fW I I^STT United states Department of Commerce

I XI VmSp I National Institute of Standards and Technology

NIST SPECIAL PUBLICATION 771

Report of the

74th National Conference

on Weights and Measures

1989

Report of the

74th National Conference on

Weights and Measures 1989

Sponsored by the National Institute

of Standards and Technology,

Attended by Officials from the

Various States, Counties, and Cities, and

Representatives from U.S. Government,

Industry, and Consumer Organizations

Seattle, WA July 16-21, 1989

Report Editors: Albert D. Tholen

Carroll S. Brickenkamp

Ann Heffernan-Turner

NOTE: As of 23 August 1988, the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) became the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) when President

Reagan signed into law the Omnibus Trade and

Competitiveness Act

Issued September 1989

Nat. Inst. Stand. Technol. Spec. Publ. 771, 252 pages (Sept. 1989) CODEN:NSPUEZ

U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON: 1989

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

Washington, DC 20402-9325

National Institute of Standards and Technology

Raymond G. Kammer, Acting Director

U.S. Department of Commerce

Robert A. Mosbacher, Secretary
Abstract

The 74th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) was held at the Westin Hotel in Seattle, Washington during the week of July 16 through 21, 1989. The theme of the meeting was "National Uniformity Benefits Everyone."

In his address to the delegates, Chairman John Bartfai of New York urged all States to adopt National Conference on Weights and Measures' standards and train their staff to use recommended test methods as provided through the Conference technical committees. In the Keynote Address, Conference President Raymond

Kammer, National Institute of Standards and Technology Acting Director, provided a progress report on the National Institute of Standards and Technology's new organization, and urged the delegates to maintain their third-party objectivity, as well as the integrity and quality of their technical work. The Conference set standards for equipment and sales practices in the area of cash/credit pricing of retail motor fuel, and also adopted a specification that permits the use of electronic data audit trails to be used for security assurance. Sweeping changes to the Uniform Weights and Measures Law and the Uniform Weighmaster Law were also adopted; if a State chooses to adopt these new standards, a system of administrative hearings and

civil penalties could serve as an alternative to criminal prosecution.

Special meetings included those of the Metrologists' Workshops, the Associate Membership Committee, the Retired Officials Committee, the Scale Manufacturers' Association, the Industry Committee on Packaging and

Labeling, the state regional weights and measures associations, and National Association of State Departments

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

and industry. Key words: legal metrology; specifications and tolerances; training; type evaluation; uniform laws and

regulations; and weights and measures.

Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 26-27766. Note: Opinions expressed in non-NIST papers are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the National

Institute of Standards and Technology. Non-NIST speakers are solely responsible for the content and quality of their material.

2
Contents

Page

Abstract 2

Past Chairmen of the Conference 5

Officers, Officials, and Committees of the Conference 6

State Representatives 12 Scheduled Events 14 Organization Chart 16 General Session 19 Welcoming Address 21 Honorable Charles Royer Mayor of Seattle, Washington

Keynote Address 22 Raymond G. Kammer

Acting Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology Chairman's Address 26 John Bartfai Director, Bureau of Weights and Measures, State of New York Honor Award Presentations 27

Certificates of Appreciation 28

President's Awards 29 Standing Committee Reports 31 Report of the Executive Committee 33 Appendix A - Publications, Office of Weights and Measures 52 Appendix B - Publications, National Conference on Weights and Measures 55 Appendix C - NCWM Membership by State and Composition of NCWM Mailing List 57 Appendix D - Report on OIML 61 Appendix E - Operating Budget 89/90 (July 1, 1989 to June 30, 1990) 64 Appendix F - Report of the Task Force on Energy Allocation 67 Appendix G - Recommended Regulation for Energy Allocation Systems 72 Committee on Laws and Regulations Final Report 83 Appendix A - Uniform Weighmaster Law 126 Appendix B - 4.16. Fresh Oysters Labeled by Fluid Volume 133 Appendix C - 4.17. Capacity of Plastic Trash and Food Bags and Similar Containers 136

3
Contents (Continued)

Page

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances Final Report 137 Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs Final Report 193 Appendix A - NTP Certification Summary 203 Appendix B - NTP Registry Summary of Activity 207 Appendix C - "Training the Trainer" 213 Appendix D - NCWM Award for Training Achievements 214 Committee on Liaison Final Report 215 Annual Committee Reports 225

Resolutions Committee Report 227 Nominating Committee Report 229

Auditing Committee Report 230

Treasurer's Report 231 New Chairman's Message 235

Registration List 238

4
Past Chairmen of the Conference

YFAft fHAIRMAN

43rd 1958 J. P. McBnde, MA

44tn 1959 C M. ruller, CA

A c^u 1960 H. fc.. Crawtord, rL

ACtX. 4otn 1%1 T1 C \£n ~lr TKT K. b. Meek, Irs 4 /in iyoz Robert Williams, JN Y

4otn 1963 C H. Mender, be

AQtU 1 CiAA

JJ. M. 1 urnbull, WA

v. jj. L.ampDeii, uh

J 1st J. r. Irue, Kb

52nd 1%7 T P Rawpti V4 A

53rd 1968 C. C. Morgan, IN

54th 1969 S. H. Christie, NJ

55th 1970 R. W. Searles, OH

56th 1971 M. Jennings, TN

57th 1972 E. H. Black, CA

58th 1973 George L. Johnson, KY

59th 1974 John H. Lewis, WA

60th 1975 Sydney D. Andrews, FL

61st 1976 Richard Thompson, MD

62nd 1977 Earl Prideaux, CO

63rd 1978 James F. Lyles, VA

64th 1979 Kendrick J. Simila, OR

65th 1980 Charles H. Vincent, TX

66th 1981 Edward H. Stadolnik, MA

67th 1982 Edward C. Heffron, MI

68th 1983 Charles H. Greene, NM

69th 1984 Sam F. Hindsman, AR

70th 1985 Ezio F. Delfino, CA

71st 1986 George E. Mattimoe, HI

72nd 1987 Frank Nagele, MI

73rd 1988 Darrell A. Guensler, CA

5
Officers, Officials, and Committees of the Conference

Elected Officers of the Conference

Chairman:

Chairman-Elect:

Past Chairman:

Vice-Chairmen:

Executive Committee:

Treasurer:

John Bartfai, New York*

Fred A. Gerk, New Mexico*

Darrell A. Guensler, California* Carl Conrad, Jr., New Jersey Kathleen Thuner, San Diego, California Fred Clem, Columbus, Ohio

