 
NTEP Committee 2005 Annual Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

In the "For:" box, the certificates now identify the device as a Grain Analyzer instead of a Grain Moisture Meter or 

Near Infrared Grain Analyzer. The device type is then followed by the Application(s) that the device is approved 

for, in alphabetical order (Moisture, Oil, Protein, Starch, Test Weight). This information matches the current NTEP 

Certificate of Conformance searchable database. 

The page for the calibration information also lists the applications in alphabetical order. For example, if a meter 

were approved for moisture, oil, protein, and test weight per bushel for corn, the calibration listing for corn would be 

listed as: 

Corn 

Designation: CORN 

Moisture: ABC123 

Moisture Range - Approved: 10 % to 30 % 

Moisture Range - Pending: 8 % to 40 % 

Oil: BCD234 

Protein: CDE345 

Native Moisture Basis: 0 % 

Test Weight per Bushel: Approved 

Discussion: The Sectors reviewed the new dual certificates. The Sector agreed that the revised certificates 

generally looked good and commended Cathy Brenner for a job well done. The following suggestions were made to 

clarify some of the information on the Calibration page: 

a. Separate the moisture calibration information from the information on calibrations for other constituents 

(Protein, Oil, Starch), perhaps using a dotted line. 

b. Make it clear that the Approved and Pending moisture ranges apply only to moisture measurements. An 

approved moisture range of 8 % to 40 % does NOT mean that accurate Protein measurements can be made 

on samples having 40 % moisture. 

c. Make it clear that the Intercept (Bias) note "Varies by instrument" applies only to calibrations for 

constituents other than moisture (e.g., Protein, Oil, Starch). It does NOT apply to the Moisture calibration. 

If a moisture bias term is used, it MUST be part of the grain moisture calibration and be the same for all 

instruments of like type. [Ref., Handbook 44, § 5.56(a), Paragraph S.2.4.3.]. 

In a related matter, it was pointed out that the revised application form for NTEP testing is unclear. Steve Patoray, 

NTEP Director, suggested that information could be added to the "Evaluation Description" section to indicate which 

parts of the form must be completed when a box was checked for the type of evaluation being requested. 

Questions were also raised about fees involved in Phase I evaluations and Phase II (Ongoing Calibration Program). 

These fees (for NCWM members) and their frequency are summarized in the table below: 

NTEP Laboratory fees Frequency 

Phase I 

NTEP Evaluation 

Nonrefundable 

application fee 

$800 

Certificate 

processing fee 

$150 

At NTEP Lab hourly rates 

based on actual hours. 

($10,000 -$25,000 and up 

depending on tests 

involved.) 

Once per 

type/pattern. 

Maintenance fee $350 Annually 

Phase II 

Ongoing Calibration Program. 

(applicable to grain moisture 

meters only) 

Certificate 

processing fee 

$150 

Per Interagency Agreement. 

Depends on total number of 

meter types in the OCP 

Annually 

NTEP - B19 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

5. Time and Place for Next Meeting 

The next meeting is tentatively planned for the week of August 22, 2005, in the Kansas City, MO, area. Meetings 

will be held in one of the meeting rooms at the National Weather Service Training Center if available. The meeting 

room will be reserved for Wednesday, August 24 and Thursday, August 25. Sector members are asked to hold both 

these days open pending determination of exact meeting times and meeting duration. Final meeting details will be 

announced by late-April 2005. 

If you would like to submit an agenda item for the 2005 meeting, please contact Steve Patoray, NTEP technical 

director, at spatoray@mgmtsol.com, G. Diane Lee, NIST technical advisor, at diane.lee@nist.gov, or Jack Barber, 

technical advisor, at jbarber@motion.net by April 1, 2005. 

6. Report on OIML TC17/SC8 IR for Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain 

Background:

OIML TC17/SC8, charged with developing an International Recommendation (IR) for Protein Measuring 

Instruments for Cereal Grain, held its first meeting May 31 and June 1, 2004, in Sydney, Australia. Representatives 

from Australia, Japan, New Zealand, and the United States attended the meeting. Australia, as the secretariat of the 

subcommittee, developed an outline of the Recommendation on Protein Measuring Instruments for Cereal Grain 

(March 2004) that was circulated to participating nations (Australia, Brazil, Canada, Czech Republic, Germany, 

Japan, Poland, Republic of Korea, Russia and the United States) for comments. In the U.S. the document was 

circulated to the U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) for comments. The comments received from the U.S. and 

Germany were discussed at the TC17/SC8 meeting in Australia. The comments for the most part were accepted. 

Additionally, TC17/SC8 agreed to the following changes: 

a. The scope will be expanded to include wheat, barley, corn, soybeans and rice 

b. Maximum permissible errors (MPE) and Moisture Basis: Publication 14 will be used to establish the 

maximum permissible errors for wheat, barley, corn and soybeans. China will provide information for 

tolerances on rice. Moisture basis will be determined by the national measurement authority. 

c. The section for sampling will be updated to address the U.S. comments. 

d. The technology for protein measurements will not be specific. 

e. The standard will incorporate appropriate sections of OIML D9 

f. The instrument monitoring process will be left up to the national measurement authority. 

g. The document will be updated so that the April 2004 Final Draft of the International vocabulary of basic 

and general terms in metrology (VIM) definitions are included. 

h. The reference method will be determined by the national measurement authority. 

i. The Recommendation on protein measuring instruments will be drafted as close as possible with the latest 

draft of OIML R59. 

j. The document will include susceptibility to dust. 

k. Decision to test non-indirect measuring devices will be at the discretion of the national measurement 

authority. 

Discussion: A revised draft incorporating the changes agreed upon at the Sydney meeting was distributed with the 

Agenda for the Sector's August 2004 meeting. Australia, the Secretariat of TC17/SC8, used portions of the NIR 

NTEP - B20 
NTEP Committee 2005 Annual Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

Grain Analyzer Chapter of Publication 14 in this draft outline recommendation. As of the Sector meeting, Diane 

Lee, NIST WMD reported that comments had been received only from Randy Burns, Arkansas Bureau of Standards. 

Randy's comments were mostly editorial in nature. Dr. Charles Hurburgh, Iowa State University, mentioned that 

NIR 2005, the 12th International Conference on Near Infrared Spectroscopy, would be held April 10 - 15, 2005, in 

Auckland, New Zealand. He suggested that this would be an ideal time for TC17/SC8 to meet because all the 

recognized names in the field of Near Infrared Spectroscopy would be present. Dr. Hurburgh offered the following 

comments on the latest draft: 

• There should be explicit mathematical descriptions in addition to statements for many terms. 

• The MEPS in the table of tolerances are extremely tight for the United States where there is not variety 

release control and therefore much more variation in germplasm. 

• There are many places where the basis of determination (i.e., the number of samples used) is not stated. 

The background statistics are always based on some number of observations. 

• The draft defines a networked instrument as one that is linked, either electronically or manually under a 

quality system, to a certified measuring instrument and/or a whole grain certified reference material and/or 

the reference method of Annex A so that its performance may be monitored on a daily basis or according to 

a schedule set by the quality system administrator. I don’t think the United States is ready to accept that a 

company with a certified quality management system is metrologically the same as if the instruments are 

actually electronically linked. This would be a huge policy change/modification for the UnitedSstates. I 

think it is the way to move, but not sure we are ready yet. 

• The draft also states that networked instruments subject to a quality control system may be adjusted within 

the range of MPES to improve the accuracy of the instrument. This would not be consistent with U.S. 

metrological practice. 

• The draft does not cover the case where calibrations have been derived on a moisture basis equal to Mref. 

• Only one unit is required for type evaluation. One unit is not sufficient to verify that production meets type, 

nor does it allow testing for calibration transfer methods. 

Dr. Hurburgh will be sending a complete write-up of his comments with detailed comments/suggestions to Diane 

Lee. 

Because several of the members of TC17/SC8 are also members of TC17/SC1 (OIML R59 Moisture Meters For 

Cereal Grain and Oilseeds), which met in Paris in September 20 - 21, 2004, it had been proposed that the next 

meeting of TC17/SC8 to discuss the latest draft of the “Outline of a Recommendation on Protein Measuring 

Instruments for Cereal Grain” be held in Paris the day following the TC17/SC1 meeting. The TC17/SC8 meeting 

was not held following the TC17/SC1 meeting. 

NTEP - B21 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix B – NTETC - GMM and NIR Sectors 

2004 GMM/NIR Sector Meeting Attendees 

Kansas City, MO - August 26 & 27 

John W. Barber 

J B Associates 

10349 Old Indian Trail 

Glenarm, IL 62536 

(217)483-4232, FAX: 

Email: jbarber@motion.net 

David James Krejci 

Grain Elevator & Processing Society 

301 Fourth Avenue S PO Box 15026 

Minneapolis, MN 55415-0026 

(612)339-4625, FAX: (612)339-4644 

Email: david@geaps.com 

Thomas E. Runyon 

Seedburo Equipment Co 

1022 W Jackson Blvd 

Chicago, IL 60607-2990 

(312)738-3700, FAX: (312)738-3544 

Email: trunyon@seedburo.com 

Cathleen Brenner 

USDA GIPSA FGIS 

10383 North Ambassador Drive 

Kansas City, MO 64153-1394 

(816)891-0486, FAX: (816)891-8070 

Email: Cathleen.A.Brenner@usda.gov 

G. Diane Lee 

NIST 

Building 820, 100 Bureau Drive MS 2600

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

(301)975-4405, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: diane.lee@nist.gov 

Bob Sadler 

Dickey-john Corporation 

5200 Dickey-john Road 

Auburn, IL 62615 

(217)438-2615, FAX: (217)438-6012 

Email: bsadler@dickey-john.com 

Victor Gates 

Shore Sales Company 

1112 Enterprise Drive 

Rantoul, IL 61866 

(217)892-2544, FAX: (217)892-4281 

Email: vgates_shore@msn.com 

Stephen Patoray 

National Conf. on Weights & Measures 

1239 Carolina Drive 

Tryon, NC 28782 

(828)859-6178, FAX: (828)859-6180 

Email: spatoray@mgmtsol.com 

Cheryl A. Tew 

North Carolina Department of Agriculture 

Consumer Services Bldg. 

1001 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050 

(919)733-4411, FAX: 919-733-8804 

Email: cheryl.tew@ncmail.net 

Andrew Gell 

Foss North America 

11 Edvac Drive, Unit 10 

Brampton, Ontario L6S 5W5 

CANADA 

(905)793-6440, FAX: (905)793-6719 

Email: agell@fossnorthamerica.com 

Richard Pierce 

USDA GIPSA Tech Services Division 

Inspection Systems Engineering Branch 

10383 North Ambassador Drive 

Kansas City, MO 64153-1394 

(816)891-0430, FAX: (816)891-8070 

Email: Richard.O.Pierce@usda.gov 

Charles R. Hurburgh, Jr. 

Iowa State University 

1541 Food Science 

Ames, IA 50011-1061 

(515)294-8629, FAX: (515)294-6383 

Email: tatry@iastate.edu 

Cassie Eigenmann Pierson 

DICKEY-john Corporation 5200 

Dickey-john Road Auburn, IL 62615 

(217)438-2294, FAX: (217)438-2635 

Email: ceigenmann@dickey-john.com 

John Kennedy 

Perten Instruments 

6444 South 6th Street Road 

Springfield, IL 62707 

(217)585-9440, FAX: (217)585-9441 

Email: jkennedy@perten.com 

James Rampton 

USDA GIPSA FCIS 

10383 N. Ambassador Drive 

Kansas City, MO 64153-1394 

(816)891-0450, FAX: (816)891-8070 

Email: James.H.Rampton@usda.gov 

NTEP - B22 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

Appendix C 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Measuring Sector Annual Meeting 

October 21 - 22, 2004, Gulfport, Mississippi 

Summary of Decisions 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee ......................................................................................................1

1. Recommendations to Update to NCWM Publication 14 to Reflect Changes to NIST Handbook 44 ....................1

Carry-over Items:........................................................................................................................................................3

2. On-Screen Display of G.S.1. Requirements for Software-Based Built- for-Purpose Devices ...............................3

3. Testing Required for an Electronic Indicator with a CC Interfaced with a Measuring Element with a CC 

Not Previously Evaluated Together........................................................................................................................7

4. Tolerance for Product Depletion Test.....................................................................................................................9

5. Product Family Tables for MAG Meters..............................................................................................................11

6. Acceptable Symbols or Wording to Identify Unit Price, Total Price, and Quantity on a Retail Motor-Fuel 

Dispenser..............................................................................................................................................................12

New Items:..................................................................................................................................................................12

7. Section E Meter Sizes to be Included on a Certificate of Conformance...............................................................12

8. Products to be covered on a Certificate of Conformance for a Meter Tested with Gasoline and/or Diesel 

Fuel.......................................................................................................................................................................13

9. NTEP Tolerances for Meters with Different Flow Rates when Using Different Size Provers.............................15

10. Testing Required to Upgrade a RMFD from Audit Trail Category 2 to Category 3 ............................................17

11. Specific Gravity Range to be Covered on a Certificate of Conformance Based on Products Tested...................20

12. Computer Jump on RMFD ...................................................................................................................................20

13. Section D Product Family for Mass Flow Meters – Specific Gravity Range 0.1 Above and 0.1 Below 

Products Tested ....................................................................................................................................................21

14. Section D Product Family for Mass Flow Meters – Multi-product Applications.................................................22

15. Next Meeting........................................................................................................................................................24

Additional Items ........................................................................................................................................................24

16. ECRs Approved for Dispensers from Multiple Manufacturers............................................................................24

17. Zero Set-back Interlocks on Vehicle-tank Meters................................................................................................24

18. Wireless Communication Systems.......................................................................................................................25

19. Display of Unit Price on Vehicle-Tank Meters....................................................................................................25

20. Evaluations Using Simulated Input Devices ........................................................................................................25

21. Modifications to Pre-NTEP Certificates:..............................................................................................................26

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

1. Recommendations to Update to NCWM Publication 14 to Reflect Changes to NIST 

Handbook 44 

Source: NIST/WMD 

Background: The 89th National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) adopted the following items that 

will be reflected in the 2005 Edition of NIST Handbook 44 and NCWM Publication 14. These items are part of the 

agenda to inform the Measuring Sector of the NCWM actions and recommend changes to NCWM Publication 14. 

Recommendation: The Sector will review and, if acceptable, recommend to the NTEP Committee adoption of the 

following changes to Publication 14 based on changes to NIST Handbook 44:

NTEP - C1 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

A. S.2.2.1. Multiple Measuring Devices with a Single Provision for Sealing 

Background: During its 2004 Annual Meeting, the NCWM agreed to add a new paragraph to NIST Handbook 

44, Section 3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices S.2.2.1. Multiple Measuring Elements with a Single Provision for 

Sealing as follows: 

S.2.2.1. Multiple Measuring Elements with a Single Provision for Sealing. - A change to the adjustment 

of any measuring element shall be individually identified.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2005]

Note: Examples of acceptable identification of a change to the adjustment of a measuring element 

include but are not limited to:

(a) a broken, missing, or replaced physical seal on an individual measuring element,

(b) a change in a calibration factor for each measuring element,

(c) display of the date of or the number of days since the last calibration event for each measuring 

element or,

(d) a counter indicating the number of calibration events per measuring element. 

Recommendation: Add a new Code Reference S.2.2.1. to Section 9, of the Liquid-Measuring Devices 

Checklist and Test Procedures of NCWM Pulication14, Measuring Devices, 2004 edition as follows: 

Code Reference: S.2.2.1. Multiple Measuring Devices with a Single Provision for Sealing 

9.6 S.2.2.1. Multiple Measuring Elements with a Single Provision for Sealing. - A change to 

the adjustment of any measuring element shall be individually identified.

Note: Examples of acceptable identification of a change to the adjustment of a 

measuring element include but are not limited to:

(a) a broken, missing, or replaced physical seal on an individual measuring element,

(b) a change in a calibration factor for each measuring element,

(c) display of the date of or the number of days since the last calibration event for each 

measuring element or,

(d) a counter indicating the number of calibration events per measuring element.

Renumber succeeding Section 9 paragraphs accordingly. 

B. S.4.4.2. Location of Marking Information 

Background: During its 2004 Annual Meeting, the NCWM agreed to amend Handbook 44 Section 

3.30. Liquid-Measuring Devices paragraph S.4.4.2. Location of Marking Information as follows: 

S.4.4.2. Location of Marking Information; Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers. - The required marking 

information in the General Code, Paragraph G-S.1. shall appear as follows: 

(a) Placement of this information shall not be on a portion of the device that can be readily removed 

or interchanged without the use of a tool separate from the device.

shall be within 24 to 60 inches from the base of the dispenser;

(b) The information shall appear 24 to 60 inches from the base of the dispenser when placed on the 

outside of the device.

 may be internal and/or external provided the information is permanent and easily read;

NTEP - C2 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

(c) When placed behind an access door or panel the information shall appear 24 inches to 60 

inches from the base of the dispenser in a readily legible position. The use of a dispenser key 

shall not be considered a tool separate from the device. 

shall be on a portion of the device that cannot be readily removed or interchanged (i.e., not on a 

service access panel). 

Note: the use of a dispenser key or tool to access internal marking information is permitted.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003] 

(Added 2002) (Amended 2004)

Recommendation: Modify Section 11, paragraph 11.3. of the Liquid-Measuring Devices Checklist and Test 

Procedures of NCWM Pulication14, Measuring Devices, 2004 edition as follows: 

Code Reference: S.4.4.2. Location of Marking Information 

11.3. The required marking information in the General Code, paragraph G-S.1. shall be 

located as follows: 

(a) Placement of this information shall not be on a portion of the device that can 

readily removed or interchanged without the use of a tool separate from the 

device. shall be within 24 to 60 inches from the base of the dispenser; 

(b) When placed on the outside to the device the information shall appear 24 to 60 

inches from the base of the dispenser. may be internal and/or external provided 

the information is permanent and easily read;

(c) When placed behind an access door or panel the information shall appear 24 

inches to 60 inches from the base of the dispenser in a readily legible position. 

The use of a dispenser key shall not be considered a tool separate from the 

device. shall be on a portion of the device that cannot be readily removed or 

interchanged (i.e., not on a service access panel). 

Note: the use of a dispenser key or tool to access internal marking information is 

permitted.

Decision: The Sector reviewed, accepted, and recommends the NTEP Committee adopt the proposed changes 

to NCWM Publication 14. 

Carry-over Items: 

2. On-Screen Display of G.S.1. Requirements for Software-Based Built-for-Purpose 

Devices 

Source: Returned from NCWM S&T Committee 

Background: At its 2003 Annual Meeting, the NCWM adopted a proposal that provides alternate methods, other 

than physical marking, for meeting some of the requirements of Handbook 44 G-S.1. for “not-built-for-purpose” 

devices. At that meeting the NCWM S&T Committee also reviewed an SMA proposal that provided similar 

alternate marking methods for “built-for-purpose” devices. The S&T Committee concluded that the proposal for 

“built-for-purpose” devices required further review and development by the NTETC Technical Sectors and the 

regional weights and measures associations. 

Prior to the October 2003 NTETC Measuring Sector Meeting, the WMD NTETC technical advisors developed an 

alternate proposal to modify G.S.1. and add a Table G.S.1. that provided alternate methods other than physical 

markings for meeting some of the requirements of G-S.1. for both “not-built-for-purpose” and “built-for-purpose” 

devices. 

NTEP - C3 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

At its 2003 meeting, the Measuring Sector agreed with the WMD proposal in principle, but recommended some 

small changes to simplify the table. The Sector agreed to forward the modified proposal for G-S.1. in tabular format 

to the NCWM S&T Committee for consideration. 

At the 2004 NCWM Annual Meeting during the open hearing, the SMA stated that S&T Item 310-1, the proposal to 

modify G-S.1., should not go forward for a vote because a ballot of the Weighing Sector on the proposal failed to 

provide clear support for the item. A manufacturer stated that the term "microprocessor" is not appropriate because 

their devices contain numerous microprocessors. Another manufacturer stated that the requirement for marking the 

current software version number would place an unrealistic burden on their company. The Committee agreed that 

sufficient opposition and questions were raised during the open hearing to demonstrate the item is not sufficiently 

developed to be a voting item at that meeting. The Committee agreed to make Item 310-1 an information item to be 

returned to the Weighing and Measuring Sectors for further development. 

Recommendation: G-S.1. Identification. - WMD has revised language in the 2004 S&T Agenda Item 310-1. 

Additions and changes to the proposal to the 2004 S&T Agenda Item 310-1 are highlighted in gray text. 

Add new General Code Terms and Definitions as follows: 

measuring device (general) – a device (instrument) intended to be used to make measurements, alone or in 

conjunction with supplementary devices. (VIM) 

measuring system (general) - an instrument or group of instruments that serve to make measurements, alone or 

in conjunction with supplementary devices. (VIM) 

electronic devices – a device operating by the principles of electronics, which may consist of one or more 

subassemblies and perform a specific function(s). (ASTM) 

 or 

electronic measuring device – a measuring instrument intended to measure a quantity using electronic means 

and/or equipped with electronic devices. (D11) 

not-built-for-purpose device. Any electronic peripheral or auxiliary device or element which was not 

originally manufactured with the intent that it be used as, or part of, a weighing or measuring device or system. 

metrological revision – a revision to a measuring instrument, device, or system that affects its metrological 

integrity (e.g., physical modifications or modifications to embedded, programmable, or downloadable 

software). 

Amend the definition of built-for-purpose device as follows: 

built-for-purpose device – any main, peripheral, or auxiliary device or element which was manufactured with 

the intent that it be used as, or part of, a weighing or measuring device or system. 

Amend General Code paragraph G-A.1. Commercial and Law Enforcement Equipment as follows: 

G-A.1. Commercial and Law Enforcement Equipment. - These specifications, tolerances, and other 

technical requirements apply as follows: 

(a) To commercial weighing and measuring devices or systems equipment; that is, to weights and 

measures weighing and measuring devices or systems commercially used or employed in establishing 

the size, quantity, extent, area, or measurement of quantities, things, produce, or articles for 

distribution or consumption, purchased, offered, or submitted for sale, hire, or award, or in computing 

any basic charge or payment for services rendered on the basis of quantity determination weight or 

measure. 

NTEP - C4 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

(b) To any accessory attached to or used in connection with a commercial weighing or measuring device 

when such accessory is so designed that its operation affects the accuracy of the device. 

(c) To weighing and measuring devices or systems equipment in official use for the enforcement of law or 

for the collection of statistical information by government agencies. 

(These requirements should be used as a guide by the weights and measures official when, upon request, 

courtesy examinations of noncommercial equipment are made.) 

Amend General Code paragraph G-S.1. Identification as follows: 

G-S.1. Identification. - All equipment, except weights and separate parts necessary to the measurement 

process, but not having any metrological effect, shall be clearly marked in accordance with Table G-S.1. for 

the purposes of identification, with the following information: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor; 

(b) a model designation that positively identifies the pattern, or design, or metrological revision of the 

device; 

(c) the model designation shall be prefaced by the term "Model," "Type," or "Pattern." These terms may 

be followed by the term "Number" or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word 

"Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., No or No.). The abbreviation for the 

word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.”

[Nonretroactive January 1, 2003] 

(Added 2000) (Amended 2001) 

[Note: Prefix lettering may be initial capitals, all capitals or all lower case.] 

(d) except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts and not-built-for-purpose, 

software-based electronic devices, a nonrepetitive serial number; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968] 

(e) for not-built-for purpose, software-microprocessor-based devices the current software version 

designation or revision number;

(Added 2003)

(ef) the serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol, that clearly identifies the 

number as the required serial number; and 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986] 

(fg) the serial number shall be prefaced by the words "Serial Number" or an abbreviation of that term. 

Abbreviations for the word "Serial" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "S," and abbreviations 

for the word "Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser. No, and 

S No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001] 

(gh)Ffor devices that have an NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC), the CC Number or a corresponding 

CC addendum number shall be prefaced by the terms "NTEP CC," "CC," or "Approval." These terms 

may be followed by the term "Number" or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word 

"Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., No or No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003] 

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity of the 

disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device. 

(Amended 1985, 1991, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2003) 

NTEP - C5 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

Delete General Code paragraph G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-for-Purpose, SoftwareBased Devices and renumber G-S.1.2. Remanufactured Devices and Remanufactured Main Elements as follows: 

G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-for-Purpose, Software-Based Devices. - For not-builtfor-purpose, software-based devices, the following shall apply: 

(a) the manufacturer or distributor and the model designation shall be continuously displayed or 

marked on the device (see note below), or

(b) the Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number shall be continuously displayed or marked on the 

device (see note below), or 

(c) all required information in G-S.1. Identification. (a), (b), (c), (e), and (h) shall be continuously 

displayed. Alternatively, a clearly identified “view only” System Identification, G-S.1. Identification, 

or Weights and Measures Identification shall be accessible through the “Help” menu. Required 

information includes that information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the 

same type that was evaluated.

Note: Clear instructions for accessing the remaining required G-S.1. information shall be listed on the 

CC. Required information includes that information necessary to identify that the software in the device 

is the same type that was evaluated.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004]

(Added 2003)

G-S.1.12. Remanufactured Devices and Remanufactured Main Elements. - All remanufactured devices and 

remanufactured main elements shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purposes of identification with 

the following information: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the last remanufacturer or distributor; 

(b) the remanufacturer's or distributor's model designation if different than the original model 

designation. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2002] 

(Added 2001) 

Note: Definitions for “manufactured device,” “repaired device,” and “repaired element” are also included 

(along with definitions for “remanufactured device” and “remanufactured element”) in Appendix D, 

Definitions. 

Add new Table G-S.1. Identification as follows: 

Table G-S.1. Identification

Built-for-Purpose

Instruments, Elements, or Systems

Not-Built-for-Purpose

Devices or Elements

Name, initials, or trademark of the 

manufacturer or distributor M D2

Model designation M1 D2

Specific model designation M1 or D

Serial number M Not required

Metrological revision designation3 M or D D

Certificate of Conformance (CC) number M or D D2

NTEP - C6 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

Table G-S.1. Identification

Built-for-Purpose

Instruments, Elements, or Systems

Not-Built-for-Purpose

Devices or Elements

M: Physically and permanently marked

D: Either: (1) displayed by accessing a clearly identified "view only" System Identification, G-S.1. 

Identification, or Weights and Measures Identification accessible through the “Help” menu. Required 

information includes that information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the same 

type that was evaluated, or (2) continuously displayed. Note: For revision or software version number, 

clear instructions for accessing this information shall be listed on the CC in lieu of the “Help” menu. 

Required information includes that information necessary to identify that the software in the device is 

the same or subsequent type that was evaluated.

(Nonretroactive as of January 2004)

Note 

1:

As a minimum, the model designation (positively identifying the pattern, design, type, series, generic, or 

trademark designation) must be marked on the device. If the model designation changes with differing

parameters such as size, features, options, intended application, not Handbook 44 compliant, 

construction, etc., the specific model designation shall be physically marked or continuously displayed or 

be capable of being displayed. 

(Nonretroactive as of January 200X)

Note 

2:

As a minimum, either the manufacturer or distributor and the model designation, or the CC Number 

shall be continuously displayed. Clear instructions for accessing the remaining required G-S.1. 

information shall be listed on the CC, which may be available as an unaltered copy of the CC printed by

the device or through another on-site device.

(Nonretroactive as of January 200X)

Note Metrological revision designation may include hardware or software revision (version).

3:

Decision: The Sector discussed the amended WMD proposal and the recommendations of the 2004 Weighing 

Sector and agreed to forward a recommendation the NCWM S&T Committee that Item 310-1 be withdrawn from 

the 2005 S&T Agenda. 

3. Testing Required for an Electronic Indicator with a CC Interfaced with a Measuring 

Element with a CC Not Previously Evaluated Together 

Source: Returned from NCWM S&T Committee 

Background: Prior to the October 2003 Measuring Sector Meeting, a work group submitted a proposal to add a 

new paragraph N.X. to Handbook 44 Sections 3.30., 3.31., 3.32., and 3.37. and an alternate proposal to add a new 

Section T. to Publication 14, for consideration. The work group proposed a new section 44 to be added to the 

Liquid-Measuring Devices Checklist and Test Procedures of Publication 14, 2003 Edition. 

At its 2003 meeting, the Measuring Sector agreed to forward the following Proposal 1 for addition to Publication 14 

to the NCWM NTEP Committee for consideration, and the following Proposal 2 to the NCWM S&T Committee for 

consideration. The Sector strongly believed that, for the benefit of weights and measures officials, the proposed test 

notes for determining the compatibility of the various components of a weighing of measuring system need to be 

added to the General Code Section of Handbook 44. 

Proposal 1. Add a new section “T” to Publication 14 to guide NTEP Inspectors as to when additional testing is 

necessary to determine compatibility between components as follows: 

Testing Required to Interface Components with Individual CC’s that were Not Previously Tested 

Together. 

NTEP - C7 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

Additional testing by an NTEP Participating Laboratory is not required if an electronic indicator is 

interfaced to a measuring element provided all of the following are true: 

a) the communication means for the input to the electronic indicator (pulse, frequency, serial, etc.) 

has been previously tested with a measuring element listed on a CC; 

b) the communication means for the output of the measuring element (pulse, frequency, serial, etc.) 

has been previously tested with an electronic indicator listed on a CC; 

c) the communication means to be used for the electronic indicator input is the same as the 

communication means to be used for the measuring element output (pulse-pulse, frequencyfrequency, serial-serial, etc.) and both devices are being used within the current parameters 

listed on their respective CCs; 

d) the devices are communicating with each other and the system in which they are installed can be 

accurately calibrated; and 

e) if required, Handbook 44 compliant tickets can be printed. 

Note: NTEP may require initial or complete evaluation of new technologies or applications. 

Add additional checklist section 44 (Page LMD XX) to Publication 14 as follows: 

44. Additional Checklist and Test Procedures for Interfacing Components 

When examining the interface between electronic indicator and a measuring element, the following must 

be considered: 

44.1 Does the electronic indicator have a CC? Yes No 

44.2 Is the electronic indicator being used within the application limits of the 

CC? 

Yes No 

44.3 Does the measuring element have a CC? Yes No 

44.4 Is the measuring element being used within the application limits of the 

CC? 

Yes No 

44.5 Can the system in which both devices are installed be accurately 

calibrated? 

Yes No 

44.6 Can a ticket (if required) be properly printed? Yes No 

44.7 Are interfaces, other than mechanical or pulse interfaces (e.g., 4-20 mA 

or frequency interfaces), being used as defined by the appropriate CC? 

Yes No 

Proposal 2. Add a new paragraph G-N.3. Compatibility of Indicators and Weighing or Measuring Elements to 

Handbook 44 to clarify what requirements must be met to interface an indicating element and a weighing or 

measuring element when each element has its own CC listing compatible communication specifications, but such 

elements have not been previously evaluated together on a single NTEP CC. 

G-N.3. Compatibility of Indicators and Weighing or Measuring Elements. – To be considered 

compatible, the following conditions shall be met: 

(a) the communication means used for the input to the electronic indicator (analog, digital, pulse, 

frequency, serial, etc.) has been previously evaluated with a weighing or measuring element; 

(b) the communication means used for the output of the weighing or measuring element (analog, 

digital, pulse, frequency, serial, etc.) has been previously evaluated with an electronic indicator; 

(c) the communication means used for the electronic indicator input is the same as the 

communication means used for the weighing and measuring element output (analog-analog, 

digital-digital, pulse-pulse, frequency-frequency, serial-serial, etc.); 

NTEP - C8 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

(d) the elements are communicating with each other and the device or system into which they are 

installed can be accurately calibrated; and 

(e) if required, Handbook 44 compliant tickets can be printed. 

At the 2004 NCWM Interim Meeting, the NTEP Committee approved the addition of the information contained in 

Proposal 1 above to the 2004 Edition of Publication 14. The S&T Committee heard several comments indicating 

that the proposal to add a new paragraph G-N.3. Compatibility of Indicators and Weighing or Measuring Elements 

to Handbook 44 is not sufficiently developed to move forward. One manufacturer stated that his company 

manufactures measuring and indicating elements or components that can be interfaced to provide a complete 

measuring system. He believes this item needs to be in Handbook 44 for the use of the field official and that the 

proposal as written provides at least some guidance on compatibility of components. The Committee agreed that the 

item is not sufficiently developed to move forward. The Committee decided to withdraw the proposal from the S&T 

Committee agenda until it is further developed and resubmitted by the NTETC Weighing and Measuring Sectors. 

Recommendation: The Sector needs to determine if it wants to continue to develop language to be added to 

Handbook 44 or if the information added to Publication 14 is sufficient to address the original concerns of 

manufacturers regarding when additional testing is necessary to determine compatibility between components. 

Decision: The members generally agreed that the language added to Publication 14 last year was sufficient to 

address the original concerns of manufacturers regarding when additional testing is necessary to determine 

compatibility between components. The Sector did not propose any new language for Handbook 44 be submitted to 

the NCWM S&T Committee for consideration. The Sector agreed that the item should be dropped from the 

Measuring Sector’s Agenda. 

4. Tolerance for Product Depletion Test 

Source/Background: At its October 2003 meeting, the Sector agreed to forward the following proposal to the 

NCWM S&T Committee for consideration. 