Lacy DeGrange, Maryland

Fred Gerk, New Mexico

Darrell Guensler, California Lou Draghetti, Agawam, Massachusetts

Patrick Nichols, Alameda County, California Sam Hindsman, Arkansas Don Stagg, Alabama Thomas Geiler, Barnstable, Massachusetts Edward Heffron, Michigan

Charles Gardner, Jr., Suffolk County, New York*

National Institute of Standards and Technology Officials

President: Raymond Kammer*, Acting Director Executive Secretary: Albert Tholen*, Office of Weights & Measures

Chaplain: Sergeants-at-Arms:

Parliamentarian:

Assistant Treasurer: OIML Representatives:

Appointed Officials John Lewis, Washington (retired) Paul Bjornsson, Seattle, Washington John Allen, Washington James Melgaard, South Dakota

Gerald Hanson, San Bernardino County, California PS7/RS 5: Raymond Helmick, Arizona PS5D/RS 10: Kenneth Butcher, Maryland

PS7/RS 4: David Watson, Texas

*Ex-officio members of the Executive Committee

6
Standing Committees

(Appointed) Laws and Regulations

Kendrick Simila, Oregon, Chairman

Fred Clem, Columbus, Ohio

Sidney Colbrook, Illinois Allan Nelson, Connecticut N. David Smith, North Carolina Technical Advisor: Carroll Brickenkamp, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Specifications and Tolerances

Ross Andersen, New York, Chairman

Charles Carroll, Massachusetts Raymond Helmick, Arizona James Truex, Ohio

David Watson, Fort Worth, Texas

Technical Advisor: Henry Oppermann, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

Charles Greene, New Mexico, Chairman

G. W. Diggs, Virginia Maxwell Gray, Florida Raymond Kalentkowski, Connecticut

Steve Malone, Nebraska

Technical Advisor: Joan Koenig, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Liaison

Peggy Adams, Bucks County, Pennsylvania, Chairman

James Akey, Kansas

Richard Davis, James River Corporation John McCutcheon, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Food Safety and Inspection Service Kathleen Thuner, San Diego, California Technical Advisor: Karl Newell, National Institute of Standards and Technology

7
Annual Committees

(Appointed)

Nominating Committee

Darrell Guensler, California, Chairman

Peggy Adams, Bucks County, Pennsylvania Barbara Bloch, California Fred Clem, Columbus, Ohio Sam Hindsman, Arkansas Eugene Keeley, Delaware Thomas Kelly, New Jersey Auditing Committee*

Gerald Hanson, San Bernardino County, California Stephen Casto, West Virginia Emmett Murphy, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Budget Review Committee

John Bartfai, New York

William Braun, Procter and Gamble Co. Don Stagg, Alabama

Carol Fulmer, South Carolina Albert Tholen, National Institute of Standards and Technology Credentials Committee*

Eugene Keeley, Delaware Donald Weick, Topeka, Kansas

Joseph Silvestro, Gloucester County, New Jersey Resolutions Committee*

Stephen Melloy, Montana

O. Ray Elliott, Oklahoma

Maxwell Gray, Florida

Sterling McFarlane, Seattle, Washington

Stephen E. McGuire, Illinois Dean Ely, Pennsylvania Thomas DeCheco, Summit County, Ohio

^Technical Advisor: Richard Smith, National Institute of Standards and Technology

8
Associate Membership Committee

Richard Davis, James River Corporation, Chairman

William Braun, Procter & Gamble, Vice-Chairman Thomas Stabler, Toledo Scale, Treasurer Chip Kloos, Beatrice/Hunt Wesson

A. Ladd, A. J. Ladd Weighing & Packaging Harvey Lodge, Dunbar Manufacturing

J. Edward Thompson, Kraft, Inc. Thomas Topalis, The Quaker Oats Company

Raymond Wells, Sensitive Measurements, Inc. Richard Whipple, Gilbarco, Inc.

Task Forces and Special Committees

Task Force on Energy Allocation

Public Sector Members

Patrick Nichols, Alameda County, California, Chairman

James Allen, Rhode Island Peggy Adams, Bucks County, Pennsylvania Stephen Casto, West Virginia Robert Omlor, Montgomery County, Ohio

Richard Shockley, Maryland

David Wallace, Colorado

Private Sector Members

Martin A. Anderson, Energy Monitoring Systems Marvin Feldman, Nicon Corp. Roger Freischlag, Energy Billing Systems, Inc. Ken Hoberman, GRH Electronics Clinton Phillips, Int. Dist. Heating & Cooling Assn.

Technical Advisor: Tina Gaver Butcher, National Institute of Standards and Technology

9
Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation

John Elengo, Jr., Revere Corp., Chairman Public Members

Ross Andersen, New York

Tina Gaver Butcher, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Carl Conrad, New Jersey John Lacy, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Packers and Stockyards Dennis Mahoney, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal Grain Inspection Service Henry Oppermann, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Clifton Smith, California James Truex, Ohio

Otto Warnlof, National Institute of Standards and Technology Kenneth Yee, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Measuring Industry Sector

Richard Whipple, Gilbarco, Inc., Chairman

Michael Belue, Southwest Pump

Alfred Evans, Veeder-Root

Robert Fonger, Bennett Pump

Walter Gerdom, Tokheim Corp. Melvin Hankel, Liquid Controls Jack Harshman, Daniel Flow Products, Inc. William Key, Tokheim Corp. Robert McCarty, NCR Corporation

Larry Murray, Dresser Industries, Inc. Douglas Smith, William A. Wilson's Sons John C. Skuce, Smith Meter, Inc. Douglas C. Smith, William M. Wilsons Sons, Inc. Richard J. Wolff, Mobil Oil Corp.

Weighing Industry Sector

John Elengo, Jr., Revere Corp., Chairman

Michael Adams, Fairbanks Scales Joseph Antkowiak, Hottinger Baldwin Measurement

Joe Giannina, Grain Elevator & Processing Society William Goodpaster, Cardinal Scale Co.

Khalil D. Haker, BLH Electronics, Inc. Harry Lockery, Lockery Associates John MacDonald, Howe Richardson Robert McCarty, NCR Corporation

Peter Perino, Transducers, Inc. John Robinson, Assoc. of American Railroads Thomas Stabler, Toledo Scale Co.

Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Assocociation

10
Belt Conveyor Sector

Peter Perino, Tranducers, Inc., Chairman Public Members

Fred Gerk, New Mexico Raymond Helmick, Arizona Henry Oppermann, National Institute of Standards and Technology John Rabb, Alabama

Richard Miller, Colorado

Otto Warnlof, National Institute of Standards and Technology Private Sector

Gerald J. Berger, Technetics Industries, Inc. Darry Boyd, Industrial Weighing Consultant Corp. Gerald Burger, Consumers Power Co. Max Casanova, Ramsey Engineering

Daniel Cockrell, Weighing and Control Systems, Inc. Richard Desollar, Central Illinois Public Service Shawne Gibson, ABC Scale Joseph Giannina, Port of Corpus Christi Martin Gruber, Industrial Weighing Corporation

Mitchell Hescox, Thayer Scale Norman Johnson, Merrick Corp. Ted Johnson, Sensortronics Gar Kachel, Riede Systems, Inc. Kenneth Knapp, Milltronics

F. Joe Lloyd, CSX Transportation John MacFarlane, Autoweigh Co.

Nicholas Ortyl, III, Revere Corp. John Robinson, Association of American Railroads

J. Oliver, Virginia Power

William Thurman, Southern Company Services, Inc. Daryl Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Association

C. Toombs, Stock Equipment Corporation

11
State Representatives

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

standing and annual committees: STATE REPRESENTATIVE ALTERNATE

Alabama

Alaska Arizona Arkansas

John Rabb

Aves Thompson

Raymond Helmick Sam Hindsman

Charles Burns None

Richard E. Wolfe None

Cslifornis Colorado

Connecticut Delaware

District of Columbia

T")arrp11 l—t til 1 ^11 friipnslpr VJ UUlldl^l David Wallace

Allan Nelson Eugene Keeley None

None Raymond Kalentkowski None

None

Florida Georgia Hawaii

Idaho

Illinois

Maxwell Gray

Curtis Williams George Mattimoe

Glen Jex

Sid Colbrook

Jack Jeffries George Jones None

Thomas Schafer

Steve McGuire

Indiana Iowa

Kansas Kentucky

Louisiana

Sharon Rhoades

James O'Connor DeVerne Phillips Randy Wise

Melvin Lyons, Jr.

None

Jerry Bane

James Akey

None None

Maine

Maryland

Massachusetts Michigan Minnesota

Clayton Davis Lacy DeGrange

Charles Carroll Edward Heffron Edward Skluzacek

Stanley Millay M. Richard Shockley None

Harold Zorlen George MacDonald

Mississippi Missouri Montana

Nebraska Nevada

John Tillson Lester H. Barrows

Stephen H. Meloy

Steven Malone None

None

R. Wittenberger None

Michael Diesley None New Hampshire New Jersey New Mexico New York

North Carolina

Michael Grenier Thomas W. Kelly Fred Gerk

John Bartfai N. David Smith

None

Carl Conrad, Jr. Charles Greene

Ross Andersen

Ronald Murdock

12
STATE REPRESENTATIVE ALTERNATE

North Dakota Curtis Roberts None

Ohio James C. Truex Bruce Litzenberg Oklahoma O. Ray Elliott Charles Carter Oregon Kendrick Simila James Clifford Pennsylvania Dean Ely None

Puerto Rico None None

Rhode Island Lynda Maurer Fredric Violo South Carolina Carol Fulmer None

South Dakota James A. Melgaard Leonard Bies Tennessee Robert Williams Randy Jennings Texas David Watson John Hermanson

Utah Robert Smoot Edison Stephens Vermont Bruce Martell None

Virginia J. Alan Rogers Wes Diggs

Virgin Islands Joycelyn Encarnacion None

Washington Stuart DeLaney Sterling McFarlane West Virginia None None

Wisconsin Donald J. Soberg None Wyoming Victor Gerber Jim Bigelow

13
SCHEDULED EVENTS

8 a.m.

JULY 16 SUNDAY

JULY 17 MONDAY

JULY 18 TUESDAY

9 a.m.-

10 a.m. -

11 a.m.-

Noon -

1 p.m.-

2 p.m.

3 p.m.

4 p.m.

5 p.m.

6 p.m.

7 p.m.

8 p.m. -

9 p.m

Key to Meeting Room

Abbreviations Or

VI

VII By

W

BrAd

5th GB

Bd

StSH

®

Z ^ LU trot

< UJ 2

Orcas Vashon I Vashon II Blakely Whidbey

Baker Adams

Fifth Avenue

Grand III Ballroom Board Room

Stuart

St. Helen's

©

18

u2: z

z> I z o

< UJ 5 Io

STANDING COMMITTEES AGENDA

REVIEW

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

L&R COMMITTEE

vinS&T COMMITTEE

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

^LIAISON COMMITTEE

NASDA (p) WEIGHTS & MEASURES

DIVISION

ORIENTATION SESSION (Z* FOR MEMBERS ^

SPECIFICATION AND

TOLERANCES

COMMITTEE

SESSION

®

CHAIRMAN'S

RECEPTION

®

INDUSTRY COMMITTEE ON

PACKAGING

& LABELING

LUNCH (OPEN) ®

LAWS AND

REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

SESSION

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

SESSION IS,®

®

LIAISON COMMITTEE

SESSION

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

SESSION ® AUDITING COMMITTEE

O < CO

< oc Z O

0

nI- til

111 CD u. UJ 02

LUNCH (OPEN) GENERAL SESSION — CEREMONIAL —

OPENING CEREMONY

ADDRESSES HONOR AWARDS

PRESENTATION

150TH ANNIVERSARY

RECEPTION

®

®

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP

COMMITTEE

OPEN

14
74th ANNUAL MEETING

JULY 19 WEDNESDAY

JULY 20

THURSDAY

JULY 21 FRIDAY ®

METROLOGY WORKSHOP

REGIONAL ASSOCIATION _ SESSIONS ® 0 ® ®

LUNCH (OPEN) RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE LUNCH (g) ®

VOTING SESSION' VOTING PROCEDURE

EDUCATION COMMITTEE

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

SPECIFICATIONS AND

TOLERANCES COMMITTEE

(§) VOTING SESSION*

(CONTINUED) NOMINATING COMMITTEE LAWS & REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

LIAISON COMMITTEE

RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

AUDITING COMMITTEE

TREASURER'S REPORT

CLOSING CEREMONY

LUNCH (OPEN) ®

METROLOGY WORKSHOP w

Ui PI

®

BREAKFAST MEETING

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE AND OFFICERS

STANDING COMMITTEES,

SPECIAL COMMITTEES, AND

TASK FORCESPLANNING ® 10 a.m.