N.4.2. Special Tests (Except Milk-Measuring Systems), N.4.5. Product Depletion Test, and T.5. Product 

Depletion Test 

N.4.2. Special Tests (Except Milk-Measuring Systems). - “Special” tests shall be made to develop the 

operating characteristics of a measuring system and any special elements and accessories attached to or 

associated with the device. Any test except as set forth in N.4.4.1. or N.4.5. shall be considered a special test. 

Special tests of a measuring system shall be made as follows:

(a) Aat a minimum discharge rate of 20 % of the marked maximum discharge rate or at the 

minimum discharge rate marked on the device, whichever is less. 

(b) To develop operating characteristics of the measuring system during a split 

compartment delivery.

N.4.5. Product Depletion Test. - The effectiveness of the vapor eliminator shall be tested by depleting the 

product supply and continuing until the lack of fluid causes the meter indication to stop completely for at 

least 10 seconds. If the meter indication fails to stop completely for at least 10 seconds, continue to operate 

the system for 3 minutes. The test shall be completed by switching to another compartment with sufficient 

product on a multi-compartment vehicle, or by adding sufficient product to a single-compartment vehicle. 

When adding product to a single-compartment vehicle, allow appropriate time for any entrapped vapor to 

disperse before continuing the test. 

(Added 200X)

NTEP - C9 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

T.5. Product Depletion Test. - The difference in the delivered volumes for the normal test and the 

product depletion test shall not exceed the tolerance shown in Table T.5., and all test results shall be 

within applicable tolerances. 

Table T.5. Tolerances For Vehicle Tank Meters On Product Depletion Tests, Except Milk Meters

Manufacturer’s rated capacity (Maximum gpm) Maintenance and acceptance tolerances

Up to 125 125 in3

126 to 250 200 in3

251 to 500 300 in3

501 to 750 400 in3

Over 751 600 in3

At the 2004 NCWM Interim Meeting, the Meter Manufacturers Association (MMA) voiced support for the intent of 

the alternative proposal submitted by the NTETC Measuring Sector provided T.4. is modified by removing the 

words “and all test results shall be within applicable tolerances.” A Maryland Weights and Measures official noted 

that the proposal if modified as the MMA recommends provides a substantial change in tolerance; however, 

Maryland is in favor of the concept because the tolerance for a given meter is not linked to the size of the prover 

used for testing. A New York official stated that a product depletion test should be viewed as the test of a 

“disturbance,” similar to a test for radio frequency interference (RFI) on a scale. New York preferred a tolerance 

expressed as a flat percentage and suggested a tolerance of 0.5 % of the meter’s marked maximum flow rate over the 

step tolerances in the proposed Table T.5. A representative from Measurement Canada indicated there is an 

opportunity for the United States and Canada to harmonize the requirement for a product depletion test. Canada is 

currently using a tolerance of 0.25 % of the meter’s marked maximum flow rate applied to the product depletion test 

results; however, Measurement Canada is still conducting a study to determine if the 0.25 % tolerance is 

appropriate. The Committee agreed that Item 331-2 should remain an information item and be returned to the 

NTETC Measuring Sector for review and further development at its fall 2004 meeting. 

Recommendation: Will Wothlie (Maryland NTEP Laboratory) and Dick Suiter (NIST) have developed a new 

proposal for consideration by the Sector. The amended proposal will harmonize Handbook 44 tolerances for 

product depletion tests with the Measurement Canada tolerances. The Sector was asked to review the following 

proposal and if the members agreed forward it to the NCWM S&T Committee for consideration. 

N.4.2. Special Tests (Except Milk-Measuring Systems). - “Special” tests shall be made to develop the 

operating characteristics of a measuring system and any special elements and accessories attached to or 

associated with the device. Any test except as set forth in N4.4.1. or N.4.5. shall be considered a special test. 

Special tests of a measuring system shall be made as follows: 

(a) Aat a minimum discharge rate of 20 % of the marked maximum discharge rate or at the minimum 

discharge rate marked on the device whichever is less; 

(b) To develop operating characteristics of the measuring system during a split compartment 

delivery.

N.4.5. Product Depletion Test. - The effectiveness of the vapor eliminator shall be tested by depleting the product 

supply and continuing until the lack of fluid causes the meter indication to stop completely for at least 10 seconds. 

If the meter indication fails to stop completely for at least 10 seconds, continue to operate the system for 3 minutes. 

The test shall be completed by switching to another compartment with sufficient product on a multi-compartment 

vehicle, or by adding sufficient product to a single compartment vehicle. When adding product to a single 

compartment vehicle, allow appropriate time for any entrapped vapor to disperse before continuing the test. 

(Added 200X)

T.5. Product Depletion Test. - The difference in the delivered volumes for the normal test and the 

product depletion test shall not exceed the tolerance shown in Table T.5. 

NTEP - C10 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

Table T.5. Tolerances For Vehicle Tank Meters

On Product Depletion Tests, Except Milk Meters

Meter size Maintenance and acceptance tolerances

2.25 liters ( 137 in3 )

1 Up to but not including 75 mm ( 3.0 inches )

3.75 liters ( 229 in3 )2 75 mm ( 3.0 inches ) or larger

1 Based on a test volume of approximately 900 liters ( 238 gal )

2

Based on a test volume of approximately 1500 liters ( 396 gal )

Example: “+ 25 cu in” error normal test, + or – 137 cu in, for product depletion total error; + 162 cu in or 

– 112 cu in. 

Note: The result of the product depletion test may fall outside of the applicable test tolerance. 

Decision: The Sector agreed to forward the proposal to the NCWM and Southern Weights and Measures 

Association S&T Committees for consideration, with the addition of an example and a note stating that the result of 

the product depletion test may fall outside of applicable tolerance as shown above. 

5. Product Family Tables for MAG Meters 

Source: Liquid Controls LLC 

Background/ Discussion: At the 2002 Sector Meeting, a working group was formed to address the issue of product 

family criteria. The Sector will consider the recommendations of the work group. 

Prior to the 2003 Sector Meeting the technical advisor was informed that this work group was not ready to present a 

recommendation; however, the work group requested that the item remain on the agenda for further development. 

At the 2003 Sector Meeting, the Sector agreed that an expanded work group should be formed to develop family 

product tables for Mag Meters, Ultrasonic Meters, and Turbine Meters for consideration by the Sector at its next 

meeting. The members of the new work group are: Charlene Numrych (Liquid Controls), Chair; Richard Miller 

(FMC); Joe Buxton (Daniel Measurement & Control); and Randy Byrtus (Measurement Canada). Charlene 

volunteered to contact other manufacturers to invite them to participate in the work group. 

The work group formed at the 2003 Sector Meeting identified four turbine meter manufacturers that could provide 

data on a variety of products measured using this type of meter. Only one mag meter manufacturer of three 

manufacturers identified has a certificate for products other than milk. No information has been gathered regarding 

manufacturers of ultrasonic meters. The work group does not have a proposal to present at this time, but plans to 

continue its work. A new Chair is needed for the work group because Charlene Numrych (Liquid Controls) is no 

longer available to perform that function. 

Decision: The Sector agreed that a work group to develop a family products table limited to only turbine meters 

should be formed. The members of the new work group are: Joe Buxton (Daniel Measurement & Control), Chair; 

Ray Kalivoda (FMC); Joseph Beyer (Liquid Controls); Gary Castro (California NTEP); and Christian Lachance 

(Measurement Canada). 

The Sector also agreed to form a separate work group to develop a family products table for mag meters. The 

members of the Mag Meter work group are: Joseph Beyer (Liquid Controls), Chair; Wade Matar 

(Invensys/Foxboro); Christian Lachance (Measurement Canada); and Michael Keilty (Endress+Hauser). 

NTEP - C11 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

6. Acceptable Symbols or Wording to Identify Unit Price, Total Price, and Quantity on a 

Retail Motor-Fuel Dispenser 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory 

Background: At the June 2002 NTEP Laboratory Meeting, one of the participating laboratories requested guidance 

on acceptable symbols or wording to identify the unit price, total sale, and quantity delivered on a retail motor-fuel 

dispenser. The laboratories recommended the question be added to the 2002 Measuring Sector Agenda. 

At the 2002 Sector Meeting, a work group was formed to address this issue. The Sector will consider the 

recommendations of that work group. 

No input has been received from the work group assigned to develop this issue following the 2002 Sector Meeting. 

If the Sector agrees, this item will be dropped from the agenda until a proposal is submitted for consideration. 

Decision: The Sector agreed the work group should be disbanded and the NTEP Laboratories should develop a list 

of acceptable symbols at the next laboratory meeting. The Sector will review and consider the list of symbols at its 

2005 meeting. 

New Items: 

7. Section E Meter Sizes to be Included on a Certificate of Conformance 

Source: NTEP Director and NIST/WMD

Background: Section E states that “based upon the test of a meter (or meters) of only one size, meters one size 

larger and one size smaller than the meter that is tested and meeting the following criteria may be covered by the 

Certificate.” In several cases Certificates of Conformance have been issued for a family of meter sizes where one 

meter size larger and/or one meter size smaller has been included above and/or below the largest and smallest meters 

that were actually tested. In some cases a manufacturer has asked to add an additional meter size to an existing CC 

where the “one size smaller or larger” has already been included and an additional larger or smaller meter, not on the 

existing CC, was submitted for evaluation. 

Recommendation: The Sector is asked to determine if the current practice of adding additional sizes is acceptable 

and if Section E should be amended to provide criteria for adding additional sizes to a family of meter sizes based on 

meters tested. 

Decision: The Sector agreed to forward the following amended Section E to the NTEP Committee for 

consideration. 

E. Meter Sizes to be Included on a Certificate of Conformance 

To cover a family of meters on a Certificate of Conformance, if there are more than three meter sizes in a 

family, the largest and smallest meters in the family shall be submitted for evaluation. It is suggested that 

these meters represent the meter with the lowest minimum rated flow and the meter with the highest rated 

flow rate. Depending upon the range between the largest and smallest meters, additional meters may be 

required to be submitted for testing.

Based upon the test of a meter (or meters) of only one size, meters one size larger and one size smaller than 

the meter(s) that is tested and meeting the following criteria may be covered by the Certificate: 

1. meter sizes with rated maximum flow rates of 50 % to 200 % of the rated maximum flow rate of the 

meter tested; and 

2. meter sizes with rated minimum flow rates of 50 % to 200 % of the rated minimum flow rate of the 

meter tested. 

NTEP - C12 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

The maximum flow rate achieved in an installation is considered to be 80 % of the maximum flow rate to 

be listed on the Certificate of Conformance. 

8. Products to be covered on a Certificate of Conformance for a Meter Tested with 

Gasoline and/or Diesel Fuel 

Source: NTEP Laboratories 

Background: Several Certificates of Conformance have been issued with a statement in the application section that 

states that the Retail Motor-fuel Device (RFMD) is approved for dispensing all motor fuels based on the testing of 

gasoline and diesel fuel. In many cases the RMFDs have been used for dispensing blends of gasoline and 

oxygenates such as ethanol, methanol, or MTBE with no problems. More recently RMFDs have been used for 

blends of petroleum diesel fuel and vegetable oil referred to as Biodiesel. The product family tables in 

Publication 14 have family categories and subgroups for refined petroleum products, vegetable oils, and for 

alcohols; however, there is no family or subgroup for blended products. Most gasoline ethanol blends (gasohol) are 

a blend of approximately 90 % gasoline and 10 % ethanol. For methanol blends and MTBE the percentage of 

oxygenate is typically less than 5 %. Biodiesel is typically a blend of up to 20 % vegetable-based oil with 

petroleum-based diesel fuel. However, there are alcohol/gasoline blends available where the ratio is reversed, such 

as E85 and M85 which are comprised of 85 % alcohol and 15 % gasoline. The question from the laboratories is “at 

what point is a Certificate no longer applicable to a blended product?” 

The Sector was asked to provide guidelines on testing required for adding products, such as alcohol blends up to 

10 % or Biodiesel blends up to 20 % to an existing certificate for a meter tested with gasoline and/or diesel fuel. 

Additional subgroups for the product family tables may be required to provide guidance as to when devices must be 

reevaluated to include the higher ratios of blended alcohols or vegetable oils. 

Decision: The Sector agreed to forward the following amended product family tables for positive displacement 

meters in NCWM Publication 14 to the NTEP Committee for consideration. 

C. Product Families for Positive Displacement Meters 

Product 

Family 

Product 

Subgroup Typical Products1 Viscosity 

(Centipoise) 

Specific 

Gravity2

% 

Abrasive 

Solids 

Refined 

Products 

Diesel Fuel, Distillate3

, Gasoline3 4, 

Fuel Oil, Kerosene, Light Oil, 

Spindle Oil, Lubricating Oils, SAE 

Grades, Bunker Oil, 6 Oil, Crude 

Oil, Asphalt, Vegetable Oil, etc. 

0.3 to 2500 0.68 to 1.1 None 

Aviation 

Fuels 

AVgas, Jet A, Jet A-1, Jet B, JP4, 

JP5, JP7, JP8, etc. 0.4 to 3.6 0.68 to 0.85 None 

Fuel 

Lubricant, Oil 

Products and 

Edible Oil 

Products 

Vegetable 

Oils 

Cooking Oils, Sunflower Oil, Soy 

Oil, Peanut Oil, Olive Oil, etc. 20 to 300 0.8 to 1.0 None 

Solvents 

General 

Acetates, Acetone, Esters, 

Ethylacetate, Hexane, MEK, 

Naphtha, Toluene, Xylene, etc. 

0.3 to 7 0.6 to 1.6 None 

Solvents 

Solvents 

Chlorinated 

Carbon Tetra-Chloride, MethyleneChloride, Perchloro-Ethylene, 

Trichloro-Ethylene, etc. 

0.3 to 7 0.6 to 1.6 None 

NTEP - C13 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

% 

Abrasive 

Solids 

Product 

Family 

Product 

Subgroup Typical Products1 Viscosity 

(Centipoise) 

Specific 

Gravity2

Alcohol & 

Glycols

Alcohols, 

Glycols, & 

Water 

Mixes 

Thereof 

Ethanol, Methanol, Butanol, 

Isopropyl, Isobutyl, Ethylene glycol, 

Propylene glycol, etc. 

0.3 to 7 0.6 to 1.6 None 

Fuels and 

Refrigerants 

LPG,Propane, Butane, Ethane, Freon 

11, Freon 12, Freon 22, etc. 0.1 to 0.5 0.3 to 0.65 None Liquefied 

Compressed 

Gases NH3 Anhydrous Ammonia 0.1 0.56 to 0.68 None 

Water Water Tap Water, Deionized, 

Demineralized, Potable 1.0 1.0 None 

Clear Liquid 

Fertilizers 

Nitrogen Solution; 28 %, 30 % or 

32 %; 20 % Aqua-Ammonia; Urea; 

Ammonia Nitrate; N-P-K solutions; 

10-34-0; 4-10-10; 9-18-9; etc. 

10 to 400 1.0 to 1.45 None 

Herbicides: Round-up, Touchdown, 

Banvel, Treflan, Paraquat, Prowl, etc 4 to 400 0.7 to 1.2 None 

Crop 

Chemicals Fungicides, Insecticides, Adjuvants, 

Fumigants 0.7 to 100 0.7 to 1.2 None 

Flowables 

Dual, Bicep, Marksman, Broadstrike, 

Doubleplay, Topnotch, Gaurdsman, 

Harness, etc. 

Crop Fungicides 

Chemicals Micronutrients 

20 to 900 1 t o1.2 Nil to 3 % 

Suspensions 

Fertilizers 3-10-30; 4-4-27, etc. 20 to 900 1.0 to 1.6 Nil to 4 % 

Agricultural 

Liquids 

Liquid 

Feeds 

Liquid Molasses; Molasses plus Phos 

Acid and/or Urea; etc. 10 to 50 000 1.2 to 1.5 Nil to 4 % 

Chemicals Chemicals Sulfuric Acid, Hydrochloric Acid, 

Phosphoric Acid, etc 1.0 to 296 1.1 to 1.85 None 

1

NOTE: The Typical Products listed in this table are not limiting or all-inclusive; there may be other products and 

product trade names, which fall into a product family and product subgroup. 

2

The specific gravity of a liquid is the ratio of its density to that of water at standard conditions, usually 4 °C (or 20 °C) 

and 1 atm. The density of water at standard conditions is approximately 1000 kg/m3

 (or 998 kg/m3) 

3

 Diesel fuel blends (biodiesel) with up to 20 % vegetable or animal fat/oil. 4

 Gasoline includes oxygenated fuel blends with up to 15 % oxygenate. 

Source for some of the viscosity value information is in the Industry Canada - Measurement Canada "Liquid Products 

Group, Bulletin V-16-E (repv. 1), August 3, 1999." 

NTEP - C14 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

9. NTEP Tolerances for Meters with Different Flow Rates when Using Different Size 

Provers 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory

Background: During a recent evaluation of a high gallonage RMFD with marked flow rates of 60 gpm maximum 

and 12 gpm minimum, the Maryland NTEP laboratory found that the actual flow rate on the lowest setting of the 

automatic nozzle was 6 gpm. Several questions need to be addressed regarding this situation. 

LMD Code paragraph N.4.2.2 (b) states “Devices marked with a flow-rate capacity of 100 L (25 gal) or more per 

minute, shall have a "special" test performed at the slowest of the following rates: (1) the minimum discharge rate 

marked on the device, or (2) the minimum discharge rate at which the device will deliver when equipped with an 

automatic discharge nozzle set at its slowest setting.” Is it appropriate to operate the device below the marked 

minimum flow rate? 

If a 10-gallon test measure is used, what is the appropriate tolerance applicable? LMD Code paragraph Table T.2. 

stipulates that the special test tolerance is 0.5 % or 11.55 cubic inches on a 10-gallon test draft; however, there is a 

footnote that states that the applicable acceptance tolerance when using a 10-gallon test draft is 5.5 cubic inches. 

Which tolerance should be applied during an NTEP evaluation? If a prover with a capacity greater than 10 gallons 

is used, does it provide a tolerance advantage over tests conducted with a 10-gal test measure? 

General Code paragraph G-T.1. (e) states that acceptance tolerances apply to all equipment undergoing type 

evaluation. Does that mean that special test tolerances are not applicable during NTEP testing? 

Recommendation: The Sector needs to determine what tolerances are appropriate for NTEP evaluations. The 

Sector may also want to recommend changes to Handbook 44 General Code G-T.1. and LMD Code paragraph 

N.4.2.2. and Table T2 as follows: 

G-T.1. Acceptance Tolerances. - Acceptance tolerances shall apply to: 

(a) equipment to be put into commercial use for the first time; 

(b) equipment that has been placed in commercial service within the preceding 30 days and is being 

officially tested for the first time; 

(c) equipment that has been returned to commercial service following official rejection for failure to 

conform to performance requirements and is being officially tested for the first time within 

30 days after corrective service; 

(d) equipment that is being officially tested for the first time within 30 days after major 

reconditioning or overhaul; and 

(e) equipment undergoing type evaluation (special test tolerances are not applicable).

 

N.4.2.2. Retail Motor-Fuel Devices.

(a) Devices with a flow-rate capacity less than 100 L (25 gal) per minute shall have a "special" test 

performed at the slower of the following rates: 

(1) 19 L (5 gal) per minute, or 

(2) the minimum discharge rate marked on the device, or 

 

(3) the minimum discharge rate at which the device will deliver when equipped with an 

automatic discharge nozzle set at its slowest setting provided it is not less than the marked 

minimum flow rate.

NTEP - C15 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

(b) Devices marked with a flow-rate capacity 100 L (25 gal) or more per minute shall have a "special" test 

performed at the slowest of the following rates: 

(1) the minimum discharge rate marked on the device, or 

(2) the minimum discharge rate at which the device will deliver when equipped with an 

automatic discharge nozzle set at its slowest setting provided it is not less than the marked 

minimum flow rate. 

Table T.2. Accuracy Classes for Liquid Measuring Devices Covered in 

NIST Handbook 44 Section 3.30 

Accuracy 

Class Application Acceptance Tolerance 

Maintenance 

Tolerance 

Special Test 

Tolerance 

0.3 

Petroleum products delivered from large-capacity 

motor-fuel devices (with marked maximum flow 

rates over 115 L/min (30 gpm))**, heated products 

at or greater than 50 °C, asphalt at or below 

temperatures 50 °C, all other liquids not shown 

where the typical delivery is over 200 L (50 gal). 

0.2 % 0.3 % 0.5 % 

0.3A Asphalt at temperatures greater than 50 °C 0.3 % 0.3 % 0.5 % 

0.5* 

Petroleum products delivered from small-capacity 

(at designed maximum flow rates of 4 L/min (1 

gpm) through 115 L/min (30 gpm))** motor-fuel 

devices, agri-chemical liquids, and all other 

applications not shown where the typical delivery 

is # 200 L (50 gal). 

0.3 % 0.5 % 0.5 % 

1.1 

Petroleum products and other normal liquids from 

devices with flow rates** less than 1 gpm and 

devices designed to deliver less than one gallon. 

0.75 % 1.0 % 1.25 % 

*For 5-gallon and 10-gallon test drafts, the tolerances specified for Accuracy Class 0.5 in the table above do 

not apply. For these test drafts, the maintenance tolerances on normal and special tests for 5-gallon and 10-

gallon test drafts are 6 cubic inches and 11 cubic inches, respectively. Acceptance tolerances on normal and 

special tests are 3 cubic inches and 5.5 cubic inches. 

 ** Flow rate refers to designed or marked maximum flow rate. 

(Added 2002) 

Decision: The Sector modified the recommendation as shown below and agreed to forward it to the NCWM and 

Southern Weights and Measures Association S&T Committees for consideration. 

Recommendation: Modify Handbook 44 Section 1.10 paragraph G-T.1. Acceptance Tolerances (e) and Section 

3.30. paragraph N.4.2.2. Retail Motor-Fuel Devices as follows: 

G-T.1. Acceptance Tolerances. - Acceptance tolerances shall apply to: 

(a) equipment to be put into commercial use for the first time; 

(b) equipment that has been placed in commercial service within the preceding 30 days and is being 

officially tested for the first time; 

NTEP - C16 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

(c) equipment that has been returned to commercial service following official rejection for failure to 

conform to performance requirements and is being officially tested for the first time within 30 

days after corrective service; 

(d) equipment that is being officially tested for the first time within 30 days after major 

reconditioning or overhaul; and 

(e) equipment undergoing type evaluation (special test tolerances are not applicable).

 

N.4.2.2. Retail Motor-Fuel Devices.

(a) Devices with a flow-rate capacity less than 100 115 L (25 30 gal) per minute shall have a 

"special" test performed at the slower of the following rates: 

(1) 19 L (5 gal) per minute, or 

(2) the minimum discharge rate marked on the device, or 

(3) the minimum discharge rate at which the device will deliver when equipped with an 

automatic discharge nozzle set at its slowest setting provided it is not less than the marked 

minimum flow rate.

(b) Devices marked with a flow-rate capacity 100 115 L (25 30 gal) or more per minute shall have a 

"special" test performed at the slowest of the following rates: 

(1) the minimum discharge rate marked on the device, or 

(2) the minimum discharge rate at which the device will deliver when equipped with an 

automatic discharge nozzle set at its slowest setting provided it is not less than the marked 

minimum flow rate.

10. Testing Required to Upgrade a RMFD from Audit Trail Category 2 to Category 3 

Source: NTEP Director 

Background/Discussion: Effective January 1, 2005, all devices with remote configuration capability must comply 

with the sealing requirements of Category 3. Several manufacturers have asked what level of testing is required to 

upgrade their Certificate of Conformance for a Category 2 device to cover a modification of their device to meet 

Category 3 requirements. 

The Sector was asked to discuss the subject and provide input to the NTEP Committee regarding the amount of 

laboratory and/or field evaluation required to upgrade an existing certificate for a Category 2 device to cover an 

upgrade to Category 3. 

Decision: The Sector agreed CC holders for liquid measuring devices with remote configuration capability that 

meet Category 2 sealing requirements must submit their device(s) for evaluation to verify the device meets Category 

3 sealing requirements and have the CC upgraded. The Sector agreed to forward the following amended NCWM 

Publication Audit Trail Category Tables to the NTEP Committee for consideration. 

NTEP - C17 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

 

Category 1 Devices (Devices with No Remote Configuration Capability): 

The device is sealed with a physical seal or it has an audit trail with two event 

counters (one for calibration, the second for configuration). 

Yes No N/A 

A physical seal must be applied without exposing electronics. Yes No N/A 

Event counters are non-resettable and have a capacity of at least 000 to 999. Yes No N/A 

Event counters increment appropriately. Yes No N/A 

The audit trail information must be capable of being retained in memory for Yes No N/A 

at least 30 days while the device is without power or must be retained in 

nonvolatile memory. 

Accessing the audit trail information for review shall be separate from the Yes No N/A 

calibration mode. 

Accessing the audit trail information must not affect the normal operation of 

the device. 

Yes No N/A 

Accessing the audit trail information shall not require removal of any 

additional parts other than normal requirements to inspect the integrity of a 

physical security seal. (e.g., a key to open a locked panel may be required). 

Yes No N/A 

Category 2 Devices (Devices with Remote Configuration Capability but Controlled by Hardware): 

Category 2 applies only to devices manufactured prior to January 1, 2005. Yes No N/A 

Devices with remote configuration capability manufactured after that date 

must meet the sealing requirements outlined in Category 3. Devices without 

remote configuration capability manufactured after that date will be 

required to meet the minimum criteria outlined in Category 1. 

The physical hardware enabling access for remote communication must be 

on-site.

Yes No N/A 

The physical hardware must be sealable with a security seal or Yes No N/A 

The device must be equipped with at least two event counters: one for 

calibration, 

the second for configuration parameters

- calibration parameters event counter

- configuration parameters event counter

Yes No N/A 

Adequate provision must be made to apply a physical seal without exposing 

electronics.

Yes No N/A 

Event counters are nonresettable and have a capacity of at least 000 to 999. Yes No N/A 

Event counters increment appropriately. Yes No N/A 

Event counters may be located either:

- at the individual measuring device or

- at the system controller

Yes No N/A 

If the counters are located at the system controller rather than at the 

individual device, means must be provided to generate a hard copy of the 

information through an on-site device. 

Yes No N/A 

An adequate number (see table below) of event counters must be available to 

monitor the calibration and configuration parameters of each individual 

device.

Yes No N/A 

The device must either:

- clearly indicate when it is in the remote configuration mode or

- the device shall not operate while in the remote configuration mode.

Yes No N/A 

NTEP - C18 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

If capable of printing in the calibration mode, it must print a message that it 

is in the calibration mode.

Yes No N/A 

The audit trail information must be capable of being retained in memory for 

at least 30 days while the device is without power or must be retained in 

nonvolatile memory.

Yes No N/A 

The audit trail information must be readily accessible and easily read. Yes No N/A 

Event counters located at the system controller must be provided with a 

means to generate a hard copy of the audit trail information.

Yes No N/A 

Category 3 Devices (Devices with Unlimited Remote Configuration Capability): 

Category 3 devices have virtually unlimited access to sealable parameters or access is controlled though a 

password.

For devices manufactured after January 1, 2001, the device must either: Yes No N/A 

- clearly indicate when it is in the remote configuration mode, or 

- the device shall not operate while in the remote configuration mode 

The device is equipped with an event logger Yes No N/A 

The event logger automatically retains the identification of the parameter Yes No N/A 

changed, the date and time of the change, and the new value of the 

parameter. 

Event counters are nonresettable and have a capacity of at least 000 to 999. Yes No N/A 

The system is designed to attach a printer, which can print the contents of Yes No N/A 

the audit trail. 

The audit trail information must be capable of being retained in memory for Yes No N/A 

at least 30 days while the device is without power or must be retained in 

nonvolatile memory. 

The event logger must have a capacity to retain records equal to ten times Yes No N/A 

the number of sealable parameters in the device, but not more than 1000 

records are required. 

The event logger drops the oldest event when the memory capacity is full Yes No N/A 

and a new entry is saved. 

Describe the method used to seal the device or access the audit trail information. 

[NOTE: All devices with remote communication that are manufactured after January 1, 2005, must meet 

the requirements outlined for Category 3.]

NTEP - C19 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

Minimum Number of Counters Required

Minimum Counters Required for 

Devices Equipped with Event 

Counters

Minimum Event Counter(s) 

at System Controller

Only one type of parameter 

accessible (calibration or 

configuration)

One (1) event counter One (1) event counter for each 

separately controlled device, or 

one (1) event counter, if 

changes are made 

simultaneously.

Both calibration and 

configuration parameters 

accessible

Two (2) event counters Two (2) event counters for each 

separately controlled device, or 

two (2) or more event counters 

if changes are made to all 

controlled devices 

simultaneously.

11. Specific Gravity Range to be Covered on a Certificate of Conformance Based on 

Products Tested 

Source: Invensys/Foxboro 

Background: NCWM Publication 14 Section D. Product Family for Mass Flow Meters allows a Certificate of 

Conformance to cover only a range of specific gravities based on the products with the highest and lowest specific 

gravities tested. The specific gravity covered by a certificate can only be expanded by testing with additional products 

having a higher and/or lower specific gravity. The submitter believes the current limit on specific gravity range listed on a 

certificate is too restrictive and would like to have the range of specific gravities covered on a certificate within ± 25 % (or 

at least a minimum of 10 %) from the highest and lowest specific gravities for products evaluated. 

Recommendation: The Sector will consider the proposal, and if there is sufficient support, a work group should be 

formed to collect data to support expanding the range of densities covered on a certificate based on the densities of 

products tested. If the data collected provides evidence that the range can be expanded, the work group should 

provide a specific proposal for expanding the range by an appropriate percentage for the Sector to consider at its 

next meeting. 

Decision: The Sector agreed to combine agenda Item 11 with agenda Item 13 for discussion. 

12. Computer Jump on RMFD 

Source: Maryland NTEP Laboratory 

Background: As price for motor fuel nears or exceeds $2.00 per gallon, the number of complaints regarding 

computer jump has also increased. WMD has received numerous calls from jurisdictions related to this problem. It 

appears that the actual amount of jump or meter creep occurring because of internal pressure related to changes in 

temperature has not changed. However, at the higher unit prices this relatively small meter creep creates a delivery 

indication of several cents. 

Recommendation: The Sector and the manufacturers of RMFDs may want to take a proactive role and develop a 

proposal for Handbook 44 to require that the measurement of product begins only after the system has reached 

normal delivery pressure. The Sector will review the following recommendation, and if it agrees, the 

recommendation will be forwarded to the NCWM S&T Committee for consideration. 

NTEP - C20 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

S.1.6. Operating Requirements, Retail Devices (Except Slow Flow Meters).

S.1.6.1. Indication of Delivery. - The device shall automatically show on its face the initial zero 

condition and the quantity delivered (up to the nominal capacity). 

However, the first 0.03 L (or 0.009 gal) of a delivery and its associated total sales price need not be 

indicated.

S.1.6.1.1. - The indication of delivered quantity and total price on a digital device shall be 

inhibited until the entire fuel delivery system reaches normal operating pressure.

(Amended 1982 and 200X) 

Decision: The Sector amended the recommendation as shown below and agreed to forward it to the NCWM and 

Southern Weights and Measures Association S&T Committees for consideration. 

Amend Handbook 44 Sec. 3.30. paragraph S.1.6.1. Indication of Delivery and add new paragraph S.1.6.1.1. 

Inhibiting Measurement and Indication of Delivery as follows:

S.1.6. Operating Requirements, Retail Devices (Except Slow Flow Meters).

S.1.6.1. Indication of Delivery. - The device shall automatically show on its face the initial zero 

condition and the quantity delivered (up to the nominal capacity). 

However, the first 0.03 L (or 0.009 gal) of a delivery and its associated total sales price need not be 

indicated. 

S.1.6.1.1. – After the suppression of up to 0.03 L (or 0.009 gal) the measurement of delivered 

quantity and indication of total price on a digital device shall be inhibited until the fueling 

position reaches normal delivery pressure.

(Amended 1982 and 200X)

13. Section D Product Family for Mass Flow Meters – Specific Gravity Range 0.1 Above 

and 0.1 Below Products Tested 

Source: Endress & Hauser Flowtec AG 

Background: Once tested with two liquids within a product group, a mass flow meter should be covered for liquids 

with specific gravities of 0.1 above and 0.1 below the range of specific gravities for the liquid(s) tested.

Recommendation: Add additional language to Section D, Page LMD 4 of Publication 14, 2004 edition as follows:

D. Product Families for Mass Flow Meters 

When submitting a direct mass flow meter for evaluation, the manufacturer must specify the product 

or product group for which the meter is being submitted. To cover a product group, NTEP tests 

must be conducted with two liquids within the product group. Upon test completion, a range of 

specific gravities between the specific gravities of the two liquids attained within the product group 

will be covered on the Certificate of Conformance (CC). The mass flow meter will be covered for 

approved liquids with density 0.1 above the highest specific gravity tested and 0.1 below the lowest 

specific gravity tested. The specific gravity range within the product group can be expanded by 

conducting an NTEP test with a liquid of higher or lower specific gravity than is covered on the 

existing CC. 

The above does not apply to the following product groups: compressed gases, compressed liquids, 

and cryogenic liquids. In the case of these product groups, only one liquid within each group is 

NTEP - C21 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

required to undergo an NTEP evaluation, and, upon completion, the entire product group will be 

covered on the existing CC. 