11 a.m.

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

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP

RECEPTION

CONFERENCE

OUTING

'At the two voting sessions the Committee's reports will be

voted in the order shown.

15
OPERATING COMMITTEES TECH ADVISOR: R. Smith, NIST 74TH NATIONAL CONFERENi

AUDITING COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN : G. Hanson, CA (2) MEMBERS: S. Casto, WV (1

)

Emmett Murphy, PA (3)

RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: S. Meloy, MT(1) MEMBERS: O. R. Elliott, OK (2) M. Gray, FL(1)

S. McFarlane, WA (2) S. McGuire, IL (2) D. Ely, PA (3) T. DeCheco, OH (3)

SERGEANT-AT-ARMS

Paul Bjornsson, WA

John Allen, WA

COORDINATORS

CREDENTIALS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: E. Keeley, DE (1) MEMBERS: D. Weick, KS (2)

J. Silvestro, NJ (3)

NOMINATING COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: D. Guensler, CA 9 MEMBERS: P. Adams, PA

B. Bloch, CA

F. Clem, OH

S. Hindsman, AR

E. Keeley, DE

T. Kelly, NJ

BUDGET REVIEW COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: MEMBERS: W. Braun, Procter & Gamble (1

)

D. Stagg, AL (1

)

C. Fulmer, SC (2) A. Tholen, NIST

EXECUTIVE NTEP BOARD

ELECTED OFFICERS CHAIRMAN9

: J. Bartfai, NY

CHAIRMAN-ELECT9^. Gerk, NM

PAST-CHAIRMAN9: D. Guensler, CA TREASURER ONE YEAR TWO YEAR THREE YEAR

C. Gardner, Jr., NY

L. Draghetti, MA

P. Nichols, CA

S. Hindsman, AR

D. Stagg, AL

T. Geiler, MA

E. Heffron, Ml

OTHER ELECTED OFFICERS

VICE-CHAIRMEN:

C. Conrad, NJ

K. Thuner, CA

F. Clem, OH

L. DeGrange, MD

OIML REPRESENTATIVES

PS 7/RS 5: R. Helmick, AZ PS 5D/RS 1 0: K. Butcher, MD

PS 7/RS 4: D.Watson, TX REGIONAL COORDINATOR:

R. Smith, NIST CONFERENCE COORDINATOR:

A. Turner, NIST

SPECIFICATIONS & TOLERANCES

COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: R. Andersen, NY (1) MEMBERS: C. Carroll, MA (5) R. Helmick, AZ (4)

J. Truex, OH (3) D. Watson, TX (2) TECH ADVISOR: H. Oppermann, NIST

LAWS AND REGULATIONS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: K. Simila, OR (1) MEMBERS: F. Clem, OH (5)* S. Colbrook, IL (2) A. Nelson, CT (4) N. David Smith, NC (3)

* Replaced S. Rosenthal, NY, at Annual Meeting TECH ADVISOR: C. Brickenkamp, NIST

LIAISON COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: P. Adams, PA (5) MEMBERS: J. Akey, KS (2) R. Davis, James River Corp. (4)

J. McCutcheon, USDA(1)

K. Thuner, CA (3) TECH ADVISOR: K. Newell, NIST

Legend:

Non-Voting Members

Ex-Officio Members

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK

SUBCOMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: P. Adams, PA

Numbers in Parentheses Refer to Years Remaining

to Serve on Committees

State and Local Government Officials are Identified by their State Abbreviations USDA - U.S. Department of Agriculture P&S - Packers & Stockyards Admin. FGIS - Federal Grain Inspection Service OIML - International Organization of Legal Metrology NIST - National Institute of Standards and

Technology (Formerly National Bureau of Standards) 16

Revised - August, 1989
ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

SPECIAL COMMITTEES AND TASK FORCES

COMMITTEE

OF GOVERNORS

PRESIDENT0 ' 6: R. Kammer, NIST EXECUTIVE SECRETARY"'e

: A.Tholen, NIST

APPOINTED OFFICIALS _ CHAPLAIN: J. Lewis. WA (ret.) PARLIAMENTARIAN:

J. Melgaard, SD

ASSISTANT TREASURER:

G. Hanson. CA

EDUCATION. ADMINISTRATION. AND CONSUMER AFFAIRS COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: C. Greene, NM (1) MEMBERS: G. W. Diggs. VA (2) M. Gray, FL (4) R. Kalentkowski, CT (5) S. Malone. NE (3) TECH ADVISOR: J. Koenlg, NIST

ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP COMMITTEE

CHAIRMAN: R. Davis, James River Corp. VICE-CHAIRMAN: W. Braun, Procter & Gamble TREASURER: T. Stabler, Toledo Scale Corp. MEMBERS:

C. Kloos, Beatrice/Hunt Wesson

A. Ladd, A.J. Ladd Weighing & Packaging

H. Lodge, Dunbar Manufacturing

J. Thompson, Kraft, Inc. T. Topalis, The Quaker Oats Co.

R. Wells, Sensitive Msmts, Inc. R. Whipple, Gifbarco, Inc.

TASK FORCE ON ENERGY ALLOCATION

CHAIRMAN: Pat Nichols, CA

PUBLIC MEMBERS:

J. Allen, Rl

P. Adams, PA

S. Casto, WV

R. Omlor, OH

R. Shockley, MD

D. Wallace. CO

PRIVATE SECTOR:

M.A. Anderson, Energy Mon.

Systems, Inc. M. Feldman, Nicon Corp.

R. Frelschlag, Energy Billing Sys.,

Inc. K. Hoberman, GRH Electronics C. Phillips, Intl. Dlst. Heating and Cooling Assn. TECH ADVISOR: T. Butcher, NIST

WEIGHING INDUSTRY SECTOR

CHAIRMAN J. Elengo, Jr., Revere Corp. MEMBERS:

M. Adams, Fairbanks Scales

J. Antkowlak, Hottinger Baldwin Msmts.

J. Giannina, Grain Elevator and

Processing Society W. Goodpaster, Cardinal Scale Co.