Multi-product applications (i.e., applications in which the meter will be used without a change to zero 

or calibration to dispense different products which vary in specific gravity by more than 0.1) must 

include a multi-product test. The multi-product initial test will be performed on the meter without a 

change to zero or calibration using multiple products having a difference in specific gravity of at 

least 0.2. For devices which will be used to dispense multiple products having a specific gravity range 

greater than 0.2, the multi-product testing must be performed over the anticipated range before 

multi-product applications will be included on the CC. For the multi-product testing, throughput 

testing will be performed on one or a combination of the products; testing for the subsequent test will 

be conducted on both products without a change to zero or calibration. Multi-product testing 

requirements do not apply to meters used to dispense a product such as propane in which the density 

varies in normal operation.

Decision: The Sector agreed to forward the following amended first paragraph Section D of NCWM Publication 14 

for Liquid Measuring Devices to the NTEP Committee for consideration. 

D. Product Families for Mass Flow Meters 

When submitting a direct mass flow meter for evaluation, the manufacturer must specify the product 

or product group for which the meter is being submitted. To cover a product group, NTEP tests 

must be conducted with two liquids within the product group. Upon test completion, a range of 

specific gravities between the specific gravities of the two liquids attained within the product group 

will be covered on the Certificate of Conformance (CC). When two liquids of different densities are 

tested the Certificate of Conformance (CC) for the mass flow meter will cover approved liquids with 

a specific gravity range from 0.1 above the highest specific gravity tested to 0.1 below the lowest 

specific gravity tested. The specific gravity range within the product group can be expanded by 

conducting an NTEP test with a liquid of higher or lower specific gravity than is covered on the 

existing CC. 

The above does not apply to the following product groups: compressed gases, compressed liquids, 

and cryogenic liquids. In the case of these product groups, only one liquid within each group is 

required to undergo an NTEP evaluation, and, upon completion, the entire product group will be 

covered on the existing CC. 

Multi-product applications (i.e., applications in which the meter will be used without a change to zero 

or calibration to dispense different products which vary in specific gravity by more than 0.1) must 

include a multi-product test. The multi-product initial test will be performed on the meter without a 

change to zero or calibration using multiple products having a difference in specific gravity of at 

least 0.2. For devices which will be used to dispense multiple products having a specific gravity range 

greater than 0.2, the multi-product testing must be performed over the anticipated range before 

multi-product applications will be included on the CC. For the multi-product testing, throughput 

testing will be performed on one or a combination of the products; testing for the subsequent test will 

be conducted on both products without a change to zero or calibration. Multi-product testing 

requirements do not apply to meters used to dispense a product such as propane in which the density 

varies in normal operation. 

14. Section D Product Family for Mass Flow Meters – Multi-product Applications 

Source: Endress & Hauser Flowtec AG 

Background: A mass flow meter submitted and approved for multi-product testing where product densities differ 

by greater than 0.2 has demonstrated ability to perform with major density changes. Therefore, the mass flow meter 

should be able to be used for products with differing densities throughout the range of the meter approval.

Recommendation: Add additional language to Section D, Page LMD 4 of Publication 14, 2004 edition as follows: 

NTEP - C22 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

D. Product Families for Mass Flow Meters 

When submitting a direct mass flow meter for evaluation, the manufacturer must specify the product 

or product group for which the meter is being submitted. To cover a product group, NTEP tests 

must be conducted with two liquids within the product group. Upon test completion, a range of 

specific gravities between the specific gravities of the two liquids attained within the product group 

will be covered on the Certificate of Conformance (CC). The specific gravity range within the 

product group can be expanded by conducting an NTEP test with a liquid of higher or lower specific 

gravity than is covered on the existing CC. 

The above does not apply to the following product groups: compressed gases, compressed liquids, 

and cryogenic liquids. In the case of these product groups, only one liquid within each group is 

required to undergo an NTEP evaluation and, upon completion, the entire product group will be 

covered on the existing CC. 

Multi-product applications (i.e., applications in which the meter will be used without a change to zero 

or calibration to dispense different products which vary in specific gravity by more than 0.1) must 

include a multi-product test. The multi-product initial test will be performed on the meter without a 

change to zero or calibration using multiple products having a difference in specific gravity of at 

least 0.2. For devices which will be used to dispense multiple products having a specific gravity range 

greater than 0.2, the multi-product testing must be performed over the anticipated range before 

multi-product applications will be included on the CC. For the multi-product testing, throughput 

testing will be performed on one or a combination of the products; testing for the subsequent test will 

be conducted on both products without a change to zero or calibration. The mass flow meter will be 

approved for multi-product applications where the specific gravity of a single product, or multiple 

products, varies by the amount tested throughout the entire approved specific gravity range of the 

meter. Example: Where a meter has been tested and a certificate issued for multi-product 

applications with one liquid having a specific gravity of 0.7 and another liquid having a specific 

gravity of 1.0 and the meter is subsequently tested to expand the range with a liquid having a specific 

gravity of 1.6 the allowed variation of densities will be from 0.7 through 1.6. Multi-product testing 

requirements do not apply to meters used to dispense a product such as propane in which the density 

varies in normal operation. 

Decision: The Sector agreed to forward the following amended last paragraph of Section D in NCWM Publication 

14 for Liquid Measuring Devices to the NTEP Committee for consideration. 

D. Product Families for Mass Flow Meters 

When submitting a direct mass flow meter for evaluation, the manufacturer must specify the product 

or product group for which the meter is being submitted. To cover a product group, NTEP tests 

must be conducted with two liquids within the product group. Upon test completion, a range of 

specific gravities between the specific gravities of the two liquids attained within the product group 

will be covered on the Certificate of Conformance (CC). The specific gravity range within the 

product group can be expanded by conducting an NTEP test with a liquid of higher or lower specific 

gravity than is covered on the existing CC. 

The above does not apply to the following product groups: compressed gases, compressed liquids, 

and cryogenic liquids. In the case of these product groups, only one liquid within each group is 

required to undergo an NTEP evaluation and, upon completion, the entire product group will be 

covered on the existing CC. 

Multi-product applications (i.e., applications in which the meter will be used without a change to zero 

or calibration to dispense different products which vary in specific gravity by more than 0.1) must 

include a multi-product test. The multi-product initial test will be performed on the meter without a 

change to zero or calibration using multiple products having a difference in specific gravity of at 

least 0.2. For devices which will be used to dispense multiple products having a specific gravity range 

NTEP - C23 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

greater than 0.2, the multi-product testing must be performed over the anticipated range before 

multi-product applications will be included on the CC. For the multi-product testing, throughput 

testing will be performed on one or a combination of the products; testing for the subsequent test will 

be conducted on both products without a change to zero or calibration. The CC for a mass flow 

meter will cover multi-product applications where the specific gravity of a single product, or multiple 

products, varies by the amount tested throughout the entire approved specific gravity range of the 

meter. Example: Where a meter has been tested and a certificate issued for multi-product with one 

liquid having a specific gravity of 0.7 and another liquid having a specific gravity of 1.0 and the 

meter is subsequently tested to expand the range with a liquid having a specific gravity of 1.6 the 

allowed variation of densities covered by the CC will be from 0.7 through 1.6. Multi-product testing 

requirements do not apply to meters used to dispense a product such as propane in which the density 

varies in normal operation. 

15. Next Meeting 

The Sector discussed the time and location for its next meeting. 

Decision: The Sector agreed to recommend to the NCWM NTEP Committee that the 2005 Measuring Sector 

Meeting be held immediately prior to the 2005 meeting of the Southern Weights and Measures Association 

beginning at 8:00 am on Friday and continuing through 5:00 pm on Saturday. The ending time on Saturday will be 

dependent on the length of the agenda. 

 

Additional Items 

16. ECRs Approved for Dispensers from Multiple Manufacturers 

Source/Background: The NTEP Laboratories want to know how many dispensers and features should be evaluated 

in the laboratory and/or field when evaluating an ECR for use with multiple dispensers. 

Decision: The Sector agreed that, as a minimum, two dispensers from different manufacturers, each of which 

includes all of the features listed on the ECR CC, must be evaluated with the ECR in order to have the statement 

“equivalent and compatible equipment” appear on the CC. The Sector further agreed to forward to the NTEP 

Committee for consideration the following amendment to NCWM Publication 14 Section A of the Electronic Cash 

Register Interfaced with Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers. 

A. Introduction 

This checklist is intended for use when conducting general evaluations of new electronic cash 

registers that are to interface with retail motor-fuel dispensers. It is assumed that the dispenser was 

previously evaluated, if not, the LMD checklist must be applied to the dispenser sale system. The 

ECR must interface with a dispenser to perform this evaluation. Specific criteria that apply to 

service station control consoles are in the checklist for retail motor-fuel dispensers and must be 

applied if the cash register also serves as the service station controller. As a minimum, two 

dispensers from different manufacturers, each of which includes all of the features to be listed on the 

ECR CC, must be evaluated with the ECR in order to have the statement “equivalent and compatible 

equipment” appear on the CC.

This checklist is designed in a logical sequence for the user to determine and record the conformance 

of the device with the elements of NIST Handbook 44. The user should make copies of the checklist 

to serve as worksheets and preserve the original for reference. In most cases, the results of 

evaluation for each element can be recorded by checking the appropriate response to the following: 

17. Zero Set-back Interlocks on Vehicle-tank Meters 

Source/Background: The S&T Committee has requested input from the Sector on Carryover Item 331-3, a 

Handbook 44 requirement for Zero Set-back Interlocks on Vehicle-tank Meters. 

NTEP - C24 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

Decision: The Sector agreed to forward the following new paragraph S.2.4. for Handbook 44 Section 3.31. VehicleTank Meters to the SWMA and NCWM S&T Committees for consideration. 

S.2.4. Zero-Set-Back Interlock, Vehicle-Tank Meters. – Except for aircraft fueling, an electronic device 

shall be so constructed that after an individual or multiple deliveries at one location have been completed, an 

automatic interlock system shall engage to prevent a subsequent delivery until the indicating and, if 

equipped, recording elements have been returned to their zero position. For individual deliveries, if there is 

no product flow for 3 minutes the transaction must be completed before additional product flow is allowed. 

The 3 minute timeout may be a sealable feature on an indicator designed for commercial and noncommercial applications.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 200X]

18. Wireless Communication Systems 

Source/Background: The Maryland NTEP Laboratory has a fuel dealer that wants to install a wireless 

communication system for transferring billing information from the vehicle-tank meter to a central billing office. 

Does the communication equipment installed for this purpose require an NTEP CC? 

Decision: The Sector agreed that the scenario as described, where wireless communication is used to transfer 

billing information, is not an NTEP issue at this time. The scenario is similar in some respects systems that use 

telephone communication to transfer billing information to a central billing office. NTEP currently evaluates 

systems to the point of the first final indication of quantity delivered. 

19. Display of Unit Price on Vehicle-Tank Meters 

Source/Background: Maryland NTEP Laboratory and FMC requested clarification of the intent of Handbook 44 

Section 3.31., paragraph S.1.4.1. The paragraph states that a device of the computing type shall provide a means to 

display the unit price at which the device is set to compute on the outside of the device. 

1. Can the unit price be on the display screen? 

2. If it is on the display screen, is it required to be displayed full time? 

3. Does a posted sign plaque meet the requirement? 

Decision: The Sector agreed to forward the following amended paragraph S.1.4.1. to the SWMA and NCWM S&T 

Committees for consideration. 

S.1.4.1. Display of Unit Price. - In a device of the computing type, means shall be provided for displaying 

on the outside of the device, in a manner clear to the operator and an observer, the unit price at which 

the device is set to compute. The unit price is not required to be displayed continuously.

20. Evaluations Using Simulated Input Devices 

Source/Background: FMC Measurement Solutions requested the Sector provide guidelines for evaluating 

electronic indicating devices when submitted separate from the measuring element. Will NTEP allow electronic 

indicators to be evaluated using simulated inputs, i.e., meter pulse, temperature, pressure density, etc.? 

Decision: The Sector agreed to forward to the NTEP Committee for consideration the following new Section U for 

addition to the Technical Policy for Liquid-Measuring Devices in Publication 14. 

U. Testing Electronic Indicators for Stationary Installations Using Simulated Inputs. 

When evaluating electronic indicators for stationary installations, submitted separate from a measuring 

element, indicators may be evaluated using simulated inputs (i.e., meter pulse, temperature, pressure, 

density, etc.). 

NTEP - C25 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

21. Modifications to Pre-NTEP Certificates: 

Source/Background: FMC Measurement Solutions requested the Sector provide guidelines for allowing feature 

modifications to pre-NTEP certificates without the need for permanence testing for established metering 

technologies, i.e., PD meters, if the modification can be shown that the measurement basis has not been changed (no 

metrological significance). 

Example of feature modification: Changing a PD meter with a conventional shaft output to a direct electronic 

output. Cyclic volume remains unchanged as the modification is (1) the replacement of the top cover to remove the 

gear train and packing glands and (2) the addition of a target gear and electronic sensor(s). The measurement 

chamber (cyclic volume) remains unchanged. 

Decision: The Sector agreed that changing from a conventional shaft output to an electronic output with the 

removal of a gear train, the external shaft, and packing gland, along with the addition of a target gear and electronic 

sensor(s), is a modification of type that requires, as a minimum, an initial evaluation of the modified device. 

Permanence testing may be required at the discretion NTEP based on the results of the initial evaluation. 

NTEP - C26 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

Attendance List 

Name Company/Agency Address Telephone # E-Mail Address 

Belue, Mike Belue Associates 1319 Knight Dr 

Murfreesboro TN 37128 615 867 1010 bassoc@aol.com 

Beyer, Joseph Liquid Controls 105 Albrecht Drive 

Lake Bluff, IL 60044 847 283 8300 jbeyer@idexcorp.com 

Butler, Jerry North Carolina Dept of 

Agriculture 

1050 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050 919 733 3313 Jerry.butler@ncmail.net 

Buxton, Joe Daniel Measurement 

Control 

19267 Hwy 301 N 

Statesboro, GA 30461 912 489 0253 Joe.buxton@emersonprocess.com 

Castro, Gary State of California Meas 

Stds 

8500 Fruitridge Rd 

Sacramento CA 95826 916 229 3049 gcastro@cdfa.ca.gov 

Cooper, Rodney Actaris Neptune 1310 Emerald Rd 

Greenwood SC 29646 864 942 2226 rcooper@greenwood.actaris.com 

Forkert, Maurice Tuthill Transfer Systems 8825 Aviation Dr 

Ft Wayne IN 46809 260 747 7529 mforkert@Tuthill.com 

Gallo, Mike Clean Fuel Technologies 140 Market Street 

Georgetown, TX 78626 512 942-8304 Mike.gallo@cftdispensers.com 

Glowacki, Paul Murray Equipment, Inc. 2515 Charleston Place 

Fort Wayne, IN 46808 260 484 0382 pglowacki@murrayequipment.com 

Hoffman, David Toptech Systems 280 Hunt Park Cove 

Longwood FL 32750 407 332 1774 dhoffman@toptech.com 

Johnson, Gordon Marconi Commerce 

Systems Inc 

7300 W Friendly Ave 

Greensboro NC 27420 336 547 5375 gordon.johnson@marconi.com 

Kalevoda, Raymond FMC Measurement 

Solutions 

1602 Wagner Avenue 

Erie, PA 16510 814 898 5264 Ray.kalivoda@fmcti.com 

Katalinic, Allen North Carolina Dept of 

Agriculture 

1050 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050 919 733 3313 

Katselnik, Yefim Dresser Wayne 3814 Jarrett Way 

Austin, TX 78728 512 388 8763 Phil.katselnik@wayne.com 

Keilty, Mike Endress & Hauser 

Flowtech AG 

2350 Endress Place 

Greenwood, IN 46143 317 535 2745 Michael.keilty@us.endress.com 

Kingbury, Ted Measurement Canada Stds Bldg #4 Tunney's Pasture 

Ottawa Ontario K1AOC9 613 941 8919 Kingsbury.ted@ic.gc.ca 

Kretzler, Randal Dresser Wayne/Dresser, 

Inc. 

3814 Jarrett Way 

Austin, TX 78728-1212 512 388 8420 Randal.kretzler@wayne.com 

Lachance, Christian Measurement Canada Stds Bldg #4 Tunney's Pasture 

Ottawa Ontario K1AOC9 613 952 3528 Lachance.Christian@ic.gc.ca 

Long, Douglas RDM Industrial 

Electronics 

850 Harmony Grove Rd 

Nebo, NC 28761 828 652 8346 doug@wnclink.com 

Mattar, Wade Invensys/Foxboro 

33 Commercial Street 

PO Box 10428 

Erie, PA 16514 

508 549 2067 wmattar@foxboro.com 

Miller, Richard FMC Measurement 

Solutions 

1602 Wagner Ave, Box 10428 

Erie, PA 16514 814 898 5214 rich.miller@fmcti.com 

Onwiler, Don Nebraska Div of Weights 

& Meas 

301 Centennial Mall South 

PO Box 94757 

Lincoln, NE 68509 

402 471 4292 donlo@agr.state.ne.us 

Parrish, Johnny Brodie Meter Co., LLC 19267 Highway 301 North 

Statesboro, GA 30461 912 489 0203 Johnny.parrish@brodiemeter.com 

Patoray, Steve NTEP/NCWM 1239 Carolina Dr 

Tryon NC 28782 828 859 6178 spatoray@mgmtsol.com 

Rajala, David Veder-Root Company P.O. Box 1673 

Altoona, PA 19906-1673 814 696 8125 drajala@veeder.com 

Suiter, Richard NIST/OWM Stop 2600 100 Bureau Dr 

Gaithersburg MD 20878 301 975 4406 rsuiter@nist.gov 

Wotthlie, Richard State of Maryland 50 Harry S. Truman Parkway 

Annapolis MD 21771 410 841 5790 wotthlrw@mda.state.md.us 

NTEP - C27 
NTEP Committee 2005 Interim Report 

Appendix C – NTETC - Measuring Sector 

THIS PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK.

NTEP - C28 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

Appendix D 

National Type Evaluation Technical Committee 

Weighing Sector Annual Meeting 

August 29-31 2004, Ottawa, Canada 

Summary of Decisions 

Carry-Over Items........................................................................................................................................................2

1. Recommended Changes to Publication 14 Based on Actions at the 2004 NCWM Annual Meeting.....................2

(a). Manual Gross Weight Entries........................................................................................................................2

(b). Section Capacity Prefix .................................................................................................................................3

(c). Field Standard Weight Cart ...........................................................................................................................3

(d). Discrimination Test .......................................................................................................................................3

(e). Automatic Weighing Systems.......................................................................................................................3

2. Identification: Built-for-Purpose Software-based Devices.....................................................................................4

3. Ad Hoc Procedures for Class I and II Scales used in Prescription Filling Applications ........................................8

4. S.1.1.c. Zero Indication (Marking Requirements)..................................................................................................9

New Items.....................................................................................................................................................................9

5. Bench/Counter Scale Shift Test and Definitions....................................................................................................9

6. Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism (Zero-Tracking)..........................................................................................11

7. Prescription Scale with an Operational Counting Feature....................................................................................12

8. “#” Symbol...........................................................................................................................................................14

9. Elimination of Temperature Testing for Separable Weighing/load-receiving Elements......................................14

10. Time Dependence Tolerances ..............................................................................................................................17

11. Publication 14 Force Transducer (Load Cell) Family and Selection Criteria.......................................................19

12. Compatibility of Indicators Interfaced with Weighing and Measuring Elements ................................................20

13. Handbook 44 Computing Scales Interfaced with an Electronic Cash Register....................................................21

14. Publication 14 Requirements for Computing Scales Interfaced with an Electronic Cash Register......................22

15. Publication 14 - Computing Scale Section ...........................................................................................................23

16. Publication 14 - New Items in Computing Scale Section.....................................................................................23

17. Handbook 44 - Location of Marking for “Capacity x d” on Scales......................................................................25

18. CLC Type Evaluation Tests on Railway Track/Vehicle Scales – Technical Policy.............................................27

19. Display of a Negative Balance Condition and Required Markings......................................................................28

20. Dropping the 4th Step in Class III and IIII Tolerances..........................................................................................28

21. Cash Acceptors or Card-activated Systems..........................................................................................................30

22. Tare on a Multiple Range Scales..........................................................................................................................30

23. Performance and Permanence Tests for Railway Track Scales Used to Weigh Statically ...................................33

24. Next Sector Meeting.............................................................................................................................................34

Appendix A - Recommendations for Amendments to Publication 14...................................................................35

Agenda Item 1 (a)........................................................................................................................................................35

Agenda Item 1 (b)........................................................................................................................................................36

Agenda Item 1 (d)........................................................................................................................................................36

Agenda Item 1 (e)........................................................................................................................................................38

Agenda Item 3 .............................................................................................................................................................41

Agenda Item 14 ...........................................................................................................................................................44

Agenda Item 15 ...........................................................................................................................................................45

Agenda Item 19 ...........................................................................................................................................................47

Agenda Item 21 ...........................................................................................................................................................49

Appendix B – NTETC Weighing Sector Attendance List......................................................................................52

NTEP - D1 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

Details of All Items 

(In Order by Reference Key Number) 

Carry-Over Items: 

1. Recommended Changes to Publication 14 Based on Actions at the 2004 NCWM Annual 

Meeting 

The NTEP technical advisor provided the Sector with specific recommendations for incorporating into 

Publication 14 test procedures and checklist language based upon actions of the previous Annual Meeting of the 

NCWM. The Sector was asked to briefly discuss each item and provide general input on the technical aspects of the 

issues. 

(a). Manual Gross Weight Entries 

Background: See the Report of the 89th National Conference on Weights and Measures, Specifications and 

Tolerances Committee Agenda Item 320-1for additional background information. During its 2004 Annual Meeting, 

the NCWM agreed to amend NIST Handbook 44 2.20. Scales Code paragraph S.1.12. Manual Gross Weights to 

allow the manual entry of net weights for prepackage applications and for pre-weighed items from other legal-fortrade scales. 

Discussion: The Weighing Sector considered a proposal from the NIST technical advisor to amend NCWM 

Publication 14 Weighing Devices Technical Policy, Checklists, Test Procedures Digital Electronic Scales Section 17 

Manual Weight Entries. 

During the discussion, confusion arose regarding identifying preset tare weights (i.e., keyboard tare entry or tare 

stored in memory) as manual weight entries, and this confusion may be attributed to the adopted amended title of the 

amended paragraph S.1.12. “Manual Weights.” One commenter was concerned that two manual weights may have 

to be entered for weigh-in/weigh-out transactions when there is a loss of communication between separate weighing 

locations and that the manual tare weight entries should be identified. Another commenter suggested additional 

language for paragraph S.1.12. that would state that preset tares do not have to be identified. The NIST technical 

advisor reported the intent of the proposed amendment to S.1.12. did not apply to preset tare weights and that 

amending the title of paragraph S.1.12. to Manual Gross or Net Weight Entries (did what--solved the problem?). 

Additionally, the Sector made some editorial suggestions to the proposed amendment to Publication 14 Section 17. 

Recommendation: The Sector recommends that amendments proposed in Appendix A agenda Item 1(a) be 

incorporated into Publication 14 Section 17. Manual Weights. 

Additionally, the Weighing Sector suggested that the S&T technical advisors make the following editorial 

changes to paragraph S.1.12. of NIST Handbook 44, indicated in underlined text, to clarify that the amended 

paragraphs do not apply to manually entered tare weights, and that manual net weight entries are nonretroactive as of January 1, 2005: 

S.1.12. Manual Gross or Net Weight Entries. - A device when being used for direct sale shall accept an entry 

of a manual gross or net weight value only when the scale gross or net2 weight indication is at zero. Recorded 

manual weight entries, except those on labels generated for packages of standard weights, shall identify the 

weight value as a manual weight entry by one of the following terms: “Manual Weight,” “Manual Wt,” or 

“MAN WT.” The use of a symbol to identify multiple manual weight entries on a single document is permitted, 

provided that the symbol is defined on the same page on which the manual weight entries appear and the 

definition of the symbol is automatically printed by the recording element as part of the document. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1993] [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 20052] 

(Added 1992) (Amended 20042

) 

NTEP - D2 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

2

 The term “net” was added in 2004 to include net weights entered from items pre-weighed on a legal-for-trade 

scale.

(b). Section Capacity Prefix 

Background: See the Report of the 89th National Conference on Weights and Measures, Specifications and 

Tolerances Committee Agenda Item 320-3 for additional background information. During its 2004 Annual Meeting, 

the NCWM agreed to amend NIST Handbook 44 2.20. Scales Code paragraph S.6.4.3. Section Capacity Prefix and 

Table S.6.3.a. Marking Requirements. During its 2004 Annual Meeting, the NCWM agreed to additional language 

for the 2005 Edition of NIST Handbook 44 regarding the use of abbreviations for the marking of section capacity.

Discussion/Recommendation: The Weighing Sector considered a proposal from the NIST technical advisor 

to amend NCWM Publication 14 Weighing Devices Technical Policy, Checklists, Test Procedures Digital 

Electronic Scales Section 5. Marking – Livestock, Vehicle, and Railway Track Scales paragraph 5.1. and 

agreed to recommend that amendments proposed in Appendix A, agenda Item 1(b) be incorporated into 

Publication 14 Section 5. 

(c). Field Standard Weight Cart 

Background: See the Report of the 89th National Conference on Weights and Measures, Specifications and 

Tolerances Committee Agenda Item 320-4 for additional background information to amend NIST Handbook 44 

2.20. Scales Code paragraph Item 320-4 N.3.2. Field Standard Weight Carts. During its 2004 Annual Meeting, the 

NCWM agreed to add language in the 2005 Edition of NIST Handbook 44 recognizing field standard weight carts 

for use as a certified test load.

Discussion/Recommendation: The Weighing Sector recommends no further action on this item. 

(d). Discrimination Test 

Background: See the Report of the 89th National Conference on Weights and Measures, Specifications and 

Tolerances Committee Agenda Item 320-5 for additional background information. During its 2004 Annual Meeting, 

the NCWM agreed to amend NIST Handbook 44 2.20. Scales Code paragraph N.1.5 Discrimination Test to add 

language to the 2005 Edition of NIST Handbook 44 to clarify discrimination test procedures for testing scales with 

an operational automatic zero-setting mechanism.

Discussion: NCWM Publication 14 already includes procedures to conduct discrimination tests near zero and near 

capacity. The Sector considered a proposal by the NIST technical advisor to amend Publication 14, Digital 

Electronic Scales Sections 63 "Performance and Permanence Test for Floor Scales" and 69 "Performance and 

Permanence Test for Dynamic Monorail Scales." The Sector discussed that Publication 14 Section 43 "Zone of 

Uncertainty" should also include test procedures for determining compliance with discrimination test requirements 

that are similar to requirements and tests recommended by Measurement Canada and OIML R76 for Non-automatic 

Weighing instruments. 

Recommendation: The Weighing Sector recommends that NCWM Publication 14 Sections 43 Zone of 

Uncertainty, 63 Performance and Permanence Test for Floor Scales, and 69 Performance and Permanence 

Test for Dynamic Monorail Scales" be amended to clarify discrimination test requirements and procedures 

as shown in Appendix A, agenda Item 1 (d). 

(e). Automatic Weighing Systems 

Background: See the Report of the 89th National Conference on Weights and Measures, Specifications and 

Tolerances Committee Agenda Item 324-1 for additional background information. During its 2004 Annual Meeting, 

the NCWM agreed to change the status of Handbook 44, Section 2.24. Automatic Weighing Systems (AWS) from a 

tentative code to a permanent code. One of the changes to the tentative code was to remove the type evaluation test 

procedures and incorporate them into NCWM Publication 14. 

NTEP - D3 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

Discussion/Recommendation: The Weighing Sector reviewed the proposed language, as shown in Appendix A 

agenda Item 1(e), which was developed by Andrea Buie of the Maryland NTEP laboratory, and 

recommended that such language be added to Publication 14 Automatic Weighing Systems checklist. The 

Sector also recommended that a meeting should be planned to develop additional changes to Publication 14 

that were identified during the 2002 meeting of the AWS NCWM Work Group. The Sector further believes 

that much of the work can be accomplished electronically among the participants following the next meeting. 

2. Identification: Built-for-Purpose Software-based Devices 

Background: See the Report of the 89th National Conference on Weights and Measures, Specifications and 

Tolerances Committee Agenda Item 320-1 for additional background information and the proposed language 

considered by the S&T Committee. 

At the 2004 NCWM Interim Meeting, the S&T Committee requested that prior to the NCWM Annual Meeting in 

July 2004 the technical advisor to the NTETC Weighing Sector distribute to its members the proposal for the S&T 

Committee’s Agenda Item 310-1 along with a ballot requesting support for the proposal. Although there were 15 

responses to the ballot and the majority of the members of the Weighing Sector voted affirmatively, there was no 

clear consensus. 

At the 2004 NCWM Annual Meeting, the Scale Manufacturers Association (SMA) stated that Item 310-1 should not 

go forward for a vote because the ballot of the NTETC Weighing Sector failed to provide clear support for the item. 

A manufacturer stated that the term "microprocessor" was not appropriate because their devices contain numerous 

microprocessors. Another manufacturer stated that the requirement for marking the current software version number 

would place an unrealistic burden on their company. The Committee agreed that sufficient opposition and questions 

were raised during the open hearing to demonstrate that the item is not sufficiently developed to be a voting item at 

this meeting. The Committee agreed to make Item 310-1 an information item to be returned to the NTETC 

Weighing and Measuring Sectors for further development.

Discussion: The Weighing Sector reviewed the background information from the NCWM S&T Committee, 

previous Sector recommendations, and information regarding international activities. The Sector also reviewed an 

updated proposal for S&T agenda Item 310-1 from NIST WMD. The updated proposal included new and amended 

definitions and attempted to address concerns raised during the NCWM S&T Committee and open hearing 

deliberations on this item. The definition for “not-built-for-purpose” devices was amended to clarify their use as 

auxiliary or peripheral equipment for weighing and measuring devices and systems. 

Some of the private Sector members repeated their comments that current electronic weighing and measuring 

equipment technology easily permits the display of required identification information and that there was no 

technical justification for treating these devices differently than not-built-for-purpose devices. 

Additionally, the proposed definitions would reclassify most measuring devices according to the physical property 

being measured (e.g., liquid, length, vapor, cryogenic, etc.). Since the proposed new definition for measuring 

devices applies to all types of Handbook 44 devices, there was some concern that laws and regulations would need 

changing because many states’ statutes are written using the “weighing and measuring” device terminology. 

Recommendation: The Sector recommended the following updated proposal submitted by NIST WMD with 

suggestions from the Weighing Sector be forwarded to the NTETC Measuring Sector for its review and 

comments. 

Add new Terms and definitions as follows: 

measuring device (general) – A device (instrument) intended to be used to make measurements, alone or 

in conjunction with supplementary devices. (VIM) 

NTEP - D4 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

measuring system (general) - An instrument or group of instruments that serves to make measurements, 

alone or in conjunction with supplementary devices. (VIM) 

electronic devices – A device operating by the principles of electronics, which may consist of one or more 

subassemblies and performs a specific function(s). (ASTM) 

not-built-for-purpose device -- Any electronic peripheral or auxiliary device or element which was not 

originally manufactured with the intent that it be used as, or part of, a weighing or measuring device or 

system. 

metrological software version (revision) – A designation that specifically defines the metrological 

software version used in a measuring instrument, system, or peripheral/auxiliary device with field 

programmable or downloadable metrological software). 

weighing device (instrument) -- A measuring instrument that serves to determine the mass of a body by 

using the action of gravity on said body. The instrument may also be used to determine other quantities, 

magnitudes, parameters or characteristics related to the determined mass. According to its method of 

operation, a weighing instrument is classified as an automatic or non-automatic instrument. (OIML R76) 

Amend the definition for built-for-purpose device as follows: 

built-for-purpose device – Any main, peripheral, or auxiliary device or element which was manufactured 

with the intent that it be used as, or part of, a weighing or measuring device or system. 

Amend General Code paragraph G-A.1. Commercial and Law Enforcement Equipment as follows: 

G-A.1. Commercial and Law Enforcement Equipment. - These specifications, tolerances, and other 

technical requirements apply as follows: 

(a) To commercial weighing and measuring devices or systems equipment; that is, to weights, and 

measures, and weighing and measuring devices or systems commercially used or employed in 

establishing the size, quantity, extent, area, or measurement of quantities, things, produce, or 

articles for distributed or consumed, purchased, offered, or submitted for sale, hire, or award, or 

in computing any basic charge or payment for services rendered on the basis of quantity 

determination weight or measure. 

(b) To any accessory attached to or used in connection with a commercial weighing or measuring 

device when such accessory is so designed that its operation affects the accuracy of the device. 

(c) To weighing and measuring devices or systems equipment in official use for the enforcement of 

law or for the collection of statistical information by government agencies.

(These requirements should be used as a guide by the weights and measures official when, upon 

request, courtesy examinations of noncommercial equipment are made.) 

Amend General Code paragraph G-S.1. Identification as follows: 

G-S.1. Identification. - All equipment, except weights and separate parts necessary to the measurement 

process, but not having any metrological effect, shall be clearly marked in accordance with Table G-S.1. 

for the purposes of identification, with the following information: 

(a) the name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor; 

(b) a model designation that positively identifies the pattern, or design, or metrological version or

revision of the device in accordance with Table G-S.1; 

NTEP - D5 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

(c) the model designation shall be prefaced by the term "Model," "Type," or "Pattern." These terms 

may be followed by the term "Number" or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the 

word "Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., No or No.). The abbreviation 

for the word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.”

[Nonretroactive January 1, 2003] 

(Added 2000) (Amended 2001) 

[Note: Prefix lettering may be initial capitals, all capitals or all lower case.] 

(d) except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts and not-built-for-purpose, 

software-based electronic devices, a nonrepetitive serial number; 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1968] 

(e) for not-built-for purpose, software-microprocessor-based devices the current software version 

designation or revision number;

(Added 2003)

(ef) the serial number shall be prefaced by words, an abbreviation, or a symbol that clearly identifies the 

number as the required serial number; and 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986] 

(fg) the serial number shall be prefaced by the words "Serial Number" or an abbreviation of that term. 

Abbreviations for the word "Serial" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "S," and 

abbreviations for the word "Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., S/N, SN, 

Ser. No, and S No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001] 

(gh) Ffor devices that have an NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC), the CC Number or a 

corresponding CC addendum number shall be prefaced by the terms "NTEP CC," "CC," or 

"Approval." These terms may be followed by the term "Number" or an abbreviation of that word. 

The abbreviation for the word "Number" shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter "N" (e.g., No or 

No.). 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2003] 

The required information shall be so located that it is readily observable without the necessity of the 

disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device. 

(Amended 1985, 1991, 1999, 2000, 2001 and 2003) 

Delete General Code paragraph G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-for-Purpose, 

Software-based Devices and renumber G-S.1.2. Remanufactured Devices and Remanufactured Main 

Elements as follows: 

G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not-Built-for-Purpose, Software-based Devices. - For notbuilt-for-purpose, software-based devices, the following shall apply: 

(a) the manufacturer or distributor and the model designation shall be continuously displayed or 

marked on the device (see note below), or

(b) the Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number shall be continuously displayed or marked on the 

device (see note below), or 

(c) all required information in G-S.1. Identification. (a), (b), (c), (e), and (h) shall be continuously 

displayed. Alternatively, a clearly identified “view only” System Identification, G-S.1. Identification, 

or Weights and Measures Identification shall be accessible through the “Help” menu. Required 

NTEP - D6 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

information includes that information necessary to identify that the software in the device is the 

same type that was evaluated.

Note: Clear instructions for accessing the remaining required G-S.1. information shall be listed on the 

CC. Required information includes that information necessary to identify that the software in the device 

is the same type that was evaluated.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2004]

(Added 2003)

G-S.1.12. Remanufactured Devices and Remanufactured Main Elements. - All remanufactured devices and 

remanufactured main elements shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purposes of identification 

with the following information: 

(a) The name, initials, or trademark of the last remanufacturer or distributor; 

(b) The remanufacturer's or distributor's model designation if different than the original model 

designation.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2002] 

(Added 2001) 

Note: Definitions for “manufactured device,” “repaired device,” and “repaired element” are also 

included (along with definitions for “remanufactured device” and “remanufactured element”) in 

Appendix D, Definitions. 

Add new Table G-S.1. Identification as follows: 

Table G-S.1. Identification

Built-for-Purpose

Instruments, Elements, or Systems

Not-Built-for-Purpose

Devices or Elements

Name, initials, or trademark of the 

manufacture or distributor M D2

Model designation M1 D2

Specific model designation3 M1 or D

Serial number M Not required

Metrological version or revision 

designation3 M or D NA D

Certificate of Conformance (CC) number M or D D2

M: Physically and permanently marked 

D: Either: (1) displayed by accessing a clearly identified view only System Identification, G-S.1. 

Identification, or Weights and Measures Identification accessible through the “Help” menu. Required 

information includes that information necessary to identify the software in the device is the same type 

that was evaluated, or

(2) continuously displayed. Note: For revision or software version number, clear instructions for 

accessing this information shall be listed on the CC in lieu of the “Help” menu. Required information 

includes that information necessary to identify the software in the device is the same or subsequent type 

that was evaluated.

(Nonretroactive as of January 2004)

NTEP - D7 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

Note 

1:

As a minimum, the model designation (positively identifying the pattern, design, type, series, generic, or 

trademark designation) must be marked on the device. If the model designation changes with differing

parameters such as size, features, options, intended application, not Handbook 44 compliant, 

construction, etc., the specific model designation shall be physically marked or continuously displayed 

or be capable of being displayed. 

(Nonretroactive as of January 200X)

Note 

2:

As a minimum, either the manufacturer or distributor and the model designation, or the CC Number 

shall be continuously displayed. Clear instructions for accessing the remaining required 

G-S.1.information shall be listed on the CC, which may be available as an unaltered copy of the CC or

printed by the device or through another on-site device.

(Nonretroactive as of January 200X)

Metrological version or revision designation for devices with downloadable or field programmable 

software.

Note 

3:

3. Ad Hoc Procedures for Class I and II Scales used in Prescription Filling Applications 

Source: 2003 NTETC Weighing Sector Agenda Item 14 b.

Background: See the 2003 S&T Committee Annual Report Item 320-2 for additional background information. 

During its 2003 Annual Meeting, the NCWM agreed to modify paragraph S.1.2.3. of NIST Handbook 44. The 

approved language was incorporated in the 2004 Edition of NIST Handbook 44. 

At its 2003 meeting, the Weighing Sector reviewed the language adopted by the 88th NCWM at its annual meeting 

and discussed a draft checklist developed by Brian Christopher (McKesson) that was distributed to the Sector. The 

Sector discussed the need to verify that minimum piece weight and piece count limits required by the new language 

in Handbook 44 are effective. Additionally, NTEP tests should be conducted with counts and loads that are less 

than the minimums in new paragraph S.1.2.3. that verify the scale is prevented from displaying a total piece count 

(e.g., 29 e and/or 9 pieces for samples to determine piece weights). There was a discussion that the scale cannot be 

recalibrated while evaluating the counting feature. The manufacturers explained that it is possible to have inaccurate 

weight measurements and still have correct count indications. Additionally, the recommended checklist should 

include verification of new marking requirements. 

At the request of the Sector, the Publication 14 evaluation checklist submitted by Brian Christopher was further 

developed with the assistance of the participating laboratories, the NTEP director, and the NIST technical advisor 

and was used on an ad hoc basis until the procedure could be fully evaluated and accepted by the Sector. 

The NTEP participating laboratories have used the ad hoc procedures on several evaluations this past year. Neither 

the applicants nor the laboratories identified any procedural issues. 

Discussion: The Weighing Sector discussed the ad hoc procedures and noted that they did not include a reference 

to Handbook 44 specification paragraph S.2.5.3. Class I and II Prescription Scales with a Counting Feature and 

recommended an amendment to the procedures to correct the omission. 

During the review of paragraph S.2.5.3., there was a discussion regarding motion detection requirements for 

recording elements that can print the number of pills when there is no display of weight in the counting mode. 

Currently, there is no language in the Scales Code that requires an effective means to permit the recording of count 

values when the count indication is stable. The Sector discussed the possibility of adding a motion detection 

requirement for the printing or recording of count. There was also a discussion questioning which “quantity” was 

required to have a stable indication. The Sector believes that the paragraph could be editorially amended to provide 

clarification that the term “quantity” is intended to be the sample quantity. 

The Sector also discussed the ad hoc procedure abbreviations for minimum sample size (MSS), minimum piece 

weight (MPW), and minimum sample size in weight (MSSW) and agreed to recommend the abbreviations be listed 

in Publication 14 Section 75 List of Acceptable Abbreviations/Symbols. 

NTEP - D8 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

Recommendation: The Weighing Sector recommends the ad hoc procedures, as amended by the Sector, be 

added to Publication 14 as shown in Appendix A agenda Item 3. 

The Sector also recommends that paragraph S.2.5.3. be editorially amended to clarify that the quantity 

placed on the load-receiving element is for sample piece weight determination as follows: 

S.2.5.3. Class I and Class II Prescription Scales with a Counting Feature. - A Class I or Class II 

prescription scale shall indicate to the operator when the piece weight computation is complete by a 

stable display of the sample quantity placed on the load-receiving element. 

Additionally, the Sector recommends amending paragraph S.2.5.1. Digital Indication Elements to clarify that 

the recording of indicated count values must be stable. 

S.2.5.3. Class I and Class II Prescription Scales with a Counting Feature. - A Class I or Class II 

prescription scale shall indicate to the operator when the piece weight computation is complete by a 

stable display of the sample quantity placed on the load-receiving element. Prescription scales with a 

counting feature and recording element shall be equipped with effective means to permit the recording of 

count values only when the indication is stable within plus or minus 1 piece.

4. S.1.1.c. Zero Indication (Marking Requirements) 

Source: 2003 Weighing Sector Agenda Item 19 - Screen Savers on Electronic Cash Registers and Point-of-Sale 

Systems. 

Background: See the Report of the 89th National Conference on Weights and Measures, NTEP Committee Report 

2003 NTETC Weighing Sector Meeting Summary agenda Item 19, and the S&T Committee Report agenda Item 

320-8 for additional background information. 

Discussion/Recommendation: The Sector reviewed the background information and accepted the 2004 S&T 

Committee interpretation of the intent of the 78th NCWM. However, the majority members of the Sector 

stated that no additional wording was needed since changes had already been added to Publication 14 that 

clarified that additional marking is required for weighing devices that use indications other than a digital 

zero to indicate the scale is operational and at a zero-balance condition. 

During the discussion, some of the Sector members stated that is not appropriate for the Sector to further 

develop the proposal when the S&T Committee interpretation answered the Sector's questions. Additionally, 

the Sector stated that commenting on S&T Committee agenda items that have no impact on type evaluation 

and Publication 14 have a low priority and are typically discussed at the end of the Sector meeting if time 

permits. 

The Sector recommends that no changes be made to the existing language in Handbook 44 Scales Code 

paragraph S.1.1. (c) Zero Indication. Additionally, the Sector did not have time at the end of its meeting to 

further discuss this item. 

New Items: 

5. Bench/Counter Scale Shift Test and Definitions 

Source: NIST WMD 

Background: During the 2002 meeting of the Weighing Sector, the NTEP director reported some confusion in the 

classification of bench/counter scales and other platforms and the location of test load while performing a shift test. 

Bench/counter and other platforms have different shift test positions depending if a scale is located on a counter or 

on the floor. The problem is compounded when a family of scales covers both bench/counter and other platform 

NTEP - D9 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

applications. Bench and counter scale shift tests are conducted with a one-half capacity test load centered 

successively at four points equidistant between the center and the front, left, back and the right edges of the loadreceiving element (N.1.3.1.). Other platform scale shift tests are conducted with a one-half capacity test load 

centered, as nearly as possible, successively at the center of each quadrant. 

The Weighing Sector proposal to amend Handbook 44 was intended to align the U.S. and Measurement Canada’s 

shift test procedures that are based on the number of load supports in the scale. During the 2003 NCWM Annual 

Meeting, the Specifications and Tolerance Committee (S&T) agreed with comments from industry and weights and 

measures officials that paragraphs N.1.3.1. and N.1.3.8. already adequately address shift test procedures and any 

change would create confusion. The Committee agreed that the proposal to modify the definition of counter scale, 

as written, does not provide weights and measures officials with a means to determine the shift test procedure that is 

appropriate for a scale design (single or four load supports). The Committee recognized the difficulty or reluctance 

of field officials to dismantle a scale to determine its design. Consequently, the Committee changed this item’s 

status to an information item and recommended the Weighing Sector consider the practice of including scale design 

information on all NTEP Certificates of Conformance to assist officials in performing shift tests. 

The NIST technical advisor revised the 2002 Sector proposal to remove the reference to the number of load 

supports, align Handbook 44 shift test procedures for scales with OIML R76, and delete the definition for bench and 

counter scales. The NTEP participating laboratories have been requested to conduct a series of tests on instruments 

currently under NTEP evaluation comparing shift test results between the current Handbook 44 procedures and the 

shift test procedures in the following proposal. Note: The proposal does not permit corner testing for scales less 

than or equal to 150 kg. This limit was selected since corner testing is allowed if there are not enough test weights 

to perform the shift test or if the scale has four load supports, and Table 4 Minimum Test Weights requires that 

scales with a capacity of 150 kg or less have test weights up to 100 % of the scale capacity. 

Proposal: Delete the definition of Bench and Counter Scale: 

bench scale. See "counter scale."[2.20]

counter scale. One that, by reason of its size, arrangement of parts, and moderate nominal capacity, is adapted 

for use on a counter or bench. Sometimes called "bench scale."[2.20]

Delete Scales Code paragraph N.1.3.1. Bench and Counter Scales: 

N.1.3.1. Bench or Counter Scales. - A shift test shall be conducted with a half-capacity test load centered 

successively at four points equidistant between the center and the front, left, back, and right edges of the 

load-receiving element.

Renumber remaining N.1.3.X paragraphs and amend paragraph N.1.3.8 as follows: 

N.1.3.78. All Other Scales Except Crane Scales, Hanging Scales, Hopper Scales, Wheel-Load Weighers, 

and Portable Axle-Load Weighers. - A shift test shall be conducted using the following prescribed test loads 

and test patterns. For livestock scales, the shift test load shall not exceed one-half the rated section 

capacity or one-half the rated concentrated load capacity, whichever is applicable. A shift test shall be 

conducted using either:

(a) A one-quarter nominal capacity test load centered as nearly as possible, successively over each 

main load support as shown in the diagram below; or

(Added 2003)

(b) A one-half nominal capacity test load centered as nearly as possible, successively at the center of 

each quarter of the load-receiving element as shown in the diagram below.

(a) For scales greater than 150 kg (300 lb) a shift test load may be conducted by either using one-third 

nominal capacity test load centered as nearly as possible at the center of each quarter of the load 

receiving element as shown in Figure 1 below, or by using a one-quarter nominal capacity test load 

NTEP - D10 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

centered as nearly as possible, successively over each corner of the weighing/load receiving element 

as shown in Figure 2 below. 

(b) For scales with a nominal capacity of 150 kg (300 lb) or less, a shift test load shall be conducted using 

a one-third nominal capacity test. The load shall be applied centrally in the segment if a single weight 

is used, or applied uniformly over the segment, if several small weights are used.

(c) For livestock scales, the shift test load shall not exceed one-half the rated section or concentrated load 

capacity using the prescribed test pattern as shown in Figure 1, or one-quarter the section or 

concentrated load capacity as shown in Figure 2 below.

 Figure 1 Figure 2 

3 

1 

4 

2 

3 

1 

4 

2 = Load Bearing Point 

(Amended 1987, and 2003, and 200X) 

Discussion/Recommendation: The NIST technical advisor reported that no data had been received by the 

time of the Sector meeting. The Weighing Sector continues to support aligning the shift test requirements in 

Handbook 44 with the equivalent requirements in OIML R76 Non-automatic Weighing Instrument to the 

fullest extent possible. 

The Sector agreed with the proposal and commented that the exact test load of one-third capacity is not 

required or necessary. They also agreed that the test load of one-third capacity in the recommended test 

positions is roughly equivalent to one-half capacity in the current test load position for bench and counter 

scales. Since the test positions for other platform scales are not changed in this proposal and are tested at 

one-third instead of one-half capacity, the Sector believes that data should be collected to verify that the 

proposed test load would not pass scales that would have failed under the current test load requirements. 

The Sector agreed to forward the above proposal as an information or developmental item to the regional 

weights and measures associations and the NCWM S&T Committee. The Sector further requests data 

demonstrating the performance differences or similarities between the current and proposed test procedures 

from the NTEP labs and other jurisdictions.

6. Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism (Zero-Tracking) 

Source: NIST WMD 

Background: During the 2002 meeting of the Weighing Sector discussion on shift test positions, the NTEP director 

reported some confusion in the classification of bench/counter scales and other platforms and the range of the 

automatic zero-setting mechanism (AZSM). Bench/counter and other platforms have different zero-tracking 

requirements depending if a scale is located on a counter or on the floor. The problem is compounded when a 

family of scales covers both bench/counter and other platform applications. Bench and counter scale limit for 

AZSM is 0.6 e (S.2.1.3.a). Other platform scales limit AZSM to 1.0 e (S.2.1.3.c). 

The NIST technical advisor and the participating NTEP laboratories recommended the following proposal to amend 

Handbook 44, Scales Code paragraph S.2.1.3. Scales Equipped with an Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism to 

remedy the problem and partially align AZSM requirements with Measurement Canada and OIML R76 

recommendations. The following proposal retains AZSM requirements for Class III L weighing instruments. 

NTEP - D11 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

S.2.1.3. Scales Equipped with an Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism (Zero Tracking). - Under normal 

operating conditions the maximum load that can be "rezeroed," when either placed on or removed from the 

platform all at once, shall be:

S.2.1.3.1. - For scales manufactured before January 1, 200X, the maximum load that can be "rezeroed," when 

either placed on or removed from the platform all at once under normal operating conditions, shall be: 

(a) for bench, counter, and livestock scales: 0.6 scale division; 

(b) for vehicle, axle-load, and railway track scales: 3.0 scale divisions; and 

(c) for all other scales: 1.0 scale division. 

[Nonretroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 1981] 

S.2.1.3.2. - For scales manufactured after January 1, 200X, the maximum load that can be "rezeroed," when 

either placed on or removed from the platform all at once under normal operating conditions, shall be: 

(a) for vehicle, axle-load, and railway track scales: 3.0 scale divisions; and

(b) for all other scales: 0.5 scale division.

[Nonretroactive and enforceable as of January 1, 200X]

S.2.1.3.31. Automatic Zero-Setting Mechanism (Zero Tracking) on Class III L Devices - Class III L devices 

equipped with automatic zero-setting mechanisms shall be designed with a sealable means to allow the 

automatic zero setting to be disabled during the inspection and test of the device. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 2001] 

(Added 1999) (Renumbered 200X) 

Discussion/Recommendation: The Sector agrees with the concept of the proposal and the alignment of 

Handbook 44 with OIML R76. The public Sector members discussed the implication the proposal may have 

on field officials in determining the date of manufacture of other platform scales (i.e., floor scales) when 

verifying compliance with AZSM (zero-tracking) requirements. Since other platform scales currently have a 

zero tracking requirement of 1 e, some of the public members were concerned about the ability of field 

officials to determine the date of manufacture of these scales to verify if it complied with 1 e or 0.5 e. 

The private Sector members were concerned with the effective date of the proposed requirements and 

suggested a delay of several years in the effective date. This would allow manufacturers to avoid costly 

changes to their products that are nearing the end of their production cycle. This may also allow time for 

field officials to become trained in the requirements before the requirement becomes effective. 

The Sector recommended this item be forwarded to the regional weights and measures association and the 

NCWM S&T Committee as a developmental item in order to gather information on the impact on field 

evaluations. 

7. Prescription Scale with an Operational Counting Feature 

Source: Mettler Toledo 

Background: Handbook 44, paragraph S.6.6. Counting Feature, Minimum Individual Piece Weight and Minimum 

Sample Piece Count states: 

S.6.6. Counting Feature, Minimum Individual Piece Weight and Minimum Sample Piece Count – A 

Class I or Class II prescription scale with an operational counting feature shall be marked with the minimum 

NTEP - D12 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

individual piece weight and minimum number of pieces used in the sample to establish an individual piece 

weight. 

This marking is unnecessary if proper operation is confirmed during the NTEP evaluation using the defined 

minimum values since paragraph S.1.2.3. states: 

S.1.2.3. A Class I or Class II prescription scale with an operational counting feature shall not calculate a piece 

weight or total count unless the sample used to determine the individual piece weight meets the conditions: 

minimum individual piece weight is greater than or equal to 3 e; and 

minimum sample piece count is greater than or equal to 10 pieces. 

(Added 2003) 

During the NTEP evaluation, a series of tests are conducted to determine these values as a minimum operation 

requirement. These tests could also be conducted in the field to confirm continued compliance with this 

requirement. 

For example: 

• A test weight equal to 30 e or more is placed on the platter; a sample size of less then 10 is entered or 

selected. If the device displays a total count, the instrument fails the test. 

• A test weight of less than 30 e is placed on the platter; a sample size of 10 or more is entered or selected. If 

the device displays a total count, the instrument fails the test. 

• A test weight of less than 30 e is placed on the platter; a sample size of less than 10 is entered or selected. 

If the device displays a total count, the instrument fails the test. 

• A test weight equal to 30 e is placed on the platter; a sample size of 10 is entered or selected. If the device 

displays the proper count, the instrument passes and the marking requirements are waived. If the 

evaluation shows that the minimum sample weight must be greater than 30 e or the sample size must be 

greater than 10 for the instrument to perform an accurate count, the marking requirements are mandatory. 

It is certainly within a scale's ability to compare the operator entered or selected, the sample size to ensure that the 

number is 10 or greater, and then to divide the weight on the platter to ensure that the sample weight is equal to or 

greater than 30 increments. The above test examples would confirm compliance to this requirement and remove the 

need to have this information marked on the scale. 

The submitter of this item recommended amending Handbook 44, Scales Code, S.6.6. to remove the marking 

requirements for the minimum individual piece weight and minimum number of pieces providing the instrument 

conforms to both individual minimum values as stated in paragraph S.1.2.3. as follows: 

S.6.6. Counting Feature, Minimum Individual Piece Weight and Minimum Sample Piece Count – A 

Class I or Class II prescription scale with an operational counting feature shall be marked with the minimum 

individual piece weight and minimum number of pieces used in the sample to establish an individual piece 

weight if the minimum individual piece weight or the minimum number of pieces used to establish an 

individual piece weight is different from that specified in S.1.2.3. a and b. 

NOTE: The NIST technical advisor suggests the Sector consider the potential confusion created or implications 

involved if an applicant submits a scale with minimums smaller than specified in S.1.2.3. a and b. 

Discussion/Recommendation: Mettler Toledo withdrew this item from the Weighing Sector agenda since the 

proposal did not relate to problems encountered with Publication 14 type evaluation procedures. 

Additionally, there was no additional time at the end of the meeting to further discuss this item. 

NTEP - D13 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

8. “#” Symbol 

Source: Rice Lake Weighing Systems (RLWS)

Background: NCWM Publication 14 Section 75 List of Acceptable Abbreviations/Symbols lists “#” as an 

acceptable (but discouraged) symbol for recorded representations for electronic cash registers (ECR) and 

point-of-sale systems. RLWS reasons that if the symbol is suitable for recorded representations for ECRs, 

there is no justification for its prohibition for other recorded representations or markings. It should either be 

Acceptable or Not Acceptable. 

According to the 61st NCWM Annual Report, the “#” was originally allowed in 1976 because of space 

limitations on recording elements. The “#” only took up one column where “lb” took two columns. The 

“#”was also allowed since it was reported that it is used in the dictionary. 

The NIST technical advisor also noted the symbol is known by many names such as the octothorp, dry pound, 

avoirdupois pound, number, hash, sharp, crunch, hex, grid, crosshatch, square, pig-pen, ticktacktoe, scratch 

mark, thud, thump, and splat. In cartography, it is the symbol for a village (eight fields around a central 

square). The U.S. usage is derived from an old-fashioned commercial practice of using a "#" suffix to tag pound 

weights on bills of lading. Outside the U.S., the symbol is usually pronounced "hash" (the British symbol for 

pound is “£”). 

The submitter recommends the “#” symbol be removed from Publication 14 as an acceptable symbol and be 

reclassified as no longer acceptable based upon the changes in printer technology over the past 30 years and multiple 

definitions of the “#” mark. Additionally, Handbook 44 Scales Code footnote for paragraph S.1.8.4. Recorded 

Representations, Point-of-Sale Systems should be amended to eliminate the use of the “#” symbol as follows: 

1

Weight values shall be identified by kilogram, kg, grams, g, ounces, oz, pound, or lb, or the sign "#." For 

devices interfaced with scales indicating in metric units, the unit price may be expressed in price per 100 grams. 

(Amended 200X) 

Discussion/Recommendation: The Weighing Sector agreed that the “#” symbol should be removed from 

Publication 14 as an acceptable symbol and be reclassified as no longer acceptable based upon the changes in 

printer technology over the past 30 years and multiple definitions of the “#” mark. Additionally, Handbook 

44 Scales Code footnote for paragraph S.1.8.4. Recorded Representations, Point-of-Sale Systems should be 

amended to eliminate the use of the “#” symbol as follows: 

1

 Weight values shall be identified by kilogram, kg, grams, g, ounces, oz, pound, or lb, or the sign "#." 

For devices interfaced with scales indicating in metric units, the unit price may be expressed in price per 

100 grams. 

(Amended 200X) 

9. Elimination of Temperature Testing for Separable Weighing/load-receiving Elements 

Source: Rice Lake Weighing Systems (RLWS) 

Background: RLWS reported temperature testing (influence factor) failures of separable weighing/load-receiving 

elements that incorporate load cells that have an NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC). RLWS builds the 

instrument to be submitted for tests using load cells from their inventory, installs them into a weighing/loadreceiving element, and performs the room temperature testing before submitting the instrument to the NTEP 

laboratory for evaluation. The instrument passes all applicable tests performed at room temperature but fails the 

temperature test. RLWS reported that the load cells are from a well-known and respected load cell manufacturer. 

 

NTEP - D14 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

When RLWS contacted the load cell manufacturer, they responded by stating, “You should have told us these load 

cells were for NTEP testing.” RLWS stated that the load cell manufacturer will send them four “GOLDEN” load 

cells that have been separately temperature tested to enable the weighing/load receiving element to pass temperature 

testing. RLWS further stated that it takes between 4 to 6 weeks or longer to receive load cells if they are requested 

for a weighing/load-receiving element to be submitted for NTEP evaluation. 

An NTEP laboratory reported to RLWS that load cell manufacturers told other weighing/load-receiving element 

NTEP applicants the same thing after their weighing/load-receiving element failed the NTEP temperature testing. 

RLWS does not believe that separable weighing/load-receiving elements using load cells that have an NTEP CC 

should be subject to additional temperature testing for the following reasons: 

• Weighing/load receiving elements over 2000 lb are not subject temperature testing by NTEP; 

• The NCWM Conformity Assessment program will help assure that production load cells comply with 

temperature and other influence factor requirements; and 

• The costs associated with the temperature test for the weighing/load-receiving element can become 

excessive when the load cells already comply with temperature tests, especially if there is a failure. RLWS 

has provided a breakdown of NTEP costs associated with the temperature test using the Ohio NTEP 

laboratory rate schedule. 

RLWS acknowledged that Measurement Canada does not approve load cells and that temperature testing may still 

be required for an evaluation approval under the Mutual Recognition Agreement. 

The NIST technical advisor has contacted two load cell manufacturers and inquired what they did to provide a scale 

applicant with “golden” load cells. They reported that they retest and select the load cells that are well within the 

error requirements. They also acknowledged that load cells are NTEP evaluated in ideal loading conditions. There 

are no load cell tests that simulate off-center loading caused by deflection of the load-receiving element and changes 

to the mechanical interface at different temperatures between the load cell mount and the load-receiving element. 

RLWS recommended amending Publication 14 by removing the temperature testing of separable bench and other 

platform weighing/load receiving elements and establishing a new tolerance for these devices while tested at room 

temperature. 

Time Cost Description 

1 hour $110 Set-up of weighing/load-receiving element 

2 hours $220 Full test (increasing/decreasing, shift, corner) 

Increasing/decreasing at temperature. –10 o 1 hour $110 (FAIL) 

Chamber $200 Billed for a half cycle of the temperature chamber 

1 hour $110 Ship weighing/load-receiving element back to manufacturer 

* Ship weighing/load-receiving element back to manufacturer 

* Order “GOLDEN” load cells to pass temperature tests 

* Remove original load cells, install new load cells, and re-test at room temp 

* Ship weighing/load receiving element back to lab 

1 hour $110 Setup of weighing/load receiving element 

2 hours $220 Full test (increasing/decreasing, shift, corner) 

1 hour $110 Increasing/decreasing at temperature. 

Total $1190 Costs to the point where the failure occurred 

* Additional time to complete an evaluation and applicant costs 

NTEP - D15 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

Divisions 

Acceptance Tolerances 

Complete Weighing 

Device 

Acceptance Tolerances 

Weighing/load-receiving 

Element with Temp 

Testing 

Acceptance Tolerances 

Weighing/load-receiving Element only 

room Temp Testing 

0 to 500 0.5 e 0.35 e 0.30 e (proposed)

501 to 2000 1.0 e 0.70 e 0.60 e (proposed)

2001 to 4000 1.5 e 1.05 e 0.70 e (proposed)

4001 to 10 000 2.0 e 1.40 e 0.80 e (proposed)

This recommended new tolerance applies to weighing/load-receiving elements that meet the following criteria: 

1. Weighing elements must have NTEP-approved load cells with an nmax of 5000 and must be approved for 

temperatures –10 °C to + 40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F). 

2. Weighing elements Certificate of Conformance (CC) will specify the load cell used during the evaluation 

and state that a similar NTEP-approved load cell could be used. 

NOTE: The replacement load cell must have an nmax of 5000 and be approved for temperatures –10 °C to 

+40 °C (14 °F to 104 °F). 

 

The Weighing Sector should consider that the proposed change to amend Publication 14 tolerances for 

weighing/load-receiving elements tested at room temperature would likely require supporting language in NIST 

Handbook 44. Additionally, the proposal, as submitted, will continue to require temperature testing if the load cell 

does not have an NTEP CC or if the load cells have a temperature range other than –10 °C to 40° C. 

The technical advisor seeks input from manufacturers that are holders of OIML R76 test reports conducted by other 

international laboratories and information on the international policies regarding the testing of these devices that use 

OIML R60 load cells. 

Discussion: During the discussion of this item, the NIST technical advisor reported that load cell manufacturers do 

not make special cells for weighing/load-receiving elements that are submitted for type evaluation. The load cell 

manufacturers reported that they select load cells with errors that are well within the maximum permissible errors if 

they know a weighing/load-receiving element is to be submitted for type evaluation. 

Some of the NTEP participating laboratories reported that they continue to see problems with weighing/loadreceiving elements during the influence factor tests that do not comply with tolerances. The NTEP applicants have 

stated that the materials used in the construction of weighing/load-receiving elements and components in load cell 

junction boxes that are affected by influence factors were the reason the device failed influence factor testing. 

A manufacturer commented that weighing/load-receiving elements above 2000 lb are also required to comply with 

influence factor requirements and suggested that NTEP perform testing above the 2000 lb limit. Another 

manufacturer stated that international laboratories testing for compliance with OIML R76 for Non-automatic 

Weighing Instruments do not evaluate weighing/load-receiving elements above 1000 kg (2000 lb). Additionally, the 

manufacturer reported that R76 used a different apportion of errors for evaluation of elements (modules) that 

reduced the problems encountered by NTEP. 

The NTEP director expressed concern with the current apportionment of errors for separable elements and load 

cells. The load cells used in weighing/load-receiving elements have an “M” (multiple load cell application) 

designation, which means that a 1.0 factor is applied to the applicable tolerance. This may present a problem with 

weighing/load-receiving elements since they are evaluated to a tighter tolerance (0.7 time the applicable tolerance) 

than the load cells. 

Recommendation: Based upon the discussion and comments, the submitter withdrew its proposal. 

NTEP - D16 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

10. Time Dependence Tolerances 

Source: NIST WMD and NTEP Laboratories 

Background: John Elengo, in his comparison of Handbook 44, OIML R76 – Non-automatic Weighing 

Instruments, and OIML R60 – Load Cells, provided the following background information on the development and 

evolution of Handbook 44 Scales Code T.N.4.5. Time Dependence. 

Prior to the establishment of Handbook 44 paragraph T.N.4.5., there was no such U.S. requirement for “creep” 

and, at the time of its consideration, the OIML requirement was based on a 4-hour period. This was considered 

excessive, especially since the error is primarily that of the load cells used in a scale. Generally, the greatest 

amount of load cell creep occurs during a short period (minutes) immediately following a step change in load. 

Thereafter, the output becomes more and more constant. Hence, Handbook 44 adopted a 1-hour requirement 

rather than a 4-hour requirement. Some years later and during the course of revising OIML R60, it became 

evident that most international evaluation laboratories were not conducting the 4-hour test but a shorter one, and 

the creep proved to stabilize sufficiently during this shorter test. The assumption was made that it would meet 

the 4-hour requirement. This assumption was verified by sample tests. Based on this experience and that 

gained in the international comparison of load cell evaluations, the international work group for R60 concluded 

that a 30-minute test is sufficient provided that, in addition to measuring the difference over a 30-minute period, 

the difference occurring in the last 10 minutes of this period be measured also. A more restrictive allowance 

than the total allowance for the 30-minute period is applied to the 10-minute period difference in order to assure 

the creep is becoming more and more constant and not increasing. OIML R76 adopted the R60 30-minute 

requirement. In so doing, the requirement now applies to the instrument as a whole and not only to the load 

cell. If main components other than the load cell are a source of creep, they can be accounted for using the 

principle of apportionment of errors (including the assignment of fractions pi to those various separate main 

components of an instrument that can be evaluated separately). [refer to R76-1, 3.5.4] 

This item was further discussed at the 2004 meeting of the NTEP participating laboratories where they agreed to 

forward a proposal to align Handbook 44 with R76 and R60. However, there was some discussion about the 

accuracy class marking for load cells (A, B, C, and D). Steve Patoray indicated that OIML recommended load cells 

be marked with letter accuracy class designations so that load cells would not be confused with scales. This is 

consistent with the NTEP policy that a load cell by itself does not constitute a weighing/load-receiving element. The 

labs felt that there would be confusion by field inspectors if scales could have load cells marked with either an alpha 

or numeric accuracy class. 