K. Haker, B LH Electronics H. Lockery, Lockery Assoc.

J. MacDonald, Howe Richardson

R. McCarty, NCR Corp.

P. Perino, Transducers, Inc. W. Paull. Hobart Corp.

J. Robinson. Assoc. of Am. Railroads

T. Stabler. Toledo Scale Corp.

D. Tonini, Scale Manufacturers Assoc.

TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ON

NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION

J. Elengo, Jr., Revere Corp., CHAIRMAN

MEASURING INDUSTRY SECTOR

CHAIRMAN: R. Whipple, Gilbarco, Inc. MEMBERS:

M. Belue, Southwest Pump

A. Evans, Veeder-Root

R. Fonger, Bennett Pump

W. Gerdom, Tokhelm Corp. M. Hankel, Liquid Controls

J. Harshman, Daniels Industry W. Key, Tokhelm Corp.

R. McCarty, NCR, Corp.

L. Murray, Dresser Industries, Inc.

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

R. Wolf, Mobil Oil Corp.

PUBLIC MEMBERS

R. Andersen, NY

T. Butcher, NIST

C. Conrad, NJ

J. Lacy, USDA-P&S

D. Mahoney, USDA-FGIS

H.Oppermann, NIST

C. Smith, CA

J.Truex.OH

O. Wamlof, NIST

K. Yee, NIST

BELT CONVEYOR SECTOR

P. Perino, Transducers, Inc., CHAIRMAN

PUBLIC MEMBERS

F. Gerk, NM

R. Helmick, AZ

H. Oppermann, NIST

J. Rabb, AL

R. Miller.CO O. Wamlof, NIST

PRIVATE SECTOR

J. Berger, Technetlcs Industries, Inc. D. Boyd, Industrial Weighing Consultant Con

G. Burger, Consumers Power Company

M. Casanova, Ramsey Technology, Inc. D. Cockrell, Weighing and Control Sys., Inc. R. Desollar, Central Illinois Public Service

S. Gibson, ABC Scale

J. Giannina, Port of Corpus Christi M. Gruber, Industrial Weighing Corporation M. Hescox, Thayer Scale

N. Johnson, Merrick Corp.

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

F. Joe Loyd, CSX Transportation

J. MacFarlane, Auto Weight Company

N. Ortyl, Ml, Dresser Industries

J. Robinson. Assoc. of American Railroads

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

C. Toombs, Stock Equipment Corporation

17

General Session

General Session

19

General Session

Welcoming Address

Honorable Charles Royer Mayor of Seattle, Washington

I am here to offer a word of welcome to our city. This is the first time that the Conference has been in Seattle

in its 74-year history, and we are delighted that you all are here. I would like to thank Sterling McFarland,

Supervisor of our Weights and Measures Section, and Andy Lofton's department, Licenses and Consumer

Affairs, in the City for helping on the host committee. As I said, we are pleased that you are here. The Convention and Visitor Industry is a growing and important

part of every city's economic base. It is important for us to continue to attract these national meetings. I was

noticing that you have at your tables a survey that asks you to rank the current and past eight Conferences in terms of which city/hotel combinations you thought resulted in the best meeting. We hope that you end up

writing Seattle down as your favorite conference. Lots of people who visit Seattle for the first time are stunned

at the beauty of our city and perhaps were unaware that up in the Northwest corner of the United States you

find such a beautiful, undiscovered place as ours. As I was saying, the convention business is very important. We had a huge convention right after we opened our

convention center. It was a church organization, I will not tell you which denomination, but they were here

(about 14,000 of them) and we expected big things of them; however, they came with the Ten Commandments

in one hand and a 10-dollar bill in the other and never broke either one. So they did not exactly measure up - but I think you probably will from what I am told.

I usually invite our guests to go down and visit the Pike Place public market - the beautiful old Farmer's Market

not far from this hotel. But I was asked to make an exception in your case by the fish merchants and the produce people - so I don't know if that's telling our weights and measures officials something or not. The work that you do is of course known to me through our Department of Licenses and Consumer Affairs.

I believe it is important work, and that these National Conferences are important places for technical advances,

for information exchange. I know in my own association of cities I almost never come back from one of our

conferences without some good idea that I can put to work in my own city, and I'm sure you will find that the case in this meeting. We know that we can learn from the technical expertise that is assembled here in our city.

I just want to say that it is clear that the cooperation among business interests, the government, and the technical people in your field is very commendable. I wish that all public/private relationships were as cooperative and

supportive. Let me just urge that you take some time out from your schedule to look over the city. It is a little tough to get around sometimes because we are still building the city. We had a visitor here a few months ago when the whole town was torn up who said, "This is a very nice city, why are you tearing it down?" Actually, what we are doing is trying to build it up - so I hope you get a chance to walk around our downtown, visit the water, visit the neighborhoods in the city, and have a very pleasant experience and come back soon. Thank you very much.

21
General Session

Keynote Address

Raymond G. Kammer

Acting Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology

I am very pleased to have been invited to address this General Session of our 74th Annual Meeting. I refer to

it as "our" annual meeting because I believe that the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST)

should be very close to the Conference and that we have a shared responsibility to provide the United States with

the basis for weights and measures and for fair trade. We cannot fulfill this responsibility separately - we can

only do it together; therefore, it is important for the country that we cooperate.

I am proud of the cooperation that we have achieved so far. The joint efforts that we have undertaken, in my

opinion rather successfully, include the National Type Evaluation Program and the National Training Program. The establishment of both of these new programs and the updating and strengthening of older programs, such

as the State Standards Program, show that the Conference remains modern and progressive, and I hope show

that NIST has also and that together we have been effective.

I am proud of our support to the Conference, and I think the leadership of the Conference has a right to be proud of their accomplishments. We thank you all for it. Of course many of you know there have been

significant changes. Ten years ago I think one would have said that our relationship was based almost exclusively on the provision of uniform standards of marketplace measure. Gradually this role has broadened to include

a lot more interaction with industry. Emblematic of that is the more than a thousand members of the Conference who are from the private sector. Your associate members have been very active in the committee work and NTEP and in the development of the training modules. I believe that this trend is a reaction to the

fact that close association of government and industry is now perceived by our society as essential to the health of our economy.