The NIST technical advisor recommended amending paragraph T.N.4.5. and adding new paragraphs T.N.4.5.1. and 

T.4.5.2. to include performance and zero return requirements that are aligned with OIML R76 and R60 as follows: 

T.N.4.5. Time Dependence (Creep) for Non-automatic Weighing Instruments (Scales) during Type 

Evaluation. - At constant test conditions, the indication 20 seconds after the application of a load and the indication 

after 1 hour shall not differ by more than: 

(a) one-half of the absolute value of the applicable tolerance for the applied load for class III L devices; and

(b) the absolute value of the applicable tolerance for the applied load for all other devices.

(Amended 1989)

T.N.4.5.1. A non-automatic weighing instrument of Class II, III, and IIII shall meet the following requirements 

at constant test conditions:

(a) When any load is kept on an instrument, the difference between the indication obtained immediately 

after placing a load and the indication observed during the following 30 minutes shall not exceed 0.5 e. 

(b) However, the difference between the indication obtained at 15 minutes and that at 30 minutes shall not 

exceed 0.2 e. If these conditions are not met, the difference between the indication obtained 

NTEP - D17 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

immediately after placing a load on the instrument and the indication observed during the following 

four hours shall not exceed the absolute value of the maximum permissible error at the load applied.

(c) The deviation on returning to zero as soon as the indication has stabilized, after the removal of any 

load which has remained on the instrument for one half hour, shall not exceed 0.5 e.

 For a multi-interval instrument, the deviation shall not exceed 0.5 e1 (first weighing segment).

On a multiple range instrument, the deviation on returning to zero from Maxi (load in the applicable weighing 

range) shall not exceed 0.5 ei (interval of the weighing segment). Furthermore, after returning to zero from any 

load greater than Max1 (capacity of the first weighing range) and immediately after switching to the lowest 

weighing range, the indication near zero shall not vary by more than e1 (interval of the first weighing range) 

during the following 5 minutes.

T.N. 4.5.2. A weighing instrument of Class III L shall meet the following requirements:

(a) When any load is kept on an instrument, the difference between the indication obtained immediately 

after placing a load and the indication observed during the following 30 minutes shall not exceed 1.5 e. 

(b) However, the difference between the indication obtained at 15 minutes and that at 30 minutes shall not 

exceed 0.6 e. If these conditions are not met, the difference between the indication obtained 

immediately after placing a load on the instrument and the indication observed during the following 

four hours shall not exceed the absolute value of the maximum permissible error at the load applied.

The deviation on returning to zero as soon as the indication has stabilized, after the removal of any load which has 

remained on the instrument for one-half hour, shall not exceed one-half of the absolute value of the applicable 

tolerance for the applied load for Class III L devices.

Add new paragraphs T.N.4.6. through T.N.4.6.3. and Table T.N.4.6.2. to include tolerances for load performance 

and zero repeatability that are aligned with OIML R60.

T.N.4.6. Time Dependence (Creep) for Load Cells during Type Evaluation. – A load cell (force transducer) 

marked with an accuracy class, shall meet the following requirements at constant test conditions:

T.N. 4.6.1. - With a constant maximum load for the measuring range, Dmax, between 90 % and 100 % of 

maximum capacity, Emax, applied to the load cell, the difference between the initial reading and any reading 

obtained during the next 30 minutes shall not exceed the absolute value of the maximum permissible error 

(mpe) for the applied load (see N.4.6.2.). The difference between the reading obtained at 20 minutes and 

the reading obtained at 30 minutes shall not exceed 0.15 times the absolute value of the mpe (see N.4.6.2.).

T.N.4.6.2. - The mpe for creep shall be determined from Table 5 using the following apportionment factors 

(pLC):

 

pLC = 0.7 for load cells marked with S (single load cell applications), and

pLC = 1.0 for load cells marked with M (multiple load cell applications)

Table T.N.4.6.2. Maximum Permissible Errors (mpe) on Type Evaluation

Tolerance Load (m)

(mpe) Class I Class II Class III Class IIII

pLC x 0.5v 0 ≤ 50 000v 0 ≤ m ≤ 5000v 0 ≤ m ≤ 500v 0 ≤ m ≤ 50

pLC x 1.0v 50 001v ≤ m ≤ 200 000v 5001v ≤ m ≤ 20 000v 501v ≤ m ≤ 2000v 51v ≤ m ≤ 200v

pLC x 1.5v 200 001v < m 20 001v ≤ m ≤ 100 000v 2001v ≤ m ≤ 10 000v 201v ≤ m ≤ 1000v

Load m, Class III L

NTEP - D18 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

pLC x 0.5v 0 ≤ m ≤ 500v 

pLC x 1.0v 501 ≤ m ≤ 1000v * 

* Add 0.7 to the tolerance for each 500 v of load or fraction thereof up to a maximum load of 10 000 v for load cells 

marked with S. 

* Add 1.0 to the tolerance for each 500 v of load or fraction thereof up to a maximum load of 10 000 v for load cells 

marked with M. 

The NIST technical advisor acknowledges that this proposal and the proposal in the following agenda item address 

the alignment issue in small steps. Another possible alternative for aligning Handbook 44 and Publication 14 with 

OIML R60 is to consider incorporating OIML R60 chapters 1 through 7 by reference into Handbook 44 and OIML 

R60 Annexes A through E into Publication 14. Handbook 44 and Publication 14 could further include paragraphs 

that state which requirements are not adopted, are different than, or are in addition to OIML R60. 

Discussion/Recommendation: The Weighing Sector discussed the impact and implications of amending the 

marking requirements for load cells to align with the marking requirements in OIML R60 (see applicable 

extracts of OIML R60 marking requirements and selection guidelines in Appendix A). One of the Sector 

members noted that the proposal for time dependence testing did not include Class I scales (Note: OIML R76 

does not require Class I scales comply with time dependence (creep) requirements). However, the current 

language in Handbook 44 paragraph TN.4.5. includes Class I scales. 

The Sector withdrew this item from the Weighing Sector agenda since the proposal did not relate to problems 

encountered with Publication 14 type evaluation procedures. Additionally, there was no time at the end of 

the meeting to further discuss this item. 

11. Publication 14 Force Transducer (Load Cell) Family and Selection Criteria 

Source: NTEP Committee Technical Advisor 

Background: The OIML Mutual Acceptance Agreement (MAA) was adopted at a recent International Committee 

on Legal Metrology (CIML) meeting in Kyoto, Japan, in November 2003. The agreement will likely allow NTEP to 

accept (and eventually exchange) reports and test data for load cells that have been evaluated to OIML R60 – Load 

Cells requirements. The data then can be evaluated to NCWM Publication 14 requirements in order to issue an 

NTEP Certificate of Conformance. Although the MAA does not require the U.S. and NTEP requirements to be fully 

harmonized and aligned with the requirements in R60, it does require that NTEP identify the differences between 

the requirements so that an OIML applicant is aware of additional testing and policies applicable to its load cells 

such as markings, Class III L tolerances, and family and selection guidelines. 

Additionally, the original NTEP Publication 14 load cell family and selection guidelines were originally developed 

prior the adoption of similar guidelines in the 2000 revision of OIML R60. John Elengo and the U.S. National Work 

Group developed and submitted the guidelines that are currently in R60. 

The NIST technical advisor recommended that the selection guidelines and definition of a load cell family in 

OIML R60 be incorporated in NCWM Publication 14 to the fullest extent possible. Additionally, it was suggested 

that the Sector consider making a recommendation to adopting the R60 marking requirements into Handbook 44. 

The primary difference between R60 and Handbook 44 are markings for humidity and accuracy classes. The R60 

class markings for load cells are A, B, C, and D. Handbook 44 class markings for load cells are the same for scales 

and load cells (I, II, III, III L and IIII). It has been reported that the purpose of different class markings for R60 

load cells was to ensure that a load cell and indicating element would not be considered a non-automatic weighing 

instrument. This is consistent with the NTEP policy stating that a load cell incorporated with a tank, hopper, hook 

or platform does not convey that the load cell (and indicating element) CC covers the complete weighing system. 

Discussion: The NTEP director summarized the current NTEP load cell selection process as follows: 

• One load cell would be selected if the family is small (e.g., 10:1). 

NTEP - D19 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

• The capacity selected would be close to the middle of the family and within 4:1 of the highest and lowest 

capacity load cell in the family. 

Using this process, NTEP typically selects a capacity that is not the most difficult to manufacture but is likely to be 

the most popular. The R60 selection process typically selects load cells of a lower capacity, which are more difficult 

to build and manufacture. The NTEP system is significantly different from international requirements. 

Several of the load cell manufacturers present agreed that the lowest capacity load cell is the most difficult to 

manufacturer. One of the manufacturers further stated that he believes the OIML R60 selection process is more 

stringent. However, the OIML R60 family definition is broader than NTEP, and they have not seen an increase or 

decrease in the number of cells submitted for evaluation. 

Recommendation: The Weighing Sector agreed to assign a work group (Stephen Patoray (NTEP), Steven Cook 

(NIST), the NIST Force Group, Joseph Antkowiak (Flintec), Frank Rusk (Coti), and the California NTEP 

laboratory) to: 

1. Develop the definition of a family, determine load cell selection criteria, and develop an example of a 

load cell selection for 2005 NCWM Interim Meeting. 

2. Review and adapt OIML R60 language for incorporation into Publication 14 for the next meeting of 

the Weighing Sector. 

The NIST technical advisor will forward an electronic copy of OIML R60 to assist the work group members. 

12. Compatibility of Indicators Interfaced with Weighing and Measuring Elements 

Source: NTETC Measuring Sector and NCWM S&T Committee 

Background: See the Report for the 89th National Conference on Weights and Measures, Specifications and 

Tolerances Committee Agenda Item 310-2 for additional background information. 

During its 2003 meeting, the NTETC Measuring Sector agreed to forward a proposal to the NCWM S&T 

Committee through the SWMA to add a new paragraph G-N.3. Compatibility of Indicators and Weighing or 

Measuring Elements to Handbook 44. The proposal intended to clarify what requirements must be met to interface 

an indicating element and a weighing or measuring element, each of which has its own NTEP CC listing compatible 

communication specifications, but not previously evaluated together on a single NTEP CC. 

At the 2004 NCWM Interim Meeting, the S&T Committee heard several comments indicating that this item is not 

sufficiently developed to move forward. The S&T Committee decided to withdraw Item 310-2 from the S&T 

Committee agenda until it is further developed and resubmitted by the NTETC Weighing and Measuring Sectors. 

Discussion: The Weighing Sector reviewed the background information. The NIST technical advisor reported that 

an ad hoc meeting may be scheduled on Saturday, October 23, 2004, with the Measuring Sector members attending 

the Southern Weights and Measures Association meeting in Gulfport, Mississippi, to discuss this item. 

The Weighing Sector agreed with the NTEP director that the policies used by the NTETC Measuring Sector are very 

restrictive. Members of the Measuring Sector want to have policies for measuring elements that are as flexible as 

existing Weighing Sector policies. Weighing device policies permit separate main elements (e.g., indicators, load 

cells, and weighing elements) with separate NTEP Certificates of Conformance to be combined—a practice referred 

to as "mixing and matching"—to create weighing systems which are recognized by NTEP. 

The representatives from Canada reported that their liquid-measuring device type evaluation laboratory performs 

additional evaluations on the pulse output from the measuring element and the pulse input capability of the 

indicating element. NTEP essentially evaluates the performance of the combination of elements. 

NTEP - D20 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

Some of the Weighing Sector members believed that the proposal belongs in the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code. 

They also were concerned that the terms “previously evaluated” and “Handbook 44 compliant ticket” are not clear 

and need further development. Another concern expressed by the Weighing Sector was that the proposed language 

in G-N.3. (a) could be interpreted to mean that all combinations of communication means between elements would 

have to be evaluated without adequate Handbook 44 standards and Publication 14 tests. 

Other Weighing Sector members believed `there are no significant compatibility issues with weighing devices. 

Separable indicating and weighing/load receiving elements will either work correctly (if properly installed and 

configured) or not be operable. The NTEP director discussed the fact that NTEP does have an issue with the 

compatibility of separable indicating and weighing/load receiving elements, especially with vehicle scales with 

several load cells. OIML R76 evaluates the minimum voltage per scale verification division, which has not been 

adopted in Handbook 44 and Publication 14. The combination of separable indicating and weighing/load-receiving 

elements would not be a suitable combination if the signal from the weighing/load-receiving element were too small 

for the indicating element. The resultant combination will appear to perform correctly; however, it may no longer 

comply with influence factors and have a zone of uncertainty that would be too large to display a stable weight. 

The Weighing Sector also stated that they do not fully understand liquid-measuring device technology compatibility 

issues (i.e., pulse counting compatibility, partially compatible digital communications, and applicable NTEP liquidmeasuring device testing) to give additional input on the proposal. 

Recommendation: The Sector believes that the proposal is not appropriate for weighing devices since the 

language could require all combinations of devices and communications be evaluated. The Weighing Sector 

agrees with the Measuring Sector that this is not the intent of the proposed language. 

The Sector supports the joint meeting of the NTETC Weighing and Measuring Sector members who are 

attending the 2004 SWMA Technical Conference. If the Sectors agree on the issues and proposal, then the 

proposal can be placed in the General Code; otherwise, any proposals should remain in the specific codes. If 

there is no clear consensus of that meeting, the Measuring Sector could request a separate work group to 

develop a proposal to address the compatibility of multiple elements issue. 

13. Handbook 44 Computing Scales Interfaced with an Electronic Cash Register 

Source: NTEP Participating Laboratories 

Background: Field inspectors have reported to one of the NTEP laboratories that they are finding computing scales 

interfaced with electronic cash registers (ECR) where an ECR will accept weighing results from the computing 

scale, use the ECR's price look-up (PLU) to retrieve tare and unit price information, and calculate the total price. 

The inspectors have reported that a different unit price, tare, and total price may already be entered and displayed on 

the computing scale. What the customer sees on the display of the computing scale (the net weight, unit price, and 

total price) may not be what the customer is actually charged and printed on the ECR receipt. The NTEP 

laboratories have reported that at least three companies have requested this method of operation for NTEP 

certification. 

In one example, the scale manufacturer is marketing the computing scale as a point-of-sale scale for use with an 

ECR. The computing scale has push button tare, percent tare, PLUs, gross/net display, and memory recall. The 

company wants to amend its CC to allow the scale's use in general applications and for use with an ECR. The 

company notes that this is one of the most important selling features for its product line. It gives the operator the 

ability to quote the price of an item without having to "ring it up" on the ECR. 

The operation is addressed in Sections 11.15. to 11.21. of the 2004 Publication 14 Electronic Cash Registers 

Interfaced with Scales (ECRS) checklist. If the ECR were setup to meet the requirements of those sections there 

wouldn't be a problem. The company does not want to burden the end user with using a compatible ECR designed 

to work with a computing scale. The company stated that the computing scale, interfaced with an ECR, is already 

approved by a weights and measures jurisdiction. 

NTEP - D21 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

The NTEP laboratories believe NIST Handbook 44 needs clarification in this area and are proposing the following 

paragraph be added to the Scales Code to address those areas already noted in NCWM Publication 14: 

S.1.8.5. Computing Scale Interfaced to a Cash Register. - A computing scale may interface with a cash 

register provided:

(a) The cash register only records (serves as a printer) the information received from the scale.

(b) The computing scale has tare capability.

(c) The computing scale is not equipped with PLU capability.

(d) The electronic cash register does not have any input to the computing scale in the process of 

determining the total price of a weighed item.

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the background information and proposed language for NIST Handbook 44. The 

Maryland participating laboratory added that in the example they encountered, a unit price that would be displayed 

on the scale would be different than the unit price associated with product look-up code in the electronic cash 

register. Tares can also be overridden. The device was subsequently submitted for NTEP evaluation and the 

identified problems were corrected. The participating laboratories believe there is no problem with the test 

performed in Publication 14; however, they stated that the field inspector does not have the information contained in 

Publication 14 and has not been trained to look for the problems identified in the background information. 

Several Sector members stated that the Maryland field officials properly identified a problem with the agreement of 

indications, noted that the ECR and computing scale Certificates of Conformance did not list this combination of 

interfaces, and took appropriate corrective actions. 

Recommendation: The Sector agreed not to recommend the proposed changes to NIST Handbook 44 since 

there are currently appropriate means in Handbook 44 (G-S.5. Indicating and Recording Elements and 

G-S.2. Facilitation of Fraud), and the examination procedure outlines address these issues during field 

evaluation. 

14. Publication 14 Requirements for Computing Scales Interfaced with an Electronic Cash 

Register 

Source: NTEP Participating Laboratories 

Background: In addition to the background information in the above agenda item for computing scales interfaced 

with an electronic cash register (ECR), many computing scale manufacturers are not aware of the computing scale 

and ECR interface requirements in the ECRS checklist (electronic cash register interfaced with scales) in NCWM 

Publication 14. Also, there are no guidelines in the Digital Electronic Scales (DES) checklist to direct them to the 

appropriate language in the ECRS checklist. 

The participating laboratories recommend that NCWM Publication 14 DES and ECRS be amended to: 

1. Put a check box in the Publication 14 DES checklist that will state that the computing scale interfaced to an 

ECR meets the applicable requirements in the ECRS checklist, and 

 

2. Add to the ECRS checklist: “If the scale has multiple sales accumulation capability, only weighed items 

are accumulated and the cash register only records the total accumulated price.” 

Discussion: The Sector discussed the proposal to amend Publication 14. The Sector agreed the addition to the DES 

checklist was appropriate. However, the Sector was concerned about the ability of a computing scale to have an 

operational accumulation capability while it was interfaced with an ECR because the receipt on an ECR itemizes 

purchases made by the customer, however the items that are accumulated on the computing scale would not be 

itemized in the ECR receipt. 

NTEP - D22 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

Recommendation: The Sector recommends that Publication 14 DES checklist be amended as proposed by 

the NTEP laboratories and that the proposal to amend the ECRS checklist be amended to require the 

computing scale accumulation capability be disabled if it can be interfaced with an ECR (“If the scale has 

multiple sales accumulation capability, only weighed items are accumulated and the cash register only 

records the total accumulated price, or the scale accumulation capability is disabled”.). The NIST technical 

advisor further recommended an editorial change to the ECRS checklist by renumbering paragraphs 11.15. 

through 11.21. to 11.15.1. through 11.5.7. to clarify the requirements are for computing scales interfaced with 

an ECR. The proposed recommendation to amend Publication 14 is in Appendix A, agenda Item 14. 

15. Publication 14 - Computing Scale Section 

Source: NTEP Participating Laboratories 

Background: The Weighing Sector discussed a Maryland NTEP laboratory proposal to clarify display 

identification, label formatting, and the use of other features (pre-pack, POS application, etc.) The NTEP 

laboratories agreed the computing scale section of the DES checklist lacks clarity in these areas. 

The Maryland NTEP laboratory drafted amendments to NCWM Publication 14 DES Section 27 that clarifies 

checklist requirements for price computing scales. 

Discussion: The Sector agreed with the proposal from the Maryland NTEP laboratory and reviewed the examples 

of correct and incorrect labels for compliance with applicable sections of NIST Handbook 130 Uniform Packaging 

and Labeling Regulation, including the use of “unit price” on the printed labels. The Sector suggested that the 

proposal be amended to correct the examples of correct labels that do no have a kg, lb, or count associated with the 

unit prices and add an additional example where the term “unit price” is correctly used on a label. 

Recommendation: The Sector recommends the proposal to amend Publication 14, Section 27, as modified by 

the Sector, be incorporated into Publication 14, as shown in Appendix A agenda Item 15. 

16. Publication 14 - New Items in Computing Scale Section 

Source: Maryland Participating Laboratory 

Background: This item is related to the computing scale proposal in agenda Item 15 and was included in the 

original discussion at the NTEP laboratory meeting. The Maryland NTEP laboratory believed the computing scale 

section of the DES checklist lacked clarity in the areas of multiple uses of displays, position of displays, and the use 

of other features (e.g., pre-pack) 

Generally, manufacturers use the “unit price” or a separate display for indicating non-metrological information (e.g., 

PLU codes). If non-metrological numerical values are placed in the “weight” display or in the “total price” display, 

they could be misleading and interpreted as valid weight. 

 

The Maryland NTEP laboratory recommended the following additional language for NCWM Publication 14, 

Section 27- Price Computing Scales: 

27.X. Dedicated displays (used only for the display of the specific information) are 

provided for the total price and the quantity information. (Values that could be 

interpreted as a weight shall not be displayed in the weight display window.) 

Yes No N/A 

27.X. The placement of displays shall be mathematically logical (net weight x unit Yes No N/A 

price = total price) when reading from left to right (or top to bottom). 

27.X. When a computing scale is setup in a mode for indirect sales to the customer, Yes No N/A 

information that would not be available in the direct sales mode is not

displayed on the customer side. 

NTEP - D23 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

The following areas of R76-Non-automatic Weighing Instruments were used in developing the additional 

requirements. 

OIML R76 states: 

4.4.4. Multiple use of indicating devices 

Indications other than primary indications may be displayed in the indicating device, provided that, 

• the appropriate unit of measurement, or symbol thereof, or a special sign identifies quantities other 

than weight values, 

• weight values that are not weighing results shall be clearly identified, or they may be displayed only 

temporarily on manual command and shall not be printed. 

No restrictions apply if the weighing mode is made inoperative by a special command. 

4.15.4. Special applications of a price-computing instrument 

Only if all transactions performed by the instrument or by connected peripherals are printed on a ticket or label 

intended for the customer, a price-computing instrument may perform additional functions that facilitate trade 

and management. These functions shall not lead to confusion about the results of weighing and price 

computing. 

Other operations or indications not covered by the following provisions may be performed, provided that no 

indication that could possibly be misunderstood as a primary indication is presented to the customer. 

Discussion: The Maryland NTEP laboratory reported on a computing scale (see picture below) that used the “Total 

Price” display to indicate the product code prior to a load placed on the scale and a calculation of total price. If the 

product code was indicated in the “Total Price” display while a load was already on the scale, a customer may 

believe that the product code number is the total price to pay. 

Many of the sector members did not believe the example provided by the Maryland laboratory was a problem since 

the product code did not use a decimal point similar to a representation of money. 

Recommendation: The Sector believed the example provided by the Maryland NTEP laboratory did not 

demonstrate a problem. It also believed the proposed language could cause additional confusion. The 

submitter agreed to develop language to further its case and submit such to the Sector for discussion and 

ballot approval. If no consensus can be reached on the ballot, the item will be carried over to the next 

meeting of the Weighing Sector.

NTEP - D24 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

17. Handbook 44 - Location of Marking for “Capacity x d” on Scales 

Source: NTEP Participating Laboratories 

Background: NIST Handbook 44, Scales Code, Table S.6.3.b., Note 3 states: 

The nominal capacity and the value of the scale division shall be shown together (e.g., 50 000 x 5 kg, 100 000 x 

10 lb, 15 x 0.005 kg, or 30 x 0.01 lb) adjacent to the weight display when the nominal capacity and the value of 

the scale division are not readily apparent. Each scale division value or weight unit shall be marked on multiple 

range or multiple-interval scales.

There have been discussions with the NTEP labs on their interpretation of the location requirement for marking 

“capacity x d.” Specifically, what is meant by the term “adjacent?" This item has been addressed several times in 

the past and the Weighing Sector and NCWM Executive Committee have been unable to develop a solution. The 

June 1990 NTETC Weighing Sector Report stated: 

“The Committee was unable to be more definitive and maintained its opinion that the NTEP Laboratory’s 

judgment remains the best solution. In cases of extreme disagreement, the appeal process (to the Board of 

Governors) is the avenue to resolve.” 

Attempts to interpret this requirement continue to cause conflict between NTEP labs and manufacturers. The NTEP 

labs maintain that the marking shall be next to the weight display on the face of a scale, but devices are being 

submitted with the marking located elsewhere on the face of the scale. (See the following examples.) 

Example 1 - Correct 

Example 2 - Incorrect 

NTEP - D25 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

NOTE: By amending Handbook 44 as proposed, both examples would be acceptable. 

The NTEP laboratories agree with the following premises: 

• Example 2 is incorrect according to Handbook 44 because the marking does not appear adjacent to the 

weight display (Tech Advisor comment: Additionally, the markings are not placed as close as practical to 

the weight indication as required in G-S.5.2.4. Values).

• The operator is familiar with the device and does not rely heavily on the location of the marking for 

capacity x division. 

• The customer rarely understands the marking or its significance. 

• The marking in both examples is conspicuous enough for the inspector and service technician who rely 

most heavily on the information. 

• Both examples in the attachment would be acceptable if the requirement could be amended to allow for the 

marking to simply be placed conspicuously on the face of the indicating portion of the scale. (Tech advisor 

comment: The current Scales Code requirements are not in conflict with the General Code 

paragraph G-S.5.2.4. Values, however, the proposal submitted by the NTEP laboratories does create a 

conflict since the markings may not be placed as close as practical to the indications.) 

NCWM Publication 14 DES Section 2.13. states: 

2.13. The nominal capacity by minimum scale division shall be clearly and conspicuously marked adjacent to the 

weight display. (Acceptable location depends on conspicuousness.)

This statement implies, and the NTEP laboratories concur, that “conspicuousness” should be the primary concern, 

not “adjacent.” But until “adjacent” is removed from the requirement, NTEP is tied to that portion of the 

requirement as well. 

The NIST technical advisor also included language in OIML R76 for Non-automatic Weighing Instruments 

paragraph 7.1.4 Presentation of descriptive markings. The NIST technical advisor believes the recommendations in 

R76 satisfy the intent of the participating laboratories’ recommendations and does not require a third definition of 

“face” in NIST Handbook 44, Appendix D, as follows: 

7.1.4. Presentation of descriptive markings 

The descriptive markings shall be indelible and of a size, shape and clarity allowing easy reading. They shall be 

grouped together in a clearly visible place either on a descriptive plate fixed to an instrument or on a part of the 

instrument itself. 

The markings: 

Max ... 

Min ... 

e ... 

and d if d does not equal e 

shall also be shown near the display of the result if they are not already located there (Tech advisor note: The 

markings may need to be repeated near the result if they are on a plate or location that is not near the weight 

display, or if the markings are on separable elements). It shall be possible to seal the plate bearing the 

descriptive markings unless its removal will result in its destruction. If the data plate is sealed, it shall be 

possible to apply a control mark to it. 

The participating laboratories asked the Nebraska NTEP laboratory to develop a proposal to amend Scales 

Code Table S.6.3.b., Note 3 and add a new definition of “face” based upon discussions of this item during the 

2004 meeting of the NTEP laboratories. 

Discussion/Recommendation: The Weighing Sector reviewed the background information and the proposed 

amendments to Handbook 44 from the NTEP laboratories and the NIST technical advisor. The Sector 

agreed to forward to the regional and NCWM S&T Committees the following amended recommendation: 

NTEP - D26 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

The nominal capacity and value of the scale division shall be shown together (e.g., 50 000 x 5 kg, 100 000 x 

10 lb, 15 x 0.005 k, or 30 x 0.01 lb) adjacent to the weight display in a clear and conspicuous manner and be 

readily apparent when viewing the reading face of the scale indicator unless when the nominal capacity and 

the value of the scale division are not immediately it is already apparent by the design of the device. Each 

scale division value or weight unit shall be marked on multiple range or multi-interval scales. 

[Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1983] 

(Amended January 1, 200X) 

18. CLC Type Evaluation Tests on Railway Track/Vehicle Scales – Technical Policy 

Source: Brechbuhler Scales Inc. 

Background: During the 1998 NTETC Weighing Sector meeting, the Sector agreed the GIPSA (Grain Inspection 

Packers and Stockyards Administration) test car may be used to satisfy testing requirements for CLC and section 

capacity. However, there was no recommendation regarding the addition of vehicle weighing applications for 

existing Certificates of Conformance (CC) that were certified for only railway track applications. Brechbuhler 

Scales believes that vehicle weighing applications (e = 20 lb) can be added on a railway track scale NTEP CC 

without additional testing, and that the CLC rating can be established based upon previous section tests using the 

GIPSA test car (or other railroad test cars and additional test weights used for the evaluation). Brechbuhler Scales 

states that there is no benefit for performing additional CLC tests to include the vehicle weighing application to an 

existing railway track scale CC. 

It should be noted that existing NTEP technical policy A. Models to be submitted for Evaluation, paragraph 8(a) 

Weighing Systems, Scales or Weighing/Load-receiving Elements Greater than 30 000 lb Capacity states that the 

scale division e will be limited to the value of e that was originally evaluated and listed on the CC. 

Brechbuhler Scales requested that vehicle weighing applications (e = 20 lb) be added to existing railway track scale 

CCs (e = 50 lb) that have been designed to Cooper E-80 standards and tested using the GISPA test car (or other 

railroad test cars and additional test weights). 

Discussion: The Sector reviewed the background information and discussed amending the appropriate NTEP 

Technical Policy. Brechbuhler Scales also provided additional history of the item. The railroad track scale in 

question was originally submitted as a combination vehicle/railroad track scale. However, the user changed the 

application such that vehicles could not drive onto the scale, therefore, the device was evaluated and a Certificate of 

Conformance was issued for railroad track applications only. On a later installation, a CLC test was performed. 

Brechbuhler Scales questions the value of the additional evaluation. 

Some of the Sector members support additional testing to verify that a railroad track scale can accurately weigh at 

lower capacities used by highway vehicles. They report frequent problems when the scale is calibrated for railroad 

use and is inaccurate for vehicle weighing. Additionally, the traffic patterns are different between highway vehicles 

and railroad cars. Highway vehicles frequently travel along the side of the scale where railroad cars travel on the 

rails, which are typically located on the main girders of the weighbridge. These Sector members believed that a 

scale designed for railroad cars might not have been designed to adequately support highway vehicles along the 

sides of the scale. 

The manufacturers stated that the calibration problems encountered during verifications are the result of improper 

use and maintenance of railway track scales. 

Other Sector members believe that CLC testing can be eliminated on combination vehicle/railroad track scales 

because of the amount of weights placed on the scale. Dave Quinn reported that he is working on a white paper that 

will help clarify the CLC issue. 

Recommendation: The Weighing Sector did not reach a consensus on this item. Brechbuhler Scales stated 

that they would develop and submit a proposal for testing for railroad track scales that will include 

procedures to include highway vehicle applications. 

NTEP - D27 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

This item will be carried over to the 2005 meeting of the Weighing Sector. 

19. Display of a Negative Balance Condition and Required Markings 

Source: NTEP Participating Laboratories 

Background: One of the NTEP laboratories has reported that it has seen not-built-for-purpose primary weight 

displays in which blanking the weight display is used to indicate a behind zero condition. The problem occurs when 

all of the required G-S.1. Identification markings also blank. The scale is in an error condition, is still functioning in 

a normal operational mode as it was designed to operate (display an error code within specific parameters), and is 

not in a screen saver or sleep mode. Blanking the required markings is not necessary and would give the false 

impression that the weight display feature is not enabled. Primary indications must be clear and definite. G.S.1. 

information must be permanently marked. 

The laboratories recommended adding the following statement to the end of Publication 14, Digital Electronic 

Scales, Section 18.2 –Blanking the Display: 

When blanking a primary weight display with live on screen G-S.1. and/or S.6.3. markings, the required 

markings must not blank.

The laboratories also recommended: 

• adding language to Section 5- Identification in the ECRS checklist Section 18. Zero Indication; 

• similar wording be added to Section 5 of the ECRS checklist; 

• group existing paragraphs 5.6. thru 5.9. under a new Section 5.7. to clarify that paragraphs above the phrase 

“For not-built-for-purpose, software-based devices, the following shall apply:” may be applicable to all 

ECRs (including not-built-for-purpose, software-based devices). 

Discussion/Recommendation: The Weighing Sector reviewed and discussed the proposed changes to 

Publication 14. A question was asked if the use of “pop-up” displays or menus that temporarily blocked the 

required information was a problem. The Sector agreed there should be no issues with the “pop-up” feature 

since this is a temporary condition during normal operation; a transaction cannot be conducted while the 

temporary feature is operational, and the customer is able to review the entire transaction (zero-load, weight, and 

price calculations if applicable). 

The Sector agreed to recommend that the proposed language, as shown in Appendix A - Agenda Item 19, be 

added to NCWM Publication 14. 

20. Dropping the 4th Step in Class III and IIII Tolerances 

Source: NIST Technical Advisor 

Background: During the August 2003 meeting of the U.S. National Work Group (USNWG) for R76 NonAutomatic Weighing Instruments, the group discussed the difference in the tolerance for Class III and IIII weighing 

instruments. The USNWG confirmed that the original intent of the step tolerances was to provide a relationship 

between scale accuracy and resolution. They further recommended that Handbook 44 Class III and Class IIII 

tolerances be aligned with OIML R76. The manufacturers present during the meeting reported that they essentially 

build identically performing instruments and load cells for both national and international markets. Additional 

background information is presented in Appendix A. 

Since the August 2004 meeting Nigel Mills and Gary Lameris of the Hobart Corporation provided the following 

additional “production data” comparing the different Class III tolerances: 

NTEP - D28 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

The charts indicate that the above production scales would comply with Handbook 44 linearity tolerances up to 

10 000 e and OIML R76 tolerances up to approximately 7000 e. Hobart Corporation also reported that many scales 

and load cells would have difficulty complying with the temperature effect on zero with an nmax greater than 5000 e 

in both Handbook 44 and OIML R76. 

The Sector was requested to review the background information and discuss submitting the following proposal to 

amend Scales Code Table 6 Maintenance Tolerances as follows: 

Table 6. 

Maintenance Tolerances 

(All values in this table are in verification scale divisions e)

Tolerance in verification scale divisions e

1 2 3 5

Class Test Load 

 I 0 - 50 000 50 001 - 200 000 200 001 + 

 II 0 - 5 000 5 001 - 20 000 20 001 + 

 III 0 - 500 501 - 2 000 2 001 + - 4 000 4 001 +

 IIII 0 - 50 51 - 200 201 + - 400 401 +

 III L 0 - 500 501 - 1 000 (Add 1d for each additional 500 d or fraction thereof) 

NTEP - D29 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

The NIST technical advisor requested that the Sector discuss Accuracy Class III L and offer a technical justification 

to retain the Handbook 44 Class III L tolerance and propose a similar tolerance be incorporated in OIML R76 or 

recommend that Class III L be removed from Handbook 44, and if so, should it be non-retroactive? The Class III L 

tolerance structure in Handbook 44 deviates from the intent step tolerances since there is little relation of the value 

of the scale division (e.g., e = 20 lb resolution) to the accuracy required (i.e., ± 8 e at 80 000 lb maintenance 

tolerance). The tolerance values, zero-tracking limit and motion detection requirements in Handbook 44 are roughly 

equivalent to an R76 instrument when e = 50 lb. 

Discussion/Recommendation: The Weighing Sector withdrew this item from its agenda since the proposal did 

not relate to problems encountered with Publication 14 type evaluation procedures. The Sector 

recommended that the proposal submitted by NIST and the U.S. National Work Group be made an 

information/developmental item if it were submitted to the regional weights and measures associations and 

the NCWM S&T Committee. 

Members of the Weighing Sector offered the following comments: 

The elimination of the fourth step in Class III weighing devices may encourage the increased usage of 

multiple range scales. This by itself is desirable, however, NTEP should consider manufacturers' concerns 

with existing Publication 14 interpretations of Handbook 44 that require the range or interval in use be 

adequately identified. A problem arises when the change in minimum interval does not change the number of 

significant digits in the display (frequently used to adequately define which range is in use). 

Additionally, the proposal may have an impact on Class III separable weighing/load-receiving elements and 

load cells and the maximum permissible errors allowed during type evaluation since the apportionment of 

errors in Handbook 44 is different than OIML R76 and R60. 

There was no time available at the end of the meeting to discuss Class III L scales and load cells. 

 

21. Cash Acceptors or Card-activated Systems 

Source: NTEP Participating Laboratories 

Background: During the 2001 Weighing Sector Meeting, the cash/coin acceptor capability for self-service ECRPOS systems was discussed. 

The Sector concluded that the participating labs would use the draft procedure on a one-year trial basis and report 

back to the NIST technical advisor with their comments. Additionally, the NIST technical advisor would attempt to 

contact the affected manufacturers of self-service checkout systems interfaced with scales for their comments on the 

proposed checklist addition. 

The NTEP laboratories reported no problems with the draft procedures and agreed to forward them to the Weighing 

Sector for review and comment. The Sector should also consider if the draft procedures are needed or suitable for 

Digital Electronic Scales checklist. The NIST technical advisor was requested to send the draft procedures to CC 

holders of self-checkout POS systems. Unfortunately, this has not been done yet. 

Discussion/Recommendation: The Sector agreed to recommend the procedures, as shown in Appendix A, 

agenda Item 21, be added to Publication 14 ECRS. 

22. Tare on a Multiple Range Scales 

Source: NTEP Participating Laboratories:

Background: NCWM Publication 14, Section 33 is not clear on what is expected of tare on a multiple range scale 

when switching from a lower weighing range to a higher weighing range. Section 33 states: “On a multiple range 

instrument, a tare value may only be transferred from one weighing range to another one with a larger verification 

NTEP - D30 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

scale interval but shall then be rounded in the upward direction to the latter verification interval.” It is not clear if 

this means the tare must always be rounded to a higher value, or if tare can be rounded to the resolution of the higher 

range. 

During the 2004 NTEP Laboratory meeting in Ottawa Canada, there was discussion about the rounding of tare to 

zero when the tare value was less than 0.5 e. The Ohio NTEP laboratory believes that rounding of tare should follow 

normal rounding rules, except that the scale can never round tare to zero and maintain the scale in Net mode, 

indicating that zero Tare is entered. Don Onwiler, Nebraska, stated that Nebraska’s policy is to consider tare less 

than 0.5 e to be a product without tare material. Canada allows tare to round to the nearest division, including zero. 

The labs (except NE) agreed to submit the Ohio proposal as amended by the NTEP labs to the Sector with changes 

noted during the discussion. The tare value can round down to the nearest scale division except when the nearest 

scale division is zero. Then tare has to round up. 

The NTEP laboratories submitted the following amendments to NCWM Publication 14 as indicated in the 

highlighted text. 

33. Multiple Range Scales 

A multiple range scale is an instrument having two or more weighing ranges with different maximum capacities and 

different scale intervals for the same load receptor, each range extending from zero to its maximum capacity. The 

weighing ranges may be either manually or automatically selected. Each weighing range is considered to be an 

individual scale and evaluated accordingly. 

The capacity and verification scale division must be conspicuously marked near the weight display. The range in 

use must be clearly indicated. If a scale has a decimal point and a different number of decimal places in each 

weighing range, the position of the decimal point and the number of digits following is an adequate definition of the 

weighing range in use. If the weighing ranges do not utilize a decimal point and differing numbers of decimal 

places (e.g., scale divisions are 20 lb, 50 lb, and 100 lb), another method such as an external range indicator must be 

provided to indicate the weighing range in use. 

Whenever gross and tare weights fall in different weighing ranges so that the scale divisions for the gross and tare 

weights differ, the net weight must agree mathematically with the gross and tare weights that are indicated or 

recorded (i.e., net = gross - tare). 

On a multiple range instrument, a tare value may only be transferred from one weighing range to another with a 

larger verification scale interval. When transferring a tare value from a lower range to a higher range, the tare value 

should be rounded appropriately to the latter verification interval with care taken to prevent a zero tare value. but 

shall then be rounded in the upward direction to the latter verification interval. 

Examples: (Assuming an interval value for range 1 is 2 lbs and an interval value for range 2 is 5 lbs.) 

• Tare value entered in range 1 is 8 lbs – when switching to range 2, the tare value would become 10 lbs. 

• Tare value entered in range 1 is 6 lbs – when switching to range 2, the tare value would become 5 lbs. 

• Tare value entered in range 1 is 2 lbs – when switching to range 2, the tare value would become 5 lbs or the 

tare value may be cleared and the scale returned to the gross mode. (Strikeout was suggested at the spring 

meeting of the NTEP labs) 

• In examples 1 and 2 above, the tare value is rounded appropriately to realize the smallest error introduced 

by rounding. In example 3, appropriate rounding could create a zero tare condition. In this example, the 

tare value would be rounded up or cleared. (Strikeout was suggested at the spring meeting of the NTEP 

labs)

33.1. The range in use shall be conspicuously indicated. Yes No N/A 

33.2. Ranges may be changed: 

33.2.1. Manually Yes No N/A 

NTEP - D31 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

33.2.1.1. from a smaller to greater range at any load. Yes No N/A 

33.2.1.2. from a greater to a smaller weighing range when there is no load Yes No N/A 

on the load receptor and the indication is zero or at a negative net 

value; the tare operation shall either be canceled or revert to the 

original value and zero shall be set, both automatically. 

33.2.2. Automatically 

33.2.2.1. from a smaller to the following greater weighing range when the Yes No N/A 

load exceeds the maximum gross weight of the range being 

operative. 

33.2.2.2. only from a greater to the smallest weighing range when there is 

no load on the load receptor and the indication is zero or at a 

negative net value; the tare operation shall either be canceled or 

revert to the original value and zero shall be set, both 

automatically. 

Yes No N/A 

33.3. Devices with a tare capability must indicate and record values that satisfy the Yes No N/A 

equation: net = gross – tare. and When automatically changing to a higher range 

from a lower range, the round the tare value shall be rounded up to the appropriate 

verification interval for the higher range. Care shall be taken to prevent a zero tare 

value. larger division size when entering the larger division. Example, 2 g changes 

to 5 g not 0 g.

33.4. Keyboard tare entries must be consistent with the displayed scale division. Yes No N/A 

33.5. For manual multiple range scales, the maximum weight value indicated in each 

range must not exceed: 

33.5.1. 105 % of the rated capacity for the weighing range, or Yes No N/A 

33.5.2. maximum capacity plus 9 d. Yes No N/A 

33.6. For all weighing ranges, e must equal d. Yes No N/A 

33.7. On a multiple range instrument, the deviation on returning to zero from Max shall Yes No N/A 

not exceed 0.5 e. Furthermore, for automatic range changing devices, after returning 

to zero from any load greater than Max and immediately after switching to the 

lowest weighing range, the indication near zero shall not vary by more than e during 

the following 5 minutes. 

Discussion: Several Weighing Sector members stated that forcing a user to round tare up forces them to give away 

product. Other Sector members responded that they tell the users that items are to be sold on the basis of net weight, 

customers are not expected to pay for the package material (tare), and that costs associated with tare are part of the 

cost associated with doing business. Therefore, the unit price of the commodity should be adjusted accordingly. 

Another Sector member reported that actual quantities of products and tare often fall more or less randomly between 

indicated amounts and rounding to the nearer value and should balance out over a number of transactions. 

It was also reported that Publication 14 allows for tare to be rounded to the nearest scale division for single range 

scales (DES 2004 paragraph 47.2.2.), but forces tare to be rounded to the next higher division for multiple range 

scales (DES 2004 paragraph 32.3.). Members of the Sector questioned why the rounding of tare is treated 

differently between the two types of scales and whether or not Handbook 44 supports the Publication 14 

requirements in paragraph 32.3. 

NTEP - D32 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

Some of the manufacturers stated that they recommend to their customers with pre-packaging scales that they round 

tare up to the next higher division to reduce the possibility of packages being rejected by weights and measures 

officials. 

Recommendation: The Sector did not reach consensus on this item. This issue will be carried over to the 

next meetings of the NTEP laboratories and NTETC Weighing Sector. 

23. Performance and Permanence Tests for Railway Track Scales Used to Weigh Statically 

Source: NTEP Participating Laboratories 

Background: The 2004 edition of NCWM Publication 14 states the following: 

68. Performance and Permanence Tests for Railway Track Scales Used to Weigh Statically 

68.7. Permanence Test 

The permanence test shall be conducted from 20 to 30 days after successful completion of the initial 

performance test. It is recommended that the performance tests described above be repeated. However, if the 

original test car is not available, the test may be conducted to the extent possible with at least two railroad test 

weight cars. The results of this test must be within acceptance tolerance13. If the device does not meet these 

tolerance limits, the entire test must be repeated. 

(footnote 13) If the subsequent performance test cannot be completed within 30 days because of the 

unavailability of test cars, maintenance tolerance will be applied. 

The NTEP laboratories agreed the wording for this and all permanence testing should be changed to say a 

“minimum of 20 days” (not stating a maximum). Additionally, Footnote 13 should be removed and acceptance 

tolerances should be applied for all type evaluation testing, except where absolute values are to be used. 

Discussion: The Weighing Sector reviewed the summary of the June 1992 meeting of the NTETC Weighing Sector 

that addressed the permanence test for railway track scales. The Sector recognized the language in Publication 14, 

Section 68, footnote 13 is not supported by Handbook 44 paragraph G-T.1. Acceptance Tolerances. However, 

manufacturers are concerned with eliminating the footnote since it is difficult to perform the subsequent permanence 

test within the 20- to 30-day time period. They are also concerned that the use (abuse) of these scales makes it 

difficult for them to maintain acceptance tolerances for periods significantly beyond the 30 days. Additionally, it is 

costly for the NTEP applicant if the scale fails the permanence test and they have to discontinue the evaluation until 

a GISPA type test car can return to the site or if they have to pay the railroads to deliver two railroad test cars to the 

test site. 

Recommendation: The Sector agreed to recommend the requirement that the subsequent permanence test be 

“conducted 20 to 30 days after the successful completion of the initial permanence test” be changed to “after 

a minimum of 20 days....” 

However, there was no consensus or recommendation for the minimum number of weighments between tests 

or the deletion of footnote 13. 

The NIST technical advisor and Ed Luthy (Brechbuhler Scales) volunteered to submit this issue to the 

railroads during the October 2004 meeting of AREMA Committee 34-Scales (American Railway Engineering 

and Maintenance of Way Association). 

This item will be carried over for the 2005 meeting of the NTETC Weighing Sector. 

NTEP - D33 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

24. Next Sector Meeting 

Discussion/Recommendation: The normal rotation of laboratories for the next Weighing Sector meeting is at 

the Ohio NTEP participating laboratory. However, the Sector recommends that the meeting be held in 

conjunction with the Western Weights and Measures Association regional meeting which will be held in Phoenix, 

AZ, in September 2005. 

NTEP - D34 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

Appendix A - Recommendations for Amendments to Publication 14 

Agenda Item 1 (a) 

17. Manual Weights 

Code References: G-S.2. and S.1.12 

The following requirements apply to scales being used for direct sales to the customer, unattended scales, or 

customer-operated scales and scales used in weighmaster applications. These requirements do not apply to scales 

and weighing systems used to generate labels for standard net content packages.

17.1. Manual entries of gross or net weights are permitted when being used for direct Yes No N/A 

sales for use in the following applications only: 

 (1)POS systems interfaced with a scale when giving credit for a weighed 

item; 

(2) when generating labels for standard weight packages;

 (3) postal and package shipping scales when generating manifests for pickup at a later time; and 

 (4) on livestock scales and vehicle scales to correct erroneous tickets; and 

 (5) when an item is pre-weighed on a legal-for-trade scale and marked with 

the correct net weight. 

17.2. The scale shall must be at gross-load or net zero and the scale indication shall Yes No N/A 

must be at zero in the gross weight display mode before manual weight entries are 

permitted (except for scales being used not-for-direct sales to the customer) and; 

17.3. Recorded weight values shall be identified as MAN WT, MANUAL WT, MAN Yes No N/A 

WEIGHT, or similar statement. Rrecorded manual gross or net weight values 

must be adequately defined so it is clear that the gross weight values are manual 

gross or net weight entries. Recorded weight values must be identified as MAN 

WT, MANUAL WT, MAN WEIGHT, or similar statement.

The use of a symbol to identify multiple manual weight entries is permitted, 

provided the symbol is defined on the same page on which the manual weight 

entries appear and the definition of the symbol is automatically printed by the 

recording element as part of the document. 

17.4. Scales that can be used for both direct and indirect scales to the customer by the Yes No N/A 

use of an external button or switch to issue prepack random weights or standard 

pack labels, the manual weight capability shall only be operable in the prepack 

and unit price) or similar modes of operation that retain tare (and unit price) 

information for labeling multiple packages. 

17.5. Manual tare entries shall not interact with a feature that compares one weight Yes No N/A 

value to another to identify the larger weight as the gross weight. 

17.6 Manual tickets may be entered from scales that are not interfaced (physically Yes No N/A 

connected) to the system provided it is clearly stated on the ticket. 

NOTE: The use of a "hot key" or other means to selectively interrupt 

communication with the scale is not permitted. 

NTEP - D35 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

17.7. In the normal weighing mode, when scale to computer communications exists, Yes No N/A 

manual gross and net weights cannot be entered for a new (not voided) ticket. 

Manual gross and tare weights can be entered for new tickets if scale 

communication is lost. Scales reading errors such as motion, below zero, over 

capacity, or wrong display units are not considered a loss of communication with 

the scale. 

A conspicuous message must be printed on the ticket that this is a manually 

generated weigh-ticket. 

Agenda Item 1 (b) 

2.21. The section capacity of a railway track and livestock scale-indicating element shall 

be marked on or adjacent to the identification badge on the indicating element. 

The section capacity shall be prefaced by the words “Section Capacity” or an 

abbreviation of that term. Abbreviations shall be “Sec Cap” or “Sec C.” All 

capital letters and periods may be used. 

Yes No N/A 

5.1. The section capacity of a railway track and livestock scale shall be marked on or 

adjacent to the identification badge on the indicating element. The section 

capacity shall be prefaced by the words “Section Capacity” or an abbreviatin of 

that term. Abbreviations shall be “Sec Cap” or “Sec C.” All capital letters and 

periods may be used. 

Yes No N/A 

5.4. Combination vehicle/railway track and combination vehicle/livestock scales shall 

be marked with (1) the nominal capacity and CLC for vehicle weighing, and (2) 

the nominal capacity and section capacity for railway and livestock weighing. The 

emin for both vehicle weighing, and railway, and livestock weighing shall also be 

marked. 

NOTE: Combination scales (vehicle/railway track and vehicle/livestock) shall be 

marked with all required information. 

Yes No N/A 

75. List of Acceptable Abbreviations/Symbols 

Accuracy Class 

I, II, III, III L, IIII 

Or or

Symbols enclosed in an 

ellipse such as: 

l, ll, lll, lll L, llll, 1, 2, 3, 3 

L, 4 

maximum number of scale divisions nmax

Weighing and 

Indicating 

Elements:

Section Capacity Sec C or Sec Cap

Agenda Item 1 (d) 

43. Discrimination and Zone of Uncertainty 

Code Reference: T.N.7.1 and T.N.7.2. 

NTEP - D36 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

The zone of uncertainty for digital indications must be <= 0.3 d. This test shall be conducted under controlled 

conditions in which environmental factors are reduced to the extent that they will not affect the results obtained. 

43.1. Zone of Uncertainty Test for digital indications: Record the width of the zone 

of uncertainty as a decimal fraction of a scale division. 

43.1.1. Near Zero. Yes No N/A 

AVOIRDUPOIS__________d 

METRIC _________d 

OTHER UNITS (Identify units_________)__________ d 

43.1.2. Near Capacity. Yes No N/A 

AVOIRDUPOIS__________d 

METRIC _________d 

OTHER UNITS (Identify units_________)__________ d 

43.2. Discrimination Test. The following tests shall be performed within 10 e of zero 

and at the maximum test load. 

43.2.1. Digital Indications – Decreasing-load Test 

Gently place the error weights in 1/10 e increments until the 

indication (I) increases by 1 displayed division (I + 1). Gently 

remove a test load equivalent to 1.4 e. This shall cause a decrease in 

the indicated or recorded value of 2 e. 

43.2.1.1. At or near zero (zero plus 10 e) Yes No N/A 

43.2.1.2. At maximum test load. Yes No N/A 

43.2.2 Digital Indications –Increasing-load Test 

Place error weights on the load receptor at least 10 times 1/10 e. 

Gently remove the error weights in 1/10 e increments until the 

indication (I) decreases by 1 displayed division (I-1). Gently add a 

test load equivalent to 1.4 e. This shall cause an increase in the 

indicated or recorded value of 2 e. 

43.2.2.1. At or near zero (zero plus 10 e) Yes No N/A 

43.2.2.2. At maximum test load. Yes No N/A 

43.2.3. Automatic Analog Indications 

A test load equivalent to 1.4 e placed gently on or removed from the 

load receptor while the instrument is at equilibrium shall cause the 

change in equilibrium in the indication of at least 1.0 e. 

43.2.3.1. At or near zero Yes No N/A 

43.2.3.2. At maximum test load. Yes No N/A 

63.4. Subsequent Type Evaluation (Field) Permanence Test (Applicable for instruments above 2000 lb capacity, 

or instruments, because of their size, that can not be accommodated by the laboratory.) 

NTEP - D37 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

A minimum of two increasing-load, two decreasing-load, and two shift (or a combination of shift and corner) tests, 

are to be conducted after a minimum of 20 days after the initial tests. The scales are to be tested to capacity using 

certified tests weights. If the test results are at or near acceptance tolerance limits, at least one more set of tests 

should be conducted immediately to verify the test results and determine device repeatability. If scale repeatability 

is not good (e.g., > 0.5d), conduct additional tests. 

Repeat width-of-zero, zone of uncertainty, sensitivity, and discrimination tests near zero (outside the range of the 

AZSM) and at or near capacity on the subsequent tests. 

69.1.1. Discrimination test at zero-load or near zero outside the range of the AZSM, and at scale capacity or the 

maximum test load, whichever is less. 

69.4.1. Discrimination test at zero-load or near zero outside the range of the AZSM, and at scale capacity or the 

maximum test load, whichever is less. 

Agenda Item 1 (e) 

50. Performance and Permanence Tests for Counter (Bench) Scales (Including Computing Scales)

50.1. Increasing Load Test

Because of the ease of testing computing scales, it is recommended that the increasing load test for computing scales 

(approximately 30 lb capacity) consist of loads of 0.05, 0.45, and 0.95 lb, at 1 lb intervals thereafter to one-half 

capacity, and at 2 lb intervals from one-half capacity to capacity. Larger capacity scales should be tested at 1 lb 

intervals to 5 lb and in convenient steps to capacity, with a minimum of eight additional test loads. These are 

minimum tests.

50.2. Decreasing Load Test

The minimum decreasing load test is at a test load of one-half capacity after the scale has been loaded to capacity.

50.3. Shift Test

Test with test loads equal to one-half capacity as specified in N.1.3.1. and at test positions as illustrated below:

50.1. Performance Test (Weigh-Labelers)

Note: 

- If the device is designed for use in static (non-automatic) weighing, it shall be tested statically using mass 

standards.

NTEP - D38 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

- If the device is designed for only automatic (dynamic or static) weighing, it shall only be tested in the automatic 

mode of operation.

50.1.1. Non-automatic (Static) Tests.

50.1.1.1 Increasing-Load Test. - The increasing-load test shall be conducted with the test loads 

approximately centered on the load-receiving element of the scale.

50.1.1.2. Decreasing-Load Test. - The decreasing-load test shall be conducted with the test loads 

approximately centered on the load-receiving element of the scale.

50.1.1.3. Shift Test. - To determine the effect of off-center loading, a test load equal to one-half (1⁄2) 

maximum capacity shall be placed in the center of each of the four points equidistant between the center 

and front, left, back, and right edges of the load receiver. 

A

D B

C

50.1.1.2. Discrimination Test. - A discrimination test shall be conducted with the weighing device in 

equilibrium at zero load and at maximum test load, and under controlled conditions in which environmental 

factors are reduced to the extent that they will not affect the results obtained. This test is conducted from 

just below the lower edge of the zone of uncertainty for increasing-load tests, or from just above the upper 

edge of the zone of uncertainty for decreasing-load tests.

50.1.1.5. Zero-Load Balance Change. - A zero-load balance change test shall be conducted on all 

automatic-weighing systems after the removal of any test load. The zero-load balance should not change by 

more than the minimum tolerance applicable. (Also see G-UR.4.2.) 

50.1.1.6. Influence Factor Testing. - Influence factor testing shall be conducted.

50.1.2. Automatic (dynamic or static) Tests. - The device shall be tested at the highest speed for each weight 

range using standardized test pucks or packages. Test runs shall be conducted using four test loads as described 

in Table N.3.2. Each test load shall be run a minimum of 10 consecutive times.

Table N.3.2. Test Loads

At or near minimum capacity

At or near maximum capacity

At two (2) critical points between minimum and maximum capacity

Test may be conducted at other loads if the device is intended for use at other specific capacities

50.1.2.1 Shift Test. - To determine the effect of eccentric loading, for devices without a means to align 

packages, a test load equal to one-third (1/3) maximum capacity shall be passed over the load receiver or 

NTEP - D39 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

transport belt (1) halfway between the center and front edge, and (2) halfway between the center and back 

edge.

1) 

(2)

50.2. Performance Test (Automatic Checkweighers)

50.2.1. Non-automatic (static) Tests. - If the scale is designed to operate statically during normal user 

operation, it shall be tested statically using the applicable weigh-labeler requirements.

50.2.2. Automatic (dynamic or static) Tests. - The device shall be tested at the highest speed in each weight 

range using standardized test pucks or packages. Test runs shall be conducted using four test loads. The 

number of consecutive test weighments shall be as described in Table N.4.2.

Table N.4.2. Number of Sample Weights per Test for Automatic Checkweighers

Weighing Range

m = mass of test load Number of sample weights per test

20 divisions < m < 10 kg

20 divisions < m < 22 lb 60

10 kg <m < 25 kg

22 lb <m < 55 lb 32

25 kg <m < 100 kg

55 lb <m < 220 lb 20

100 kg (220 lb) < m 10

50.32. Out-of-Level Tests for Weigh-labelers and Checkweighers (If Applicable)

If the scale is not equipped with a level-indicating means, it must be tested in an out-of-level condition to determine 

compliance with paragraph S.4. Leveling-Indicating Means. 

 50.32.1. Place one side of the scale three degrees (or 5 %) out-of-level with respect to the width axis of 

the scale. The scale should then be zeroed. Conduct a shift test1

 and increasing and decreasing 

load tests. 

 50.32.2. Place the opposite side or the scale out-of-level, zero the scale, and repeat tests. 

 50.32.3. Place the front of the scale three degrees (or 5 %) out-of-level with respect to the length axis of 

the scale. Zero the scale and conduct the shift, increasing and decreasing load tests. 

 50.32.4. Place back of scale out-of-level, zero the scale, and repeat tests. All test results must be within 

acceptance tolerances. If the scale fails any of these tests, a level-indicating means is needed. 1 The shift test is usually conducted first since this test frequently reveals accuracy problems. 

NTEP - D40 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

Agenda Item 3 

PROPOSED CHANGES TO PUB 14 TO INCLUDE COUNTING FEATURE 

Page DES 17 

UNDERLINED TEXT IS PROPOSED TO BE ADDED 

Marking Nominal Capacity, Value of the Scale Division, Special Applications 

Code References: S.6., S.6.6. Table S.6.3.a., and Table S.6.3.b. 

This requirement applies to digital indicating elements and to both the operator and customer's indications on 

complete scales. The lettering must be permanent as described in section 1, but the attachment of any badge or 

decal is slightly less stringent than for the G-S.1. Information. In terms of attachment, any badge or decal must be 

"durable", that is, it must be difficult to remove (at all temperatures). Remote weight displays (except "scoreboard" 

displays), the customer's weight display provided for scales interfaced with electronic cash registers (ECRs), and 

weight displays that are built into ECRs must be marked with the scale capacity and scale division. The capacity by 

division statement may be part of the scale display or marked adjacent to the display. Large remote customer's 

("scoreboard") displays have not been required to meet the marking requirements because the markings probably 

cannot be read from a customer's position. In those cases, the operator's weight display must be properly marked. 

The marked nominal capacity on all vehicle, axle-load, and livestock scales shall not exceed the concentrated load 

capacity times the quantity of the number of sections in the scale minus 0.5. As a formula, this is stated as: 

Nominal Capacity = Concentrated Load Capacity x (N - 0.5) 

where N = the number of sections in the scale. 

Devices designed for special applications are to be so marked to prevent them from being used in an unsuitable 

application. Examples of special application scales are prepackaging scales, digital postal scales with simultaneous 

pound and ounce weight unit indications, weight classifying scales, and Class III scales with a small number of scale 

divisions and a verification scale division. When a scale is installed with an operational counting feature, the scale 

shall be marked on both the operator and customer side with the statement, "The counting feature is not legal for 

trade." Exception: When a prescription scale complies with paragraphs S.1.2.3., S.2.5.3., and S.6.6., it shall be 

marked, “Counting Feature for Prescription Filling Only.” 

The system must be clearly and permanently marked on an exterior surface, visible after installation, as follows: 

1.1 The name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor. A remote 

display is required to have the manufacturer's name or trademark and model 

designation. (Code Reference G-S.1.) 

Yes No N/A 

1.2 A model designation that positively identifies the pattern or design of the device. Yes No N/A 

The Model designation shall be prefaced by the word "Model," "Type," or 

"Pattern." These terms may be followed by the term "Number" or an abbreviation 

of that word. The abbreviation for the word "Number" shall, as a minimum, begin 

with the letter "N" (e.g., No or No.) The abbreviation for the word "Model" shall 

be "Mod" or "Mod." (Effective January 1, 2003) (Code Reference G-S.1.) 

1.3 Except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts, a non- Yes No N/A 

repetitive serial number. (Code Reference G-S.1.) 

DES-20 

1.18. If a scale has an operational counting feature, it must be marked on both the 

operator and customer side with the statement, "The counting feature is not legal 

for trade." 

Note: Not applicable to prescription scales meeting paragraph 1.19 below. 

Yes No N/A 

NTEP - D41 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

1.19. If a Class I or Class II prescription scale complies with paragraphs S.1.2.3., 

S.2.5.3., and S.6.6., it shall be: 

1.19.1 marked, “Counting Feature for Prescription Filling Only” (see test Yes No N/A 

procedure in Section 58); 

1.19.2 marked with the minimum piece weight and minimum number of Yes No N/A 

pieces used to establish an individual piece count. 

1.19 Yes No N/A 

20 

All markings must be clear and easily readable. 

 

1.20 Yes No N/A 

1. 

The lettering for all markings must be permanent. Record the grade for the 

permanence of markings: _____________________________________________ 

1.21 Yes No N/A 

2. 

If the markings for other than device identification required by G-S.1. are placed 

on badge or decal, then the badge or decal must be durable (difficult to remove at 

all temperatures). 

Proposed New Section to be inserted after Grain Test Scales, 

Section 38, Page DES 57 

38. Counting Feature on Class I or II Scales Used in Prescription Filling Applications 

Code References: S.1.2.3, S.2.5.3, N.1.10, T.N.3.10, and Table T.N.3.10 

38.1 The scale’s accuracy class is Class I or Class II 

Note accuracy class: 

Yes No N/A 

38.2 The counting mode is clearly marked on the display or by an annunciator Yes No N/A 

38.3 The scale display differentiates between count indications and weight indications. Yes No N/A 

38.3.1 If symbol “ct” is used to identify count, it is not used to identify carat in 

the weighing mode. 

Yes No N/A 

38.4 Values must be identified with the word or symbol for pieces (pcs) or count (ct) Yes No N/A 

38.5 Count values must be displayed as a whole integer, without a decimal point. Yes No N/A 

38.6 The scale is capable of displaying zero count. Yes No N/A 

Record the marked minimum piece weight (MPW):_________ 

Record the marked minimum sample size in pieces (MSS):________ 

Calculate and record the minimum sample size in weight (MSSW) =MPW x MSS=_________

38.7 The counting feature shall not calculate a piece weight or total count unless the 

following conditions are met: 

38.7.1 Individual piece weight is equal to or greater than 3 e. Yes No N/A 

Sample size is equal to or greater than the marked minimum sample size 

in pieces. 

38.7.2 Yes No N/A 

38.8 The marked minimum sample size must be equal to or greater than 10 pieces. Yes No N/A 

38.9 Place a load of less than MSSW on the scale, and enter the MSS. The device Yes No N/A 

NTEP - D42 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

shall reject the entry. 

Place a load equal to the MSSW on the scale and enter a sample count less than 

the MSS. The device shall reject the entry. 

38.10 Yes No N/A 

In addition to Table 6 Maintenance Tolerances (for weight), the indicated piece count value computed by a 

Class I or Class II prescription scale counting feature shall comply with the tolerances in Table T.N.3.10. 

Maintenance and acceptance tolerances are the same.

Table T.N.3.10 

Maintenance and Acceptance Tolerances 

In Excess and in Deficiency for Count 

Indication of Count Tolerance 

(piece count) 

0 – 100 0 

101 to 200 1 

201 or more 0.5 % 

Notes on testing: 

Conduct at least two increasing and decreasing load tests with at least four different test loads, including the 

maximum at each tolerance level. Do not recalibrate the scale during this test. Document any nonconformance results. 

Example: 

Scale Capacity = 620g x 0.01 g 

(marked with a minimum piece weight of 0.03 g and a minimum piece count of 10) 

Piece weight =0.03 g = 3 e 

Minimum sample size =10 pieces =30 e = 0.30 g 

100 pcs = 300 e = 3 g 

200 pcs = 600 e = 6 g 

To achieve the highest possible count, divide the capacity (620 g) by the minimum weight of the piece count 

(0.03 g). Truncate the quotient (20666.666 counts) to the nearest whole integer (20666 counts). 

To perform the test at near maximum, pick a whole number near this amount, such as 20500. Calculate the amount 

of weight that should cause the scale to indicate a count of 20500 by multiplying the desired count (20500) by the 

weight of the minimum piece weight (0.03 g), The result is 615 g. Place 615 g on the scale and it should indicate 

20500 counts.

38.11 Calculate the loads required to cause the scale to indicate, respectively, a 

count of 10 100, 200, and maximum count capacity (based on scale capacity 

and minimum individual piece weight). The device indicates each of these 

loads within the tolerance specified in table T.N.3.10. 

(If necessary, check several more loads to verify the count calculation at other 

loads and minimum sample counts.) 

Yes No N/A 

38.7 The counting feature shall not calculate a piece weight unless the following 

conditions are met: 

38.7.1 The individual piece weight is equal to or greater than 3 e. Yes No N/A 

NTEP - D43 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

38.7.2 The sample size is at least 10 pieces or the marked minimum sample 

size in pieces, whichever is greater. 