I'm going to comment on some of the plans for the future of the Conference in a few minutes, but first I would

like to take this opportunity to bring you up to date on some of the things that are happening at NIST and give you my view of our future role at the National level. As I mentioned, our society now recognizes that government and industry have to work more closely together. Closer collaboration with U.S. industry is at the heart of the recent name change from the "National Bureau of Standards" to the "National Institute of Standards and Technology" and the change in our mission resulting from

passage of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act in August 1988. In this Act, Congress describes NIST's

role as follows: "To enhance the competitiveness of American industry while maintaining its traditional function

as lead national laboratory for providing the measurements, calibrations, and quality assurance techniques which

underpin United States commerce, technological progress, improved product reliability and manufacturing

processes, and public safety." It is not an accident that they say first they would like us to work on the competitiveness of American Industry and only later do they mention the more traditional responsibilities concerning "measurements" and "calibrations" and "quality assurance." Measurement used to be our primary

mission. Congress now says that it is still an important mission, but the competitiveness of U.S. industry is more

important. Striking a balance between that assignment from Congress and our traditional mission and the demands that are placed on us by industry, and indeed by the Conference itself, is going to be a challenge for the leadership of NIST in the next 5 years. The Congress also said that NIST should ."..assist industry in the development of technology and procedures needed to improve quality, to modernize manufacturing processes, to insure product reliability, manufacturability,

functionality, and cost effectiveness." Again you see the phrase "assist industry" and the words "quality,"

22
General Session

"modernized manufacturing," "product reliability," "manufacturability," "cost effectiveness," which are not metrology words. Congress went on to say we should ."..facilitate the more rapid commercialization, especially by small and medium-sized companies throughout the United States, of products based on new scientific discoveries in fields such as automation, electronics, advanced materials, biotechnology, and optical technologies." We have always worked with small and medium-sized business, so that is nothing new; but, Congress says we should now work

on such specific technologies as "advanced materials" "biotechnology," and "optical technology." Indeed, we have

already begun to work in these areas.

I am going to tell you a little bit about what we imagine the future looks like, and, of course, I will start with the budget - that is where everybody starts. Those of you who run Weights and Measures programs in the States know that that is the place where most of the decisions get made. We are still in the midst of our fiscal year 1991 budget process, but I can tell you the five major thrusts of our budget initiatives. These are: o Information Technology

- Optical Communications - Lightwave

- Digital Communications - ISDN

- Digital Data and Imaging

- Computer Security - Viruses o Intelligent Machines and Processes

- Intelligent Processing of Materials and Parts

- Composites Technology

- Bioprocess Technology

- Product Data Exchange Specifications - PDES

o Standards and Information for Quality improvement

- Chemical Measurements and Standards

- High Technology Databases

- Microwave Measurement Technology

- Quality o Electronic Technology

- Semiconductor Electronics

- Superconductivity Electronics

- Atomic Scale Electronics 0 Technology Services

- Manufacturing Technology Centers

- State Assistance Services

- Inventions Evaluation Program

- Advanced Technology Program The Technology Services initiative covers the new responsibilities under the Trade and Competitiveness Act that

1 alluded to earlier. One of the challenges that NIST management faces is to make sure that the new trade act responsibilities do not supplant the traditional measurement responsibilities. That is an issue that I think will be of particular interest to the Conference over the next year.

I would like to talk a little more about the future. First NIST's and then the Conference's. Of course there are

a lot of unknowns in our environment - there are a lot of unknowns in everyone's environment. Casey Stengel,

I believe, once said, "Predictions are very difficult especially when you make predictions about the future."

23
General Session

I am keeping four points in mind as I do what I can to bring about the sort of future I think NIST should have. The first point is that industry is our primary clientele. Actually, they already were before Congress told us that we ought to focus more on the competitiveness of industry. Second, it is important that NIST's investment in research and measurement keep pace with the Federal Government's investment in research. Third, it is also important for NIST to respond to the immediate interests of our society. Undertaking the new responsibilities assigned to us by the Trade and Competitiveness Act is one way of responding to these interests; but, I would

say that we should not do so at the expense of our measurement mission. Our measurement mission is unique; no one else is doing it and no one else is apt to do it if we do not. Finally, I tell my staff that I am very

confident NIST will be a successful organization as long as it is able to maintain the integrity and the quality of

its technical work; as long as it remains objective or, as we say, maintains a "third party objectivity;" and it maintains the high quality of its staff, facilities, and equipment.

I said earlier I was going to talk about the future of the Conference. It may be a bit presumptuous for me to be giving advice to many of you whom I have never met before; however, I am from Washington and the

definition of an expert in Washington is "somebody who's left town." So I will be presumptuous and suggest to you - especially to those of you who work in the State Weights and Measures Offices - that you can enhance the

quality of your own program and, therefore, your own effectiveness if you think about the ways to success that

I just mentioned. Namely, maintaining the integrity and quality of your technical work; your third party

objectivity; and the quality of your staff, facilities, and equipment. Of course you, like NIST, must achieve this in spite of the budget limitations that all of us are facing. In regard to integrity and quality of technical work

at the State level, there are two opportunities that seem to be pressing. You might even say these opportunities

are confronting the States right now; however, they are opportunities to improve the future performance at the State level. One of them is in the area of mass and the other is in the area of petroleum analysis. You may remember that about 1970 all 50 States received from the then National Bureau of Standards a full set of devices for making mass, volume, and length measurements. Part of the deal was that, in return for the new devices, each State would modernize its own measurement facilities. Only about half the States have made

improvements since then. NIST is now working with a number of the States on a research project that could result in the States performing mass determinations at virtually the same level of accuracy as NIST. The idea here is to develop a kit that contains the facilities for computerized printouts of calibration results and temperature sensors. I recommend

the project to those States that have not yet considered it. It may be that it would benefit the industry in your

State and, as a result, your economy. Another opportunity that is confronting us has to do with petroleum quality analysis. I think that, whether we

want it or not, we are going to see alcohol blends and blending pumps. We see them in some States now, and

I do not think it will be long before all States have them. Senator Glenn recently introduced a bill that would

encourage gasohol use in the United States; this is only one example of the efforts to promote these products. Eventually our society will exploit this opportunity, and we will have to be prepared to provide the proper measurements. An interesting thing has happened in the States that have already started preparing themselves - those States

that have upgraded and improved their measurement services. They find that they get more support from

industry, more demands also, but the support they get is reflected in the positive actions of their legislatures on

weights and measures issues. Concerning the maintenance of "third party objectivity," my advice here to the State weights and measures

officials is to consider defending, perhaps even aggressively, the regulatory mission that is associated with your

offices. There has been a trend in some States to have weights and measures inspections done by private sector

firms. A conflict-of-interest problem arises when these same firms vend repair services for scales and other measuring devices that are broken. In such a situation, it is difficult to maintain third party objectivity. If your

State is considering private sector involvement in weights and measures regulation and you do not think it is an

appropriate thing, NIST will be happy to provide you or your political leaders with advice. A second aspect of third party objectivity is to make sure that the standards that we adopt are enforceable in the

24
General Session

field. The Conference, I believe, has violated this precept because it has adopted a temperature range for testing scales that goes from about -10 °C to about 40 °C. At the present time, only three States can test over that range. I suggest to you that it is hard to command respect for standards that most people cannot implement.