Yes No N/A 

38.7.3 The sample count indication is stable. Yes No N/A 

75. List of Acceptable Abbreviations/Symbols 

Device Application Term Acceptable Not Acceptable 

Head (sale by) HB or H 

Weight (sale by) WT or W 

Livestock & Animal 

Scales: Other symbols recognized 

by the Packers & 

Stockyards Administration 

Minimum Piece Weight MPW

Minimum Sample Size MSS Prescription Filling 

Count Feature for Class I 

& II Scales: Minimum Sample Size in 

Weight

MSSW

Belt Conveyor Scales: 

U.S. short ton T 

(note: different from 

“General” application) 

Agenda Item 14 

Add a check box in the Publication 14 DES checklist that states the computing scale interfaced to an ECR meets the 

applicable requirements in the ECRS checklist as follows: 

27.4 If the computing scale is interfaced with a electronic cash register (ECR), the ECRS Yes No N/A 

checklist must also be completed. The operation of the computing scale with the 

ECR meets the ECRS checklist. 

and 

Amend ECRS Sections 11.15 through 11.21 as follows: 

11.15. A computing scale may interface with a cash register, and the cash register need only 

record the total price, that is, serve merely as a printer, provided: 

11.15. 11.15.1. The computing scale displays the net weight, unit price, and total price on 

both the operator and customer sides of the scale. 

Yes No N/A 

11.16. 11.15.2. The computing scale has a tare capability. Yes No N/A 

11.17. 11.15.3. The scale is positioned so the customer can accurately read the indications 

and observe the weighing operation. 

Yes No N/A 

11.18. 11.15.4. The scale must be equipped with motion detection that complies with 

Handbook 44 requirement S.2.4.1. 

Yes No N/A 

11.19. The scale is not equipped with a price-look-up capability. The unit price 

must be manually entered into the computing scale to give the customer 

adequate time (equivalent to a transaction in the delicatessen department) to 

assimilate the display information. 

11.15.5. Yes No N/A 

NTEP - D44 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

11.20. 11.15.6. The electronic cash register must not have any input to the computing scale 

in the process of determining the total price of a weighed item. 

Yes No N/A 

11.21. 11.15.7. If the ECR is equipped with a computing scale, it shall meet the criteria 

given above. 

Yes No N/A 

11.15.8. If the scale has multiple sales accumulation capability, the scale 

accumulation capability is disabled. 

Yes No N/A 

11.15.9. If the ECR is equipped with a computing scale, it shall meet the criteria Yes No N/A 

given above. 

Agenda Item 15 

27. Computing Scales – General Without Multiple Sales Accumulation Capability 

Code Reference: S.1.8.3, G-S.2, G-S.5.1, G-S.6, S.1.9.2 

27.1 The net weight, unit price, and total price are clearly displayed and identified on both 

the operator and customer sides of the scale. 

Yes No N/A 

27.1.1 The unit price is clearly defined. Yes No N/A 

The symbols “$/” with a unit symbol (i.e., lb, kg, g) may be used, provided: 

27.1.1.1 -the scale is capable of only displaying net weight in that 

weight unit, or 

Yes No N/A 

27.1.1.2 -the scale has an internal units selection switch that can be 

sealed in the unit used for both the unit price and the net 

weight display, or 

Yes No N/A 

27.1.1.3 -the scale has an external unit conversion key, and the unit of Yes No N/A 

mass marked in the unit price display and the unit of mass 

marked in the weight display are the same. 

Examples of scale display 

27.2 The computing scale has tare capability. Yes No N/A 

27.3 Computing Scales with Printers 

In the case of printers that issue labels for packages, requirements of the Fair Packaging and Labeling Act and the 

Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation apply. 

Preprinted labels stating the unit of measure (i.e., lb, kg) acceptable for scales capable of displaying one weight unit or 

which have an internal lb/kg conversion switch.

27.3.1 The unit price is clearly defined. Yes No N/A 

NTEP - D45 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

The symbols “$/” with a unit symbol (i.e., lb, kg, g) may be used, 

provided: 

27.3.1.1 -the scale is only capable of printing the net weight in that 

weight unit, or 

Yes No N/A 

27.3.1.2 -the scale has an internal units selection switch that can be 

sealed in the unit used for both the unit price and the net 

weight, or 

Yes No N/A 

27.3.1.3 -the scale has an external unit conversion key, and the unit 

of mass printed in the unit price and the unit of mass 

printed with the weight are the same. 

Yes No N/A 

27.3.2 The symbol "$" or the word "dollars" is printed with the total price and 

must be printed by the device or pre-printed on the label. 

Yes No N/A 

27.3.3 The quantity block must be headed with the words "Net Weight/Count". 

(The term "Net Weight" is optional.) If the printer does not print the 

specific weight unit, the pre-printed label must include this information; 

for example, pound, lb, or kg. 

Yes No N/A 

27.3.4 For items sold by count, the count is printed in the quantity block. 

NOTE: If there are no individual blocks for the printed information, 

and the printer prints a qualifying term such as "pieces" or a symbol 

such as "pcs" in a horizontal manner reading from left to right, and if 

there is little doubt as to the meaning of the label, then it is considered 

appropriate. 

Yes No N/A 

27.3.5 The count must be printed as an integer without a decimal point and 

must be modified with the word or symbol for pieces (pcs) or count (ct) 

either in the heading or next to the number. 

Yes No N/A 

27.3.6 Printing of non-weighed items by count shall either (27.1 in 2004 

edition)

27.3.6.1 operate only under no load condition or (27.1.1 in 2004 

edition)

Yes No N/A 

27.3.6.2 cause the display to blank. (27.1.2 in 2004 edition) Yes No N/A 

Incorrect Label Correct Label 

Net Weight Unit Price Total Price Net Weight Price Total Price 

1.00 kg $2.00 $2.00 1.00 kg $2.00/kg $2.00 

(unit price not identified with unit) 

Incorrect Label Correct Label 

Net Weight Unit Price Total Price Net Weight Unit Price Total Price 

1.00 lb $2.00 $2.00 1.00 lb $2.00/lb $2.00 

(unit price not identified with unit) 

Incorrect Label Correct Label 

Net Weight Price/lb Total Price Net Weight Price/kg Total Price 

1.00 kg $2.00 $2.00 1.00 kg $2.00 $2.00 

(different units of net weight and unit 

price) 

Correct Label Correct Label 

Net 

Weight/CT Unit Price Total Price Net Weight $/lb Total Price 

10 $2.00 $20.00 1.00 lb $2.00 $2.00 

NTEP - D46 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

27.4 If the computing scale is interfaced with a electronic cash register (ECR), the Yes No N/A 

ECRS checklist must also be completed. The operation of the scale with the ECR 

meets the ECRS checklist. (from previous agenda item)

Agenda Item 19 

The Sector recommends that following amendments to Publication 14 DES Section 18 indicated in underlined

text be included in Publication 14.

18. Zero Indication - General 

Code Reference: G.S.5.1., G.S.1, S.6.3 

Any of the following methods may be used to indicate a negative balance condition. 

18.1. Display of negative values. 

A display of negative weight values is required in the net display mode when the 

gross weight is less than the tare value. This assumes that the gross weight is zero 

or positive. If the gross weight is negative (behind zero-balance condition), and if 

blanking the display is used to indicate a behind-zero-balance condition, the gross 

and net display may blank. 

Yes No N/A 

Blanking the display 

This method cannot be used to indicate a negative balance condition if the device 

also: (1) blanks the display to indicate over-capacity and (2) the load condition of 

the weighing/load receiving element is not evident to the operator, (e.g., a hopper 

scale where the operator cannot see the load condition, empty or full, of the 

hopper). 

If blanking is used, it is recommended that the indicator also have an annunciator 

to indicate "power on" so the operator does not think that power has been lost 

when the display is blank. 

18.2. Yes No N/A 

When blanking a primary weight display with live on screen G-S.1 

and/or S.6.3 markings, the required markings must not blank. 

18.2.1 Yes No N/A 

18.3. Display of a symbol which cannot be interpreted as a quantity value, (e.g., -, ---, Yes No N/A 

EEEE, E S-1) is acceptable; however, the display of complements are not 

acceptable, and flashing zeros or a minus sign preceding a zero or zeros cannot be 

used. 

The Sector recommends that following amendments to Publication 14 ECRS Section 5 indicated in underlined

text be included in Publication 14. Language to be removed is indicated in strikeout text. 

5. Identification 

Code Reference: G.S.5.1., G.S.1, S.6.3 

.......... No changes in this area 

.......... No changes in this area 

.......... No changes in this area 

NTEP - D47 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

5.1. The cash register shall be clearly and permanently marked for the purposes of 

identification with the following information: 

5.1.1. The name, initials, or trademark of the manufacturer or distributor. Yes No N/A 

5.1.2. A model designation that positively identifies the pattern or design of the 

device. The Model designation shall be prefaced by the word “Model”, 

“Type”, or “Pattern”. These terms may be followed by the term “Number” 

or an abbreviation of that word. The abbreviation for the word “Number” 

shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., No or No.) The 

abbreviation for the word “Model” shall be “Mod” or “Mod.”. (Effective 

January 1, 2003). 

Yes No N/A 

5.1.3. Except for equipment with no moving or electronic component parts and 

not-built-for-purpose, software-based devices, a nonrepetitive serial number. 

Yes No N/A 

5.1.4. For not-built-for-purpose, software-based devices, the current software 

version designation. 

Yes No N/A 

5.1.5. The serial number shall be prefaced by the words “Serial Number” or an 

abbreviation of that term. Abbreviations for the word “Serial” shall, as a 

minimum, begin with the letter “S,” and abbreviations for the word 

“Number” shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” (e.g., S/N, SN, Ser. 

No, and S No.). 

Yes No N/A 

Location of the information: ___________________________ 

Code Reference G-S.1. (g). Effective January 1, 2003

5.1.6. The NTEP Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number or a corresponding CC 

addendum number for devices that have a CC. The number shall be 

prefaced by the terms “NTEP CC”, “CC”, or “Approval.” These terms may 

be followed by the word “Number” or an abbreviation for the word 

“Number.” The abbreviation shall, as a minimum, begin with the letter “N” 

(e.g., No or No.). 

Yes No N/A 

The device must have an area, either on the identification plate or on the 

device itself, suitable for the application of the Certificate of Conformance 

Number. If the area for the CC Number is not part of an identification plate, 

note its intended location and how it will be applied. 

Yes No N/A 

Location of CC Number if not located with the identification 

_________________________________________________________ 

_________________________________________________________ 

The other components of the system are marked consistent with the above 

description. 

5.2. Yes No N/A 

5.3. Identifying information shall be: 

5.3.1. Located so that it is readily observable without the necessity of 

disassembling a part requiring the use of any means separate from the 

device. If the required information is located on the back of a device, the 

same information must also appear on the side, front, or top. The bottom of 

a device is not an acceptable surface. If required markings are behind a door 

or panel, the manufacturer is encouraged to put a label on the outside of the 

device that explains where the identification information is located 

Yes No N/A 

5.3.2. Marked on a surface that is an integral part of the chassis. Yes No N/A 

If the required marking is on a plate or badge, the plate must be permanent. (See 

criteria above for Permanence of Attachment of Badge.) 

5.4. Yes No N/A 

NTEP - D48 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

5.5. The lettering for all markings must be permanent. Yes No N/A 

Record the grade for the markings: _______________ 

Code Reference: G-S.1.1. Location of Marking Information for Not Built-for-Purpose, 

Software-Based Devices. Effective January 1, 2004

When blanking a primary weight display, with live on screen G-S.1 and/or S.6.3 

markings, the required markings must not blank. 

5.6 Yes No N/A 

5.6.7 For not-built-for-purpose, software-based devices, the following shall apply: 

5.7.1 The manufacturer or distributor and the model designation shall be 

continuously displayed or marked on the device; or 

Yes No N/A 

5.7. 5.7.2 The Certificate of Conformance (CC) Number shall be continuously 

displayed or marked on the device, or 

Yes No N/A 

5.8. 5.7.3 All required information in G-S.1. Identification. (a), (b), (c), (e), and (h) 

shall be continuously displayed. Alternatively, a clearly identified “view 

only” System Identification, G-S.1. Identification, or Weights and Measures 

identification shall be accessible through the “Help” menu. Required 

information includes that information necessary to identify that the software 

in the device is the same type that was evaluated. 

Yes No N/A 

5.9. 5.7.4 Clear instructions for accessing the remaining required G-S.1. information Yes No N/A 

shall be listed on the CC. Required information includes that information 

necessary to identify the software in the device is the same type that was 

evaluated. 

Agenda Item 21 

X. Cash Acceptors or Card-activated Systems

Code Reference: G-S.2., G-S.5.1., G-S.6 

Accidental or intentional fraud causes great concern when customers use cash acceptors or card-activated systems. 

Because systems may be installed with separate power lines to the controller, card reader, and scale, 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 transaction. 

Tests using various denominations of bills accepted by the cash acceptor should be performed. 

Certificates of Conformance will cover the use of the cash acceptor option at both attended and unattended systems. 

Cash acceptors, which are used at unattended locations, must meet the marking requirements of paragraph 

G-UR.3.4. Responsibility, Money-Operated Devices shall be clearly and conspicuously displayed on the device or 

immediately adjacent to the device information detailing the return of monies paid when the product cannot be 

obtained. 

Note: For bills that have not yet been drawn into the cash acceptor to the point that the bill is no longer visible, it is 

assumed that the information on the bill denomination can be obtained from visual examination. 

Various methods may be used to recall specific portions of the transaction depending on how the basic system 

operates. For example, systems that can print a record of the amount fed into the machine as each bill is fed into the 

device maintain an ongoing record of bills recognized by the system. Other systems may not print a receipt until the 

end of the transaction, so the information is recalled on a journal printer accessible to the customer or can be recalled 

on the cash acceptor display 

NTEP - D49 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

1.1 Systems with Battery Back-up or Uninterruptible Power Supply or Equivalent - 

Some systems are equipped with a battery back-up or an uninterruptible power 

supply (or equivalent) which allows a transaction to continue in the event of a 

power loss. For such systems, the transaction in progress at the time of a power 

interruption must continue as if no power interruption had occurred (or comply 

with the requirements for systems not equipped with a battery back-up). That is, 

all bills (including bills being fed into the device at the time of the power loss) 

must be correctly accounted for, and the total sale amount must be mathematically 

correct. Check these systems by interrupting power at several points in the 

transaction to ensure that all information (total price, mathematical agreement, and 

total dollar amount inserted by the customer) is accounted for correctly. 

Yes No N/A 

1.2. All Other Systems - To check the operation of systems not equipped with a battery 

back-up, uninterruptible power supply, or equivalent, interrupt power as described 

below. As noted earlier, if separate power lines supply different components in the 

system, interrupt power to different parts of the system. 

When one or more bills have been accepted and registered by the device, at least 

one of the following criteria must be met to ensure that this information can be 

recalled in the event of a power interruption: 

Yes No N/A 

1.2.1. The printer on the device must print the denomination of the bill as the 

device recognizes the bill. (The printed receipt must be available to the 

customer.) 

Yes No N/A 

1.2.2. A journal or other printer accessible to the customer must print the 

denomination of each bill as the device recognizes each bill. 

Yes No N/A 

1.2.3. The total display must be capable of being recalled for at least 15 

minutes. 

Yes No N/A 

1.2.4. Means are provided to enable the customer to retrieve the money inserted 

into the device (e.g., a button which can be used during a power 

interruption to eject the money inserted by the customer). 

Yes No N/A 

1.2.5. Other means is used to provide a visual or printed record of the total 

amount of money accepted by the device. 

Yes No N/A 

1.3. There is a brief period of time during which a bill has been accepted by the cash 

acceptor but has not yet been recognized by the device. The following criteria 

must be met to ensure completion of that this information can be recalled in the 

event of a power failure. 

Yes No N/A 

1.3.1. Means is provided to enable the attendant or customer to retrieve the bill 

(for example, a button which can be used during a power interruption to 

eject the bill or if the cash acceptor box can be removed by the attendant 

and the bill retrieved). 

Yes No N/A 

Note: There may be a space of time in which a bill can be caught partially in and out of 

the cash acceptor during a power interruption. In such a case, if the denomination of the 

bill is visible to the customer and attendant, this is sufficient to provide information about 

the bill being fed into the device at the time of the power interruption. The cash acceptor 

must comply with the other applicable items noted above. 

NTEP - D50 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

1.4. Power should be interrupted at different points in the transaction to determine that 

all transaction information can be recalled in the event of a power interruption 

including combinations of the following: 

1.4.1. after one bill has been inserted. Yes No N/A 

1.4.2. after several bills have been inserted. Yes No N/A 

1.4.3. while a bill is being inserted. Yes No N/A 

1.4.4. after a bill has been inserted but not yet recognized. Yes No N/A 

1.4.5. after a bill(s) has been inserted and recognized. Yes No N/A 

1.5. Total Money Display - A running display showing the amount of money fed into 

the machine must be provided. 

Yes No N/A 

1.6. Printed Receipt - A printed receipt must be available to the customer from the 

device at the completion of the transaction. 

Yes No N/A 

Because the customer must be provided with a receipt, the system must not accept cash if 

sufficient paper is not available to complete the transaction. 

The cash acceptor must not initiate a cash transaction if either of the following 

conditions are true: 

• no paper is in the receipt printer of the cash acceptor; Yes No N/A 

• insufficient paper is available to complete a transaction. Yes No N/A 

1.7. Instructions must be marked on the device to inform the customer how to operate 

the cash acceptor. 

Yes No N/A 

1.8. Means must be provided for the customer to cancel the transaction at any point. Yes No N/A 

1.8.1. The customer has inserted cash. If the customer cancels the transaction by 

pressing the cancel key (or equivalent key(s)), the device must either: 

Yes No N/A 

1.8.1.1. be equipped with means for the customer to retrieve the cash 

inserted from the device, AND 

automatically issue a printed receipt indicating the amount 

tendered and the amount returned, OR 

Yes No N/A 

display instructions (such as "sale terminated, see attendant," 

"sale terminated, get receipt" or similar wording) for the 

customer to see the attendant, AND 

1.8.1.2. Yes No N/A 

automatically issue a printed receipt showing the amount of 

cash inserted by the customer, a statement indicating that the 

sale was terminated, and instructions for the customer to see the 

attendant. 

Yes No N/A 

Note: It is acceptable for different messages to be used. This depends upon whether the transaction is terminated by 

use of the cancel key (e.g., "sale terminated, get receipt" or "sale terminated, see cashier", "change due, see cashier"). 

NTEP - D51 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix D – NTETC - Weighing Sector 

Appendix B – NTETC Weighing Sector Attendance List 

First Name Last Name Organization E-Mail 

Cary Ainsworth c/o USDA GIPSA L.Cary.Ainsworth@usda.gov 

Joseph Antkowiak Flintec, Inc. jantkowiak@flintec-us.com 

William E. Bates USDA,GIPSA, FMD, PPB william.e.bates@usda.gov 

Andrea P. Buie Maryland Dept. of Agriculture buieap@mda.state.md.us 

Luciano Burtini Measurement Canada burtini.luciano@ic.gc.ca 

Ken Chin Measurement Canada chin.ken@ic.gc.ca 

Brian Christopher McKesson Automated Prescription Systems brian.christopher@mckessonaps.com 

Steven E. Cook NIST, Weights & Measures Division steven.cook@nist.gov 

Scott Davidson Mettler-Toledo, Inc. scott.davidson@mt.com 

Terry Davis Kansas Dept. of Agriculture tdavis@kda.state.ks.us 

William Fishman New York Bureau of Weights & Measures bill.fishman@agmkt.state.ny.us 

Darrell E. Flocken Mettler-Toledo, Inc. darrell.flocken@mt.com 

Gary Lameris Hobart Corporation gary.lameris@hobartcorp.com 

Stephen Langford Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co. slangford@cardet.com 

Jean Lemay Measurement Canada lemay.jean@ic.gc.ca 

Paul A. Lewis, Sr. Rice Lake Weighing Systems paulew@rlws.com 

Todd R. Lucas Ohio Dept. of Agriculture lucas@mail.agri.state.oh.us 

L. Edward Luthy Brechbuhler Scales Inc eluthy@brechbuhler.com 

Michel Maranda Measurement Canada maranda.michel@ic.gc.ca 

Don Onwiler Nebraska Division of Weights & Measures donlo@agr.state.ne.us 

Stephen Patoray 

National Conference on Weights & 

Measures spatoray@mgmtsol.com 

Ron Peasley Measurement Canada 

David W. Quinn Fairbanks Scales dave.w.quinn@mindspring.com 

Frank Rusk Coti, Inc. frankjrusk50@hotmail.com 

Milton Smith Measurement Canada smith.milton@ic.gc.ca 

Russ Wyckoff Oregon Dept. of Agriculture rwyckoff@oda.state.or.us 

Jesus P. Zapien A&D Engineering Inc jzapien@andweighing.com 

NTEP - D52 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix E – Provisional CPR Meeting Summary 

Appendix E 

Provisional Committee on Participation Review (CPR) Meeting Summary 

The following is a general summary of information from Provisional Committee on Participation Review (CPR) 

meeting in Lyon, France in June 2005. 

Both BIML and a majority of the CPR participants expressed interest in NCWM/NTEP participation in the MAA 

and the future Declaration of Mutual Confidence (DoMC) for R 60 and R 76. 

1. The CPR agreed to include Class III L and Class III HD in the DoMC as additional requirements for 

devices covered by OIML R 76 and R 60 Recommendations 

a. Under this, the United States and Canada will attempt to agree on which requirement is stricter so that 

only one additional requirement will be needed for either Class III L or Class III HD. 

b. The United States and Canada will present information and test report forms for the required test points 

and other information for these devices. 

c. Note: If United States chooses not to participate, Class III L will not be included in the DoMC. 

2. The CPR agreed to include endurance testing per NCWM Publication 14 for devices covered under OIML 

R 76. 

a. United States and Canada will provide information on the laboratory and field-testing requirements 

(currently OIML lab testing stops at 100 kg, field endurance testing is not performed by OIML testing 

laboratories). 

b. United States and Canada will also provide information on the test equipment used by the NTEP labs 

to show the design and that it is safe to conduct such a test. 

NOTE: for both of the above items the TC was instructed to review this information and discuss among the full 

Committee as to the merits of both the additional class and the endurance testing. 

3. The CPR agreed to include marking information (if not harmonized) as an additional requirement for 

devices covered under OIML R 60 and R 76. 

4. The United States needs to clarify eccentric (shift test) loads for large capacity devices. 

5. The United States needs to clarify the test and use of concentrated load capacities (CLC). 

6. The United States reported on the following items that are currently being reviewed by NCWM for 

harmonization between NIST Handbook 44 and OIML R 76: 

a. Eccentric load testing (Canada stated that R 76 testing is sufficient for them.) 

b. Accuracy Class III Tolerances 

c. Auto-zero tracking (except for Class III L) 

d. Time Dependence (Creep) 

7. Items excluded from the agreement include (based on potentially ambiguous examinations and national 

requirements): 

a. Securing and Sealing of Components (OIML R 76 section 4.1.2.4). 

b. Examination (OIML R 76 section 8.2.2). 

c. Reading OIML R 76 section 4.2.1. 

d. Detection of significant fault (OIML R 76 section 4.14.9). 

e. Disturbances (OIML R 76 section 5.2). 

f. External Equipment (OIML R 76 section 5.3.6). 

8. It was discussed and supported by several countries that manufactures data would not be used in the CPR at 

this time. 

NTEP - E1 
NTEP Committee 2005 Final Report 

Appendix E – Provisional CPR Meeting Summary 

Impartiality and “conflict of interest” was discussed by the CPR and will also be addressed in the peer 

assessment training. It is already part of ILAC. Also, there are provisions in OIML to appeal the make-up 

of the peer review team.

9. On both peer review and ILAC audits, and a metrological expert will be part of the evaluation team along 

with the quality system expert(s). 

10. Australia reported problems with their bi lateral agreements are caused by lack of clarification on 

functionality tests. 

11. Extra tests performed by the Issuing Authority are listed on the OIML Test Report, not the OIML 

Certificate. 

12. There was a distinction between “tests” and “examinations.” In all cases of the MAA, an instrument will 

have to be submitted to the accepting country for “evaluation” (sealing, ID, tare performance as opposed to 

tare tests, additional equipment, etc.). 

13. There appears to be no concerns about SI and inch-pound units. 

14. Some OIML testing labs will not test to Class III L/III HD 

15. Regarding peer assessments, a question was asked if the United States could evaluate the NTEP lab(s)? 

The response from BIML was yes, with the use of 17025 or equivalent criteria and consultation with the 

CPR. 

16. How may the U.S./Canada mutual recognition be affected if the United States chooses not to participate 

while Canada does? 

MORE INFORMATION ABOUT International Laboratory Accreditation Cooperation (ILAC) 

ILAC is the peak international authority on laboratory accreditation, with a membership consisting of accreditation 

bodies and affiliated organizations throughout the world. It is involved with the development of laboratory 

accreditation practices and procedures, the promotion of laboratory accreditation as a trade facilitation tool, the 

assistance of developing accreditation systems, and the recognition of competent test and calibration facilities 

around the globe. ILAC actively cooperates with other relevant international bodies in pursuing these aims. 

Currently, 47 laboratory accreditation bodies of ILAC have signed the multi-lateral, mutual recognition arrangement 

(the “ILAC Arrangement”) to promote the acceptance of accredited test and calibration data. (A list of these 

signatories is printed at the end of this brochure and can also be found on the ILAC website at www.ilac.org). 

The United States is a "member" of ILAC. The following U.S. accreditation bodies are recognized by ILAC. 

• American Association for Laboratory Accreditation (A2LA) 

SCOPE: Testing and Calibration 

• National Voluntary Laboratory Accreditation program (NVLAP) 

SCOPE: Testing and Calibration 

• International Accreditation Service, Inc (IAS) 

SCOPE: Testing and Calibration 

NTEP - E2 
th NCWM 90 Annual Meeting 

July 10-14, 2005 – Orlando, FL 

Attendee List

Cary Ainsworth 

c/o USDA GIPSA 

75 Spring Street, #230 

Atlanta, GA 30303-3309 

(404)562-5840, FAX: (404)562-5848 

Email: L.Cary.Ainsworth@usda.gov 

Mahesh Albuquerque 

Division of Oil and Public Safety 

633 17th Street, Suite 500 

Denver, CO 80202-3660 

(303)318-8533, FAX: (303)318-8518 

Email: mehesh.albuquerque@state.co.us 

Ross Andersen 

New York Bureau of Weights & 

Measures 

10B Airline Drive 

Albany, NY 12235 

(518)457-3146, FAX: (518)457-5693 

Email: ross.andersen@agmkt.state.ny.us 

Lanny Arnold 

Kentucky Department of Agriculture 

107 Corporate Drive 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

(502)573-0282, FAX: (502)573-0303 

Email: lanny.arnold@kyagr.com 

F. Michael Belue

Belue Associates Court View Towers 

201 North Pine, Suite 111A 

Florence, AL 35630 

(256)768-9917, FAX: (256)768-9912 

Email: Bassoc@aol.com 

Joe Benavides 

Texas Department of Agriculture 

1700 North Congress Avenue, Stephen 

F. Austin Building, 11th Floor 

Austin, TX 78711 

(512)463-7401, FAX: (512)463-8225 

Email: joe.benavides@agr.state.tx.us 

Celeste Bennett 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895 

(517)655-8202, FAX: (517)655-8303 

Email: bennettc9@michigan.gov 

Linda Bernetich 

NCWM 

15245 Shady Grove Road, Suite 130 

Rockville, MD 20850 

(240)632-9454, FAX: (301)990-9771 

Email: lbernetich@mgmtsol.com 

Tom Bloemer 

Kentucky Department of Agriculture 

107 Corporate Drive 

Frankfort, KY 40601 

(502)573-0282, FAX: (502)573-0303 

Email: tom.bloemer@kyagr.com 

Greg Boers 

California Division of Measurement 

Standards 

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

(916)229-3018, FAX: (916)229-3015 

Email: gboers@cdfa.ca.gov 

Dennis F. Bray 

Alameda County 

224 West Winton Avenue, Room 184 

Hayward, CA 94544 

(510)670-5232, FAX: (510)783-3928 

Email: dennis.bray@acgov.org 

Norman R. Brucker 

Precision Measurement Standards, Inc. 

1665 135th Street West 

Rosemount, MN 55068 

(651)423-3241, FAX: (651)322-7938 

Email: sharnoma@mninter.net 

Mark Buccelli 

State of Minnesota, Weights and 

Measures 

2277 Highway 36 

Roseville, MN 55113 

(651)628-6850, FAX: (651)639-4014 

Email: mark.buccelli@state.mn.us 

Gerald A. Buendel 

Washington Department of Agriculture 

PO Box 42560 

Olympia, WA 98504-2560 

(360)902-1856, FAX: (360)902-2086 

Email: jbuendel@agr.wa.gov 

Tina G. Butcher 

NIST Building 820, 

100 Bureau Drive MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

(301)975-2196, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: tina.butcher@nist.gov 

Jerry W. Butler 

North Carolina Department of 

Agriculture 

1050 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050 

(919)733-3313, FAX: (919)715-0524 

Email: jerry.butler@ncmail.net 

Joe Buxton 

Daniel Measurement & Control 

19267 Hwy 301 

North Statesboro, GA 30461 

(912)489-0253, FAX: (912)489-0264 

Email: joe.buxton@emersonprocess.com 

Judy Cardin 

Wisconsin Dept. of Agri. & Consumer 

Protect. 

PO Box 8911, 

2811 Agriculture Drive 

Madison, WI 53708-8911 

(608)224-4945, FAX: (608)224 4939 

Email: judy.cardin@datcp.state.wi.us 

Loretta Carey 

U.S. Food and Drug Administration 

5100 Paint Branch Parkway 

College Park, MD 20740 

(301)436-1799, FAX: (301)436-2639 

Email: lcarey@cfsan.fda.gov 

Stacy K. Carlsen 

Marin County Weights & Measures 

1682 Novato Boulevard, Ste 150-A 

Novato, CA 94947-7021 

(415)499-6700, FAX: (415)499-7543 

Email: scarlsen@co.marin.ca.us 

Charles H. Carroll 

Massachusetts Division of Standards 

One Ashburton Place, Room 1115 

Boston, MA 02108 

(617)727-3480, FAX: (617)727-5705 

Email: Charles.Carroll@state.ma.us 

ATTEND - 1 
th NCWM 90 Annual Meeting 

July 10-14, 2005 – Orlando, FL 

Attendee List

James P. Cassidy, Jr. 

Cambridge Weights & Measures 

831 Massachusetts Ave 

Cambridge, MA 02139 

(617)349-6133, FAX: (617)349-6134 

Email: jcassidy@CambridgeMA.gov 

Stephen Casto 

West Virginia Weights & Measures, 

Division of Labor 

570 McCorkle Avenue West 

St. Albans, WV 25177 

(304)722-0602, FAX: (304)722-0605 

Email: scasto@labor.state.wv.us 

Samuel Chang 

ZEMIC 

(USA) Inc. 

830 Commercial Avenue 

San Gabriel, CA 91776 

(562)464-9416, FAX: (562)464-9415 

Email: SEDJC@aol.com 

Mike Cleary 

California Division of Measurement 

Standards 

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

(916)229-3000, FAX: (916)229-3026 

Email: mcleary@cdfa.ca.gov 

William Cobb 

West Virginia Weights & Measures, 

Division of Labor 

570 McCorkle Avenue West 

St. Albans, WV 25177 

(304)722-0602, FAX: (304)722-0605 

Email: wcobb@labor.state.wv.us 

Thomas Coleman 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive 

MS 2600 Building 820 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

(301)975-4868, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: t.coleman@nist.gov 

Belinda Collins 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2000 

(301)975-4500, FAX: (301)975-2183 

Email: belinda.collins@nist.gov 

Steven E. Cook 

NIST, Weights & Measures Division 

100 Bureau Drive 

MS 2600 Building 820/Rm 223 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

(301)975-4003, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: steven.cook@nist.gov 

Clark Cooney 

Oregon Measurement Standards 

635 Capitol Street, N.E. 

Salem, OR 97301-2532 

(503)986-4677, FAX: (503)986-4784 

Email: ccooney@oda.state.or.us 

Rodney Cooper 

Actaris Neptune 

1310 Emerald Road 

Greenwood, SC 29646 

(864)942-2226, FAX: (864)223-0341 

Email: rcooper@greenwood.actaris.com 

Mark P. Coyne 

Brockton Weights & Measures 

45 School Street, City Hall 

Brockton, MA 02301-9927 

(508)580-7120, FAX: (508)580-7173 

Email: mcoyne@ci.brockton.ma.us 

Richard L. Davis 

Georgia-Pacific 

1915 Marathon Avenue 

Neenah, WI 54957-0899 

(920)729-8174, FAX: (920)729-8089 

Email: richard.davis@gapac.com 

Kenneth Deitzler 

Bureau of Ride & Measurement 

Standards 

2301 North Cameron Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17110-9408 

(717)787-9089, FAX: (717)783-4158 

Email: kdeitzler@state.pa.us 

Vicky Dempsey 

Montgomery County Weights & 

Measures 

451 West Third Street 

P.O. Box 972 

Dayton, OH 45422-1027 

(937)225-6309, FAX: (937)224-3927 

Email: dempseyv@mcohio.org 

G.W. (Wes) Diggs

Virginia Product & Industry Standards 

PO Box 1163 Rm 402 

Richmond, VA 23218 

(804)786-2476, FAX: (804)786-1571 

Email: Wes.Diggs@vdacs.virginia.gov 

James Dudash 

Bureau of Ride & Measurement 

Standards 

2301 North Cameron Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17110 

(570)433-2640, FAX: (570)433-4770 

Email: jdudash@state.pa.us 

David Edsall 

County of Sussex 

150 Morris Turnpike 

Newton, NJ 07860 

(973)579-0360, FAX: Email: 

Email: 

Chuck Ehrlich 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive 

MS 2600 Building 820 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

(301)975-4834, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: charles.ehrlich@nist.gov 

Jerry Flanders 

Georgia Department of Agriculture 

Agriculture Bldg., 

19 MLK Drive, Rm 321 

Atlanta, GA 30334 

(404)656-3605, FAX: (404)656-9648 

Email: jflander@agr.state.ga.us 

Darrell E. Flocken 

Mettler-Toledo, Inc. 

1150 Dearborn Drive 

Worthington, OH 43085 

(614)438-4393, FAX: (614)438-4355 

Email: darrell.flocken@mt.com 

Kurt Floren 

Agricultural Commissioner/Director of 

Weights & Measures 

12300 Lower Azusa Road 

Arcadia, CA 91006 

(626)575-5451, FAX: (626)350-3243 

Email: KurtF@acwm.co.la.ca.us 

ATTEND - 2 
th NCWM 90 Annual Meeting 

July 10-14, 2005 – Orlando, FL 

Attendee List

Maurice J. Forkert 

Tuthill Transfer Systems 

8825 Aviation Drive 

Fort Wayne, IN 46809 

(260)747-7529, FAX: (260)747-7064 

Email: Mforkert@tuthill.com 

Ken L. Fraley 

Oklahoma Bureau of Standards 

2800 N. Lincoln Blvd. 

Oklahoma City, OK 73105 

(405)522-5459, FAX: (405)521-4912 

Email: kfraley@oda.state.ok.us 

Roger Frazier 

Area Investigator Supervisor 

800 Kenwood 

Benton, AR 72015 

(501)570-1159, FAX: (501)562-7605 

Email: roger.frazier@aspb.state.ar.us 

Carol P. Fulmer 

South Carolina Department of 

Agriculture 

PO Box 11280 

Columbia, SC 29211 

(803)737-9690, FAX: (803)737-9703 

Email: cfulmer@scda.sc.gov 

John Gaccione 

Westchester County Weights & 

Measures 

112 East Post Road, 4th Floor 

White Plains, NY 10601 

(914)995-2160, FAX: (914)995-3115 

Email: jpg4@westchestergov.com 

Mark Galletta 

Nestle USA 

800 North Brand Blvd 

Glendale, CA 91203 

(818)549-6089, FAX: (818)637-3348 

Email: mark.galletta@us.nestle.com 

Thomas Geiler 

Town of Barnstable 

200 Main Street 

Hyannis, MA 02601 

(508)862-4670, FAX: (508)778-2412 

Email: 

Tom.Geiler@town.barnstable.ma.us 

William GeMeiner 

Union Pacific Railroad 

1400 Douglas, Stop 0910 

Omaha, NE 68179 

(402)544-6248, FAX: 

Email: wgemeiner@up.com 

Steve Giguere 

Maine Quality Assurance & Regulations 

28 State House Station 

Augusta, ME 04333 

(207)287-3841, FAX: (207)287-5576 

Email: steve.giguere@state.me.us 

Steve P. Gill 

Missouri Department of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 630 

Jefferson City, MO 65102-0630 

(573)751-4278, FAX: (573)751-0281 

Email: steve.gill@mda.mo.gov 

Paul Glowacki 

Murray Equipment, Inc. 

2515 Charleston Place 

Fort Wayne, IN 46808 

(260)484-0382, FAX: (260)484-9230 

Email: 

pglowacki@murrayequipment.com 

Joe Gomez 

New Mexico Department of Agriculture 

MSC 3170, PO Box 30005 

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005 

(505)646-1616, FAX: (505)646-2361 

Email: jgomez@nmda.nmsu.edu 

Steven T. Grabski 

Bureau of W & M, Div. of Measurement 

Standards 

2150 Frazer Avenue 

Sparks, NV 89431 

(775)688-1166, FAX: (775)688-2533 

Email: sgrabski@govmail.state.nv.us 

Maxwell Gray 

Florida Dept. of Agriculture & 

Consumer Services 

3125 Conner Boulevard, Lab 2 

Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650 

(850)488-9140, FAX: (850)922-6064 

Email: graym@doacs.state.fl.us 

Michael F. Grenier 

New Hampshire Department of 

Agriculture Markets & Food 

PO Box 2042 

Concord, NH 03302-2042 

(603)271-3709, FAX: (603)271-1109 

Email: mgrenier@agr.state.nh.us 

Christopher B. Guay 

Procter & Gamble Co 

2 Procter & Gamble Plaza 

Cincinnati, OH 45202 

(513)983-0530, FAX: (513)983-8984 

Email: guay.cb@pg.com 

John T. Gurkin, Jr. 

North Carolina Department of 

Agriculture 

1050 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1050 

(919)733-3313, FAX: Email: 

Brett Gurney 

Utah Department of Agriculture & Food 

P.O. Box 146500 

Salt Lake City, UT 84114-6500 

(801)538-7158, FAX: (801)538-4949 

Email: bgurney@utah.gov 

Charles Hackett 

City of Kokomo Weights and Measures 

100 South Union Street 

Kokomo, IN 46901 

(765)456-7466, FAX: (765)456-7571 

Email: chackett@cityofkokomo.org 

Carolyn Hall 

Foster Farms 

P.O. Box 457 

Livingston, CA 95334 

(209)394-7901 x4348 

FAX: (209)852-0300 

Email: hallcd@fosterfarms.com 

Jonathan Handy 

Colorado Department of Agriculture 

3125 Wyandot Street 

Denver, CO 80211 

(303)477-4220, FAX: (303)477-4248 

Email: Jonathan.Handy@ag.state.co.us 

ATTEND - 3 
th NCWM 90 Annual Meeting 

July 10-14, 2005 – Orlando, FL 

Attendee List

Krister K. Hard af Segerstad 

IKEA Wholesale Inc. 

496 West Germantown Pike 

Plymouth Meeting, PA 19462 

(610)834-0180, FAX: (610)834-0872 

Email: krister@memo.IKEA.com 

Georgia Harris 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive 

Building 820, MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

(301)975-4014, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: gharris@nist.gov 

Ronald G. Hayes 

Missouri Department of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 630 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

(573)751-2922, FAX: (573)751-8307 

Email: Ron.Hayes@mda.mo.gov 

Scott Henry 

NCR Corporation 

2651 Satellite Blvd 

Duluth, GA 

(770)623-7543, FAX: (770)479-1174 

Email: scott.henry@ncr.com 

Maureen Henzler 

Kansas Department of Agriculture 

2510 S.W. Gainsboro Rd 

Topeka, KS 66614 

(785)862-2415, FAX: (785)862-2460 

Email: mhenzler@kda.state.ks.us 

Tyler Hicks 

Oklahoma Dept. of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 528804 

Oklahoma City, OK 73152 

(405)205-2697, FAX: (405)522-5885 

Email: thicks@oda.state.ok.us 

Stephen Hill 

Orange County Weights & Measures 

1750 S. Douglass Rd, BldgD 

Anaheim, CA 92806-6031 

(714)447-7100, FAX: (714)567-6203 

Email: steve.hill@pfrd.ocgov.com 

Dean Hill 

Agri-Products, Inc. 

P.O. Box 12728 

Tallehassee, FL 32309 

(850)668-0006, FAX: (850)668-9800 

Email: dhill@suncoastbedding.com 

Carol T. Hockert 

State of Minnesota, Weights and 

Measures 

2277 Highway 36 

Roseville, MN 55113 

(651)215-5823, FAX: (651)639-4014 

Email: carol.hockert@state.mn.us 

Abram Huey 

Micro Motion, Inc. 

192 Montvale Drive 

Hoschton, GA 30548 

(706)654-0009, FAX: (706)654-0010 

Email: 

chuck.huey@emersonprocess.com 

Jeff Humphreys 

Los Angeles County Weights & 

Measures 

11012 Garfield Avenue, Building A 

South Gate, CA 90280 

(562)940-8922, FAX: (562)861-0278 

Email: jeffh@acwm.co.la.ca.us 

Normand Jacques 

Kilotech 

3245 J.B. Deschamps 

Montreal, Quebec H8T3E4 CANADA 

(877)328-5988, FAX: (877)485-9210 

Email: njacques@kilotech.com 

Grace Jan, CMP 

NCWM 

15245 Shady Grove Road, Suite 130 

Rockville, MD 20850 

(240)632-9454, FAX: (301)990-9771 

Email: gjan@mgmtsol.com 

Randy Jennings 

State of Tennessee 

Box 40627, Melrose Station 

Nashville, TN 37204 

(615)837-5147, FAX: (615)837-5335 

Email: randy.jennings@state.tn.us 

Rafael Jimenez 

Association of American Railroads 

P.O. Box 11130, 55500 D.O.T. Road 

Pueblo, CO 81001 

(719)584-0691, FAX: (719)584-0770 

Email: rafael_jimenez@ttci.aar.com 

Dennis Johannes 

California Division of Measurement 

Standards 

6790 Florin Perkins Road, Suite 100 

Sacramento, CA 95828 

(916)229-3000, FAX: (916)229-3026 

Email: DJohannes@cdfa.ca.gov 

Gordon W. Johnson 

Gilbarco, Inc. 

7300 West Friendly Avenue 

Greensboro, NC 27420 

(336)547-5375, FAX: (336)547-5079 

Email: Gordon.Johnson@gilbarco.com 

Raymond Johnson 

New Mexico Department of Agriculture 

MSC 3170, PO Box 30005 

Las Cruces, NM 88003-8005 

(505)646-1616, FAX: (505)646-2361 

Email: rjohnson@nmda.nmsu.edu 

Alan Johnston 

Measurement Canada Main Bldg No. 3, 

Tunney's Pasture 

Ottawa, Ontario K1A0C9 Canada 

(613)952-0655, FAX: (613)957-1265 

Email: johnston.alan@ic.gc.ca 

Zina Juroch 

Pier 1 Imports 

100 Pier 1 Place 

Fort Worth, TX 76102 

(817)252-8348, FAX: (817)252-6220 

Email: zmjuroch@pier1.com 

Jack Kane 

Montana Bureau of Weights & Measures 

P.O. Box 200516 

Helena, MT 59620-0516 

(406)841-2240, FAX: (406)841-2060 

Email: jkane@state.mt.us 

ATTEND - 4 
th NCWM 90 Annual Meeting 

July 10-14, 2005 – Orlando, FL 

Attendee List

Michael J. Keilty 

Endress & Hauser Flowtec AG 

2350 Endress Place 

Greenwood, IN 46143 

(317)535-2745, FAX: (317)535-1341 

Email: michael.keilty@us.endress.com 

Michael Kelley 

Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. 

6 Chelsea Lane 

Bellavista, AR 72714 

(479)644-4833, FAX: 

Email: mkelly1@wal-mart.com 

Ted Kingsbury 

Measurement Canada 

Standards Bldg #4, Tunney’s Pasture, 

Holland Ave. 

Ottawa, Ontario K1A0C9 CANADA 

(613)941-8919, FAX: (613)952-1736 

Email: kingsbury.ted@ic.gc.ca 

Mark Knowles 

HBM Inc. 

19 Bartlett Street 

Marlboro, MA 01752 

(508)624-4500, FAX: (508)485-7480 

Email: mark.knowles@hbm.com 

Dan Kushnir 

Seraphin Test Measure 

30 Indel Avenue 

Rancocas, NJ 08073 

(609)267-0922, FAX: 

Email: 

Gary Lameris 

Hobart Corporation 

701 South Ridge Avenue 

Troy, OH 45374 

(937)332-3053, FAX: (937)332-3007 

Email: gary.lameris@hobartcorp.com 

Leon Lammers 

Avery Weigh-Tronix 

1000 Armstrong Drive 

Fairmont, MN 56031-1439 

(800)533-0456, FAX: (507)238-8255 

Email: leon.lammers@weigh-tronix.com 

Robert L. Land 

Anderson Weights & Measures 

120 East 8th Street 

Anderson, IN 46016 

(765)648-6186, FAX: (765)648-5917 

Email: rland@cityofanderson.com 

Stephen Langford 

Cardinal Scale Manufacturing Co. 

203 East Daugherty, P.O. Box 151 

Webb City, MO 64870 

(417)673-4631, FAX: (417)673-5001 

Email: slangford@cardet.com 

Brian Lemon 

Competition Bureau Canada 400 St 

Mary Avenue, 4th Floor 

Winnipeg, Manitoba R3C 4K5 Canada 

(204)983-8911, FAX: (204)984-2658 

Email: lemon.brian@cb-bc.gc.ca 

Paul A. Lewis, Sr. 

Rice Lake Weighing Systems 

230 West Coleman Street PO Box 272 

Rice Lake, WI 54868-2404 

(715)234-3494 x5322 

 FAX: (715)234-6967 

Email: paulew@rlws.com 

Boon Lim 

Virtual Measurement & Control 

3196 Coffey Lane, Suite 604 

Santa Rosa, CA 95403 

(707)573-3111, FAX: (707)573-3113 

Email: boon@virtualmc.com 

Harvey Lodge 

Dunbar Manufacturing 

2400 Egg Harbor Road 

Lindenwold, NJ 08021 

(609)714-2222, FAX: (609)714-1313 

Email: pstrobl@espkits.com 

Todd R. Lucas 

Ohio Department of Agriculture 

8995 East Main Street, Building 5 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068 

(614)995-0641, FAX: (614)728-6424 

Email: lucas@mail.agri.state.oh.us 

L. Edward Luthy

Brechbuhler Scales Inc 

1424 Scale Street SW 

Canton, OH 44706 

(330)453-2424, FAX: (330)453-5322 

Email: eluthy@brechbuhler.com 

J. Arturo Macias, Jr.

Arizona Dept. of Weights & Measures 

4425 West Olive Avenue, Suite 134 

Glendale, AZ 85302 

(623)463-9935, FAX: (602)255-1950 

Email: amacias@azdwm.gov 

Keith L. Mahan 

Merced County Weights and Measures 

2139 Wardrobe Avenue 

Merced, CA 95340-6495 

(209)385-7431, FAX: (209)725-3961 

Email: kmahan@co.merced.ca.us 

Steven Malone 

Nebraska Division of Weights & 

Measures 

301 Centennial Mall South, Box 94757 

Lincoln, NE 68509-4757 

(402)471-4292, FAX: (402)471-2759 

Email: stevenam@agr.state.ne.us 

Judy Markoe 

NCWM 

15245 Shady Grove Road, Suite 130 

Rockville, MD 20850 

(240)632-9454, FAX: (301)990-9771 

Email: jmarkoe@mgmtsol.com 

Jeffrey X. Mason 

DC Government Weights & Measures 

1110 U Street SE 

Washington, DC 20020 

(202)698-2130, FAX: (202)698-2148 

Email: jeffrey.mason@dc.gov 

Gale Mason 

U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Grain 

Inspection Packers and Stockyards 

Administration 

Stop 3646, 1400 Independence Ave., 

S.W., Room 2430 

Washington, DC 20250-3646 

(202)690-2215, FAX: (202)690-3207 

Email: gale.l.mason@usda.gov 

ATTEND - 5 
th NCWM 90 Annual Meeting 

July 10-14, 2005 – Orlando, FL 

Attendee List

Vernon Lee Massey 

Shelby County Weights & Measures 

157 Poplar Suite 402 

Memphis, TN 38103 

(901)545-3920, FAX: (901)545-3906 

Email: vmassey@co.shelby.tn.us 

Terence McBride 

Memphis Weights & Measures 590 

Washington St 

Memphis, TN 38105 

(901)528-2905, FAX: (901)528-2948 

Email: 

terence.mcbride@cityofmemphis.org 

Robert McGrath 

Boston ISD Weights & Measures 

1010 Massachusetts Ave 

Boston, MA 02118-2606 

(617)961-3376, FAX: (617)635-5383 

Email: 

robert.mcrath.isd@ci.boston.ma.us 

Ashok Mehrotra 

SGS North America 

5209 Linbar Drive 

Nashville, TN 37211 

(615)831-1044, FAX: (615)831-1236 

Email: ashok_mehrotra@sgs.com 

Yukinobu Miki 

Advanced Industrial Science and 

Technology (AIST) 

Tsukuba Central 3-9, 1-1-1 

Umezono Tsukuba, JAPAN 

305-8563 81-298-4266 

FAX: 81-298-4334 

Email: y.miki@aist.go.jp 

Richard Miller 

FMC Measurement Solutions 

1602 Wagner Avenue, P.O. Box 10428 

Erie, PA 16514 

(814)898-5286, FAX: (814)899-3414 

Email: rich.miller@fmcti.com 

Charlie Mitchell 

Total Petrochemicals, Inc. 

P.O. Box 849 

Port Arthur, TX 77641-0849 

(409)963-6885, FAX: (409)962-3458 

Email: charlie.mitchell@total.com 

Robert Murnane, Jr. 

Seraphin Test Measure/Pemberton 

PO Box 227 30 Indel Avenue 

Rancocas, NJ 08073-0227 

(609)267-0922, FAX: (609)261-2546 

Email: rmurnane@seraphinusa.com 

Kazuo Neda 

Advanced Industrial Science & 

Technology 

2-6-20, Ogimachi, Kita-ku , 

Osaka 530-0025 Japan 

+81-6-6312-3173 

FAX: +81-6-6312-0524 

Email: kt@neda@aist.go.jp 

Karl Newell 

1415 Sykes Creek Drive 

Merritt Island, FL 32953 

(407)453-1492, FAX: (407)453-1492 

Email: kgnewell@worldnet.att.net 

Tara Nordlander 

NCWM 

15245 Shady Grove Road, Suite 130 

Rockville, MD 20850 

(240)632-9454, FAX: (301)990-9771 

Email: tnordlander@mgmtsol.com 

Neal J. Nover 

Nover Engelstein & Assoc., Inc./ 

WinWam Software AtriumExec. Sts 

3000 Atrium Way, Ste 2203 

Mt. Laurel, NJ 08054-3910 

(856)273-6988, FAX: (856)751-0559 

Email: sales@winwam.com 

O.R. "Pete" O'Bryan

Foster Farms 

P.O. Box 457 

Livingston, CA 95334-9900 

(209)656-5049, FAX: (209)656-5055 

Email: obryanp@fosterfarms.com 

Lucila Ohno-Machado 

Harvard University 19 Southwood 

Southborough, MA 01772 

(508)485-7057, FAX: (617)739-3672 

Email: machado@dsg.harvard.edu 

Arlyn Oman 

IA Dept. of Agriculture 

P.O. Box 73 

Kirkman, IA 51447 

(712)766-3331, FAX: (515)725-1459 

Email: arlyn.oman@idals.state.ia.us 

Don Onwiler 

Nebraska Division of Weights & 

Measures 

301 Centennial Mall South, Box 94757 

Lincoln, NE 68509 

(402)471-4292, FAX: (402)471-2759 

Email: donwiler@agr.ne.gov 

Henry Oppermann 

NIST Building 820, 100 Bureau Drive 

MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

(301)975-5507, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: wmconsulting@cox.net 

Vincent R. Orr 

ConAgra Foods Six ConAgra Drive, 

PDL-405 

Omaha, NE 68102 

(402)595-6248, FAX: (402)595-7660 

Email: vince.orr@conagrafoods.com 

ATTEND - 6 
th NCWM 90 Annual Meeting 

July 10-14, 2005 – Orlando, FL 

Attendee List

Nicholas J. Owens 

Stark County Weights & Measures 

110 Central Plaza South, Ste 220 

Canton, OH 44702 

(330)451-7356, FAX: (330)451-7630 

Email: mowens412@aol.com 

Stephen Pahl 

Texas Department of Agriculture 

1700 North Congress Avenue, Stephen 

F. Austin Building, 11th Floor 

Austin, TX 78701 

(512)463-7483, FAX: (512)463-8225 

Email: stephen.pahl@agr.state.tx.us 

Beth W. Palys, CAE 

NCWM 

15245 Shady Grove Road, Suite 130 

Rockville, MD 20850 

(240)632-9454, FAX: (301)990-9771 

Email: bpalys@mgmtsol.com 

Johnny Parrish 

Brodie Meter Co., LLC 

P.O. Box 450 

Statesboro, GA 30459 

(912)489-0203, FAX: (912)489-0298 

Email: johnny.parrish@brodiemeter.com 

Stephen Patoray 

NCWM 

15245 Shady Grove Road, Suite 130 

Rockville, MD 20850 

(240)632-9454, FAX: (301)990-9771 

Email: spatoray@mgmtsol.com 

Larry Patton 

Lake County Weights & Measures 

2900 West 93rd Avenue 

Crown Point, IN 46307 

(219)755-3680, FAX: (219)755-3739 

Email: weightsandmeasures@yahoo.com 

Edward A. Payne, Jr. 

Maryland Department of Agriculture 

50 Harry S Truman Parkway 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

(410)841-5790, FAX: (410)841-2765 

Email: payneea@mda.state.md.us 

Michael S. Pinagel 

Michigan Department of Agriculture 

940 Venture Lane 

Williamston, MI 48895 

(517)655-8202 ext 301 

FAX: (517)655-8303 

Email: PinagelM@michigan.gov 

Marvin Pound 

Georgia Department of Agriculture 

815 Milledeville Hwy 

Devereux, GA 31087 

(404)656-3605, FAX: (404)656-9648 

Email: mpound@agr.state.ga.us 

Edd Price 

AAA Tank Testers 

5655 Golf Club Drive 

Brazelton, GA 30517 

(706)654-1580, FAX: (706)654-1509 

Email: 

Gale Prince 

Kroger Company 

1014 Vine Street 

Cincinnati, OH 45202-1100 

(513)762-4209, FAX: (513)762-4372 

Email: gale.prince@kroger.com 

Kevin E. Pyle 

Hamilton County Auditor's Office 

138 East Court Street Room 501 

Cincinnati, OH 45202 

(513)946-4100, FAX: (513)946-4124 

Email: 

 kevin.pyle@auditor.hamilton-co.org 

David Quinn 

ISWM 4153 Telfair Lane SE 

Southport, NC 28461 

(910)253-1424, FAX: (910)253-1424 

Email: dave.w.quinn@mindspring.com 

Mark Quisenberry 

Sutter Co Weights & Measures 

142 Garden Highway 

Yuba City, CA 95991 

(530)822-7500, FAX: (530)822-7510 

Email: sutterag@co.sutter.ca.us 

David Rajala 

Veeder-Root Company 

P.O. Box 1673 

Altoona, PA 16603-1673 

(814)696-8125, FAX: (814)695-7605 

Email: drajala@veeder.com 

Robert A. Reinfried 

Scale Manufacturers Association 

6724 Lone Oak Boulevard 

Naples, FL 34109 

(239)514-3441, FAX: (239)514-3470 

Email: bob@scalemanufacturers.org 

Robert E. Reynolds 

Downstream Alternatives Inc 

2259 Harwood Street 

South Bend, IN 46614 

(574)250-2811, FAX: (574)231-8975 

Email: rreynolds-dai@earthlink.net 

Ralph A. Richter 

NIST Building 820, 100 Bureau Drive 

MS 2600 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

(301)975-4025, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: ralph.richter@nist.gov 

Bill Ripka 

Thermo Electron 

501 90th Ave NW 

Minneapolis, MN 55433 

(763)783-2664, FAX: (763)780-1537 

Email: bill.ripka@thermo.com 

Alfonso Salinas 

Lake County Weights & Measures 

2293 North Main Street 

Crown Point, IN 46307 

(219)755-3680, FAX: (219)755-3064 

Email: weightsandmeasures@yahoo.com 

Jeffrey Santarpio 

Dunbar Manufacturing, LLC 

2400 Egg Harbor Road 

Lindenwold, NJ 08021 

(856)346-0666, FAX: (856)346-0016 

Email: jeff.santarpio@dunbarusa.com 

ATTEND - 7 
th NCWM 90 Annual Meeting 

July 10-14, 2005 – Orlando, FL 

Attendee List

Ronen Schneiderovitch 

Kilotech Inc. 

3245 J.B. Deschamps 

Lachine, QC H8T3E4 Canada 

877-328-5988, FAX: 877-485-9210 

Email: rschneider@kilotech.com 

Byron C. School 

USDA, GIPSA, FMD, PPB 

1400 Independence Ave. S.W. STOP 

3630 

Washington, DC 20250-3630 

(202)720-0280, FAX: (202)720-1015 

Email: Byron.C.School@.usda.gov 

Alex Schuettenberg 

ConocoPhillips Petroleum 148 AL, 

Phillips Research Center 

Bartlesville, OK 74004 

(918)661-3563, FAX: (918)661-8060 

Email: 

alex.schuettenberg@conocophillips.com 

David Sefcik 

Whole Foods Market 

6015 Executive Boulevard 

Rockville, MD 20852 

(301)984-2093, FAX: (301)984-2068 

Email: david.sefcik@wholefoods.com 

Hratch Semerjian 

NIST 

100 Bureau Drive, MS 1000 

Gaithersburg, MD 20899 

(301)975-2300, FAX: (301)869-8972 

Email: hratch@nist.gov 

Agatha Shields 

Franklin County Weights & Measures 

373 S. High Street, 21st Floor 

Columbus, OH 43215 

(614)462-7380, FAX: (614)462-3111 

Email: aashield@franklincountyohio.gov 

Michael J. Sikula 

New York Bureau of Weights & 

Measures Building 7A State Campus 

Albany, NY 12235 

(518)457-3452, FAX: (518)457-2552 

Email: mike.sikula@agmkt.state.ny.us 

Chet Siwik 

RdF Corporation 

23 Elm Avenue 

Hudson, NH 03051 

(603)882-5195, FAX: (603)882-6925 

Email: csiwik@rdfcorp.com 

Sean Sproul 

SAS Consulting Inc. 

6501 S. Douglas Hwy., Lot #8 

Gillette, WY 82718 

(307)686-0324, FAX: (307)686-0324 

Email: 

Steven B. Steinborn 

Hogan & Hartson 

555 13th Street, NW 

Washington , DC 20004 

(202)637-5969, FAX: (202)637-5910 

Email: sbsteinborn@hhlaw.com 

Randy Stevens 

Norac, Inc. 

2216 Post Oak Drive 

Sherman, TX 75092 

(903)814-9173, FAX: 

Email: randy.stevens@digi.star.com 

Louis E. Straub 

Fairbanks Scales, Inc. 

3056 Irwin Drive 

Southport, NC 28461 

(910)253-3250, FAX: 

Email: strauble@yahoo.com 

William Strelioff 

Norac 

803 46th Street 

East Saskatoon, SK S7K 0X1 Canada 

(306)664-6711, FAX: 

Email: bill@norac.ca 

Lawrence J. Stump 

Indiana Weights & Measures 

PO Box 748 

Upland, IN 46989 

(317)356-7078, FAX: (317)351-2877 

Email: lstump@isdh.state.in.us 

Richard C. Suiter 

NIST, Weights & Measures Division 

Building 820, 100 Bureau Drive MS 

2600 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

(301)975-4406, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: rsuiter@nist.gov 

William H. Sveum 

Kraft Foods North America, Inc. 

910 Mayer Avenue 

Madison, WI 53704 

(608)285-4280, FAX: (608)285-6288 

Email: wsveum@kraft.com 

Steven D. Sveum 

Norac, Inc. 

13915 Lake Drive Forest 

Lake, MN 55025 

(651)982-0641, FAX: (651)982-0642 

Email: steve@norac.ca 

Aves D. Thompson 

Alaska Div of Measurement 

Standards/CVE 

12050 Industry Way Bldg O, Ste. 6 

Anchorage, AK 99515 

(907)341-3210, FAX: (907)341-3220 

Email: Aves_Thompson@dot.state.ak.us 

Michael P. Tracchia 

City of Beverly 32 Essex Street 

Beverly, MA 01915 

(978)921-6062 ext.114, 

FAX: (978)922-8329 

Email: mtracchia@beverlyma.gov 

James C. Truex 

Ohio Department of Agriculture 

8995 East Main Street, Building 5 

Reynoldsburg, OH 43068-3399 

(614)728-6290, FAX: (614)728-6424 

Email: truex@mail.agri.state.oh.us 

Larry Turberville 

1150 Riverton RoseTrail 

Cherokee, AL 35616 

(256)360-2609, FAX: (256)360-2609 

Email: larryturberville@cherokeetel.net 

ATTEND - 8 
th NCWM 90 Annual Meeting 

July 10-14, 2005 – Orlando, FL 

Attendee List

Manuel Villicana 

Kern County Dept. of Ag& 

Measurement Standards 

1001 South Mount Vernon Ave. 

Bakersfield, CA 93307 

(661)868-6300, FAX: (661)868-6301 

Email: william@co.kern.ca.us 

Gilles Vinet 

Measurement Canada Standards Bldg 

#4, Tunney’s Pasture, Holland Ave. 

Ottawa, Ontario K1A0C9 CANADA 

(613)952-0657, FAX: (613)952-1736 

Email: vinet.gilles@ic.gc.ca 

Thomas Vormittag 

SGS - Minerals Services 

PO Box 474 

Kayenta, AZ 86033 

(928)677-5006, FAX: (928)677-3273 

Email: tvormittag@peabodyenergy.com 

John Walsh 

Framingham Weights & Measures 

150 Concord Street 

Framingham, MA 01702 

(508)626-9113, FAX: (508)626-8991 

Email: jbw@framinghamma.org 

Otto K. Warnlof 

9705 Inaugural Way 

Gaithersburg, MD 20886 

(301)926-8155, FAX: (301)963-2871 

Email: warnlof@aol.com 

Irene B. Warnlof 

9705 Inaugural Way 

Gaithersburg, MD 20886 

(301)926-8155, FAX: 

 Email: 

JoAnn Waterfield 

USDA 

1400 Independence Ave, Ste 2055 

Washington, DC 20250 

(202)720-7051, FAX: (202)205-9237 

Email: joann.waterfield@usda.gov 

Steve Wildberger 

Shimadzu Scientific Instruments 

7102 Riverwood Drive 

Columbia, MD 21046 

(410)381-1227, FAX: (410)381-1222 

Email: stwildberger@shimadzu.com 

Robert G. Williams 

Tennessee Dept. of Agriculture W&M 

PO Box 40627 Melrose Station 

Nashville, TN 37204-0627 

(615)837-5109, FAX: (615)837-5015 

Email: robert.g.williams@state.tn.us 

Juana Williams 

NIST 

Building 820, 100 Bureau Drive MS 

2600 Gaithersburg, MD 20899-2600 

(301)975-3989, FAX: (301)926-0647 

Email: juana.williams@nist.gov 

Cary Woodward 

Hamilton County Weights & Measures 

One Hamilton County Square 

Noblesville, IN 46060 

(317)403-0639, FAX: (317)776-8525 

Email: ceewoody@msn.com 

Richard W. Wotthlie 

Maryland Department of Agriculture 

50 Harry S Truman Parkway 

Annapolis, MD 21401 

(410)841-5790, FAX: (410)841-2765 

Email: wotthlrw@mda.state.md.us 

Steve Wrigley 

Brodie Meter LLC 

19 Somerset 

Statesboro, GA 30458 

(912)489-0170, FAX: 

Email: steven.wrigley@brodiemeter.com 

Russ Wyckoff 

Oregon Measurement Standards 

635 Capitol Street, N.E. 

Salem, OR 97301-2532 

(503)986-4767, FAX: (503)986-4784 

Email: rwyckoff@oda.state.or.us 

Jennifer Yezak 

National Association of State 

Department of Agriculture 

1156 15th Street NW, Suite 1020 

Washington, DC 20005 

(202)296-9680, FAX: (202)296-9686 

Email: Jennifer@nasda.org 

Kristin Young 

Colorado Department of Agriculture 

3125 Wyandot Street 

Denver, CO 80211 

(303)477-4220, FAX: (303)477-4248 

Email: kristin.young@ag.state.co.us 

ATTEND - 9 
th NCWM 90 Annual Meeting 

July 10-15, 2005 – Orlando, FL 

Annual Meeting Guest Attendees

Carole Andersen 

Dawn Beitzel 

Marlene Belue 

Julie Anna Bonfield 

Carrie Beth Bonfield 

Sharon Brucker 

Vicki Coleman 

Cindy Deitzler 

G.W. Diggs 

Lynn Dudash 

Linda Forkert 

Jean Fraley 

Linda Galletta 

Karen Gill 

Jose Gomez 

Diane Gomez 

Anabel Hackett 

Ryne Hackett 

Joel Hackett 

Isaac Hayes 

Marielle Jacques 

Deana Johnson 

Joe Juroch 

Kristen Juroch 

Katherine Juroch 

Rose Marie Lammers 

Judy Mahan 

Marcia Malone 

Donnie Massey 

Loretta McBride 

Sharon Oman 

Peggy Onwiler 

Phil Onwiler 

Mark Onwiler 

Tim Onwiler 

Janessa Onwiler 

Jenny Owens 

Austin Owens 

Jan Quisenberry 

Megan Quisenberry 

Molly Quisenberry 

Kathy Ripka 

Peter Ripka 

Tim Ripka 

Chuan San Sim 

Debbie Straub 

Carol Suiter 

Phyllis Thompson 

Aaron Thompson 

Barbara Tracchia 

Gillian Vormittag 

Chris Vormittag 

George Vormittag 

Ellen Walsh 

Suzanne Woodward 

Julie Woodward 

Bonnie Wotthlie 

Barb Wyckoff 

Lauren Young 

ATTEND - 10