Finally, a word about maintaining the high quality of staff, facilities, and equipment. We all know our society

is becoming a much more complex place. As a result, to be a successful State metrologist now you really need

to have a math and a statistics background and you probably need a bachelor's degree in science with lab experience. If you are a weights and measures field inspector, you can see from looking at the revised Handbook

133 that a background in statistics is becoming necessary to do the job. Of course, not everyone has this type

of training, but one of the ways that we can solve that problem is by increasing on-the-job training. I am a very strong advocate of on-the-job training; that is why we are supporting the development of training modules. I encourage you to make a commitment in your budget to providing on-the-job training using the NCWM's

training modules, 12 of which have been published so far. Another key issue in maintaining quality is investing in new facilities - this includes investing in computers. One

of the ideas that Al Tholen has been pushing very hard is getting States to build electronic linkages with other

States and NIST through the use of modems and bulletin boards. Using this new form of technology transfer would allow States to share regulatory information and techniques rapidly. Of course, we are all faced with some very tough challenges in the next 5 or 10 years. We all have a lot to do. The Conference is doing its part. It is a meeting place for the public and the private sectors, and it has been

a very effective partner of NIST's in the transfer of measurement technology to an ever larger constituency. I recommend that the States consider what they can do. I suggest, first of all, that the States adopt all of the uniform laws and regulations recommended by this Conference. It is reasonable for industry and for private individuals to expect to get exactly the same results from the weights and measures point of view anywhere in the United States. Indeed, the Constitution states that expectation, and we need a uniform U.S. market

environment in the United States in order for our products to compete with those of other countries in the

international marketplace. I also encourage the States to formalize their training programs and to upgrade their investment in their laboratories. Industry also can contribute to the success of the National Conference by using the products of the Conference, by increasing their support for the development and delivery of the training modules, and by continuing to share

their skills and their knowledge with the Conference. The United States currently has the best marketplace in the world - we must, everyone is coming here and

selling. We must be successful in maintaining and improving that marketplace for the benefit of all of our

people. For overall success, each one of us and each organization must be successful. Let us dedicate ourselves

to attain that success - together. Let us work together to prove that our historic partnership is a partnership

for the future.

25
General Session

Chairman's Address

John Bartfai Director, Bureau of Weights and Measures

State of New York

National Uniformity Benefits Everyone

I would like to open my remarks with a policy in New York State. Last year's policy was "do more with less"; this year we have a new policy: "do more with nothing." There is humor in weights and measures - if you can find

it. This year marks the 74th Meeting of the National Conference. Much has been done to achieve uniformity, however, much more is needed. For example, the requirements in Handbook 44 are recognized as the official specifications and tolerances for weighing and measuring devices in all 50 states. Uniform application of these requirements, however, is another matter. Appropriate adoption and training must follow. The Specifications and Tolerances Committee does a tremendous job in keeping up with new technologies with

the expert input from industry, but the results are transparent unless we, as the regulatory officials, understand them and enforce them properly and uniformly. The Laws and Regulations Committee keeps up with all the packaging and labeling changes and methods of sale and the current Federal regulations. These efforts must

extend into the State and local governments before uniformity will exist. For example, we very graciously vote

for everything in Handbook 130, but how much of it gets adopted and then finally put into play? In the meantime, industry needs regulatory uniformity. There are new technologies out there, and it is up to us to

facilitate their implementation. The Education Committee continues to develop training modules. I am pleased with the rapid expansion of

training throughout the country using their modules. One obstacle has been the lack of trained instructors. The

Executive Committee has addressed this issue by giving the Education Committee $10,000 last year to purchase

train-the-trainer materials. We have given them another $10,000 for instructor training for this year. In addition, the NIST Office of Weights and Measures has hired a new staff person to assist in training. The National Type Approval Program is active and almost totally accepted across the United States now. However, the question of uniform enforcement has been raised. NTEP will not work without enforcement. The

Certificate of Conformance (COC) means nothing unless we, the regulatory body, verify that the device being

placed into service is actually the one described in the COC; for example, examining load cells in a vehicle scale to determine that they are indeed the ones that were approved. We recently examined a scale in New York

State that contained six identical load cells, and I mean they were identical, right down to the same serial number. I have requested that manufacturer to explain how he can produce such perfect duplicates. Each

installation must be given a proper test - the COC is not a guarantee that the device is accurate. The COC is only a guarantee that that device meets the specifications. It will have to be tested to determine if it is accurate and adjusted to bring it within tolerance. Without enforcement, NTEP becomes another transparency. Handbook 133 is a great document; but it needs further work. Why do we have two sets of tables for MAV's?

Are the food products so different in meat and poultry? Industry is seeking relief; you heard them in the L and R Committee. They are asking for one standard and uniform enforcement of that standard. Therefore, as we

begin our deliberations, let us keep in mind our goals of uniformity. Debate the issues and vote wisely, always keeping in mind your morale obligation to implement and enforce what you agree to - for it is only through

uniformity that weights and measures can ensure that equity prevails in the marketplace.

26
General Session

Honor Awards Presentations

Raymond Kammer, President of the Conference, presented Honor Awards to members of the Conference who,

by attending the 74th Annual Meeting this year, reach one of the attendance categories for which recognition

is made - attendance at 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, and 35 years.

10 YEARS

Max Casanova, Ramsey Engineering Company

Alexander Eska, City of Linden, New Jersey Stephen McGuire, State of Illinois James Moreillon, Floyd County, Indiana

Peter Perino, Transducers, Inc. Joseph Rothleder, State of California 15 YEARS

Sidney Colbrook, State of Illinois Ray Daniels, NCR Corporation Harvey Lodge, Dunbar Manufacturing, Inc. 20 YEARS

Joseph Silvestro, Gloucester County, New Jersey Kendrick Simila, State of Oregon

25 YEARS

Lacy DeGrange, State of Maryland

Eric Vadelund, National Institute of Standards and Technology Robert Walker, Retired, State of Indiana Otto Warnlof, National Institute of Standards and Technology

35 YEARS

Richard Smith, National Institute of Standards and Technology

27
General Session

Certificates of Appreciation

John Bartfai, Conference Chairman, presented Certificates of Appreciation to members of standing committees and task forces who had completed their tenure on the committees and task forces.

Specifications and Tolerances Committee Ross Andersen, New York

Laws and Regulations Committee

Liaison Committee

Kendrick Simila, Oregon

Education Committee

Executive Committee

Budget Review Committee

Associate Membership Committee

Task Force on Energy Allocation

Auditing Committee

Resolutions Committee

John McCutcheon, U.S. Deparatment

of Agriculture Charles Greene, New Mexico Lou Draghetti, Agawam, Massachusetts

Patrick Nichols, Alameda County, California Don Stagg, Alabama

William Braun, Procter & Gamble

Richard Davis, James River Corp.

Patrick Nichols, Alameda County, California, Chairman James Allen, Rhode Island Peggy Adams, Bucks County, Pennsylvania Stephen Casto, West Virginia Robert Omlor, Montgomery County, Ohio

Richard Shockley, Maryland

David Wallace, Colorado

Peter Anderson, Energy Monitoring Systems,Inc. Marvin Feldman, Nicon Corporation

R. Freislag, Energy Billing Systems, Inc. Ken Hoberman, GRH Electronics Clinton Phillips, International District Heating and Cooling Association Tina Gaver-Butcher, National Institute of Standards and Technology

Stephen Casto, West Virginia Stephen Meloy, Montana

Maxwell Gray, Florida Credentials Committee Eugene Keeley, Delaware

28
General Session

President's Award

This award is a banner presented to the State Director of each state having 100% of its weights and measures

officials as members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures for the membership year July 1, 1988

- June 30, 1989. First Year Awards

BANNERS

State of Arizona

State of Hawaii

State of Michigan

State of New Hampshire

State of West Virginia Streamers for Second Year 100% Membership

State of Vermont Streamers for Third year 100% Membership

State of Alaska

State of Delaware

State of Idaho

State of Kansas

State of South Dakota Streamers for Fourth Year 100% Membership

State of Arkansas

State of Nebraska

29

Standing Committee Reports

31

Executive Committee

Report of the Executive Committee

John J. Bartfai, Chairman

Director, Bureau of Weights and Measures New York REFERENCE

KEY NO.

100 Introduction

This is the Final Report of the EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE for the 74th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). The Report is based on the Interim Report offered in the Conference "Program and Committee Reports" (NCWM Publication 16), the Addendum Sheets issued at the Annual Meeting, and actions taken by the membership at the Voting Session. Table A identifies all of the items contained in the Report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number; Table B lists the Appendices to the Report; Table C reports the voting results. The Reference Key Number and Item Title of voting items are identified in bold face type as well as by a suffix "V" (i.e., 101-17 V Task Force on Energy Allocation Systems).

Table A

Reference Key Items and Index

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page PART I - EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

101-1 101-2

101-3 101-4

101-5 101-6 101-7

101-8

NBS and Handbook Name Change

NCWM Work Schedule NCWM Publications Role of Metrologists, Interaction with NIST and NCWM

Site Selection Policy Status Report, Membership

Treasurer's Report

Operating Budget

36

3638

3839

39

40

41

33
Executive Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

101-9 j Appointments and Assignments 41

101-10 j Annual Meeting, 74th 42 101-11A j Interim Meeting, 75th 42 101-11B

; Annual Meeting, 75th 42

101-12 Annual Meeting, 76th 43

101-13 Annual Meetings, Other 43

101-14 National Training Program 44

101-15 Task Force on Commodity Requirements 44

101-16 Task Force on Prevention of Fraud 44

101-17 V Task Force on Energy Allocation Systems 45

101-18 Issues Roundtable 46

101-19 A Program Update, International Organization of Legal Metrology 46

101-19 B V NCWM Members of U.S. Delegation to OIML 46

101-20 Program Update, Office of Weights and Measures 47

101-21 Workplace Safety 47

101-22 Durability of Devices 48

101-23 Waiving of Fee at 74th Annual Meeting 48 PART II - BOARD OF GOVERNORS

102-1 NCWM Publication #14 49

102-2 Acceptance by the States 49

102-3 Participating Laboratories 50

102-4 Evaluation Report 50

102-5 Belt-Conveyor Scales, Test Procedures 51

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page

Appendix A - Publications, Office of Weights and Measures 101-2 52 Appendix B Publications, National Conference on Weights and Measures 101-3 55 Appendix C NCWM Membership by State and Composition of NCWM Mailing List 101-6 57 Appendix D - Report on OIML 101-7 61 Appendix E Operating Budget 89/90 (July 1, 1989 to June 30, 1990) 101-8 64 Appendix F - Report of the Task Force on Energy Allocation 101-17 67 Appendix G - Recommended Regulations For Energy Allocation Systems 101-17 72

34
Executive Committee

Order of Presentation

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

1. The Committee offered a Consent Calendar consisting of two items, Item 101-17 and Item 101-19B.

2. In response to a request from the floor, the Committee agreed to remove 101-19B from the Consent

Calendar and offer it as a separate voting item. Consequently, 101-17 became an individual voting item.

3. A separate vote was taken on the two voting items: 101-17 V Task Force on Energy Allocation Systems

101-19B V NCWM Members of U.S. Delegation to OIML

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

Table C

Voting Results

Reference Key No. or Subject

House of State Representatives House of Delegates

Results

Yes No Yes No

101-17 47 1 78 0 Passed

101-19B (To discuss Amendment) 47 0 71 1 Passed

101-19B (Amendment) 35 12 51 24 Passed

101-19B (as amended) 44 3 69 3 Passed Report in

its entirety 46 0 68 0 Passed

35
Executive Committee

Details of All Items

(In the order they appear in Table A)

Part I - Executive Committee

101-1 I NBS and Handbook Name Change

The name of the National Bureau of Standards (NBS) was changed by law to the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). A notice of the change and its reasons was sent to every member. The reasons for the change and the new tasks assigned to the NIST were discussed. See Item 103-7 "Program Update, Office of Weights and Measures" for additional discussion of the NIST mission. One consequence of the name change

is that NBS Handbooks will become NIST Handbooks. However, the 1989 Editions of HB 44 and HB 130, and

the Third Edition of HB 133 were published as NBS Handbooks under a special exemption so that the constituency (especially the states) might have time to change their regulations and other references to NIST.

Beginning in 1990, editions of all handbooks will be published as NIST handbooks.

101-2 I NCVVM Work Schedule

Publications . The Committee discussed a proposal of the OWM to republish Handbooks 44 and 130 every two years instead of the current practice of republication every year. The reasons given for changing the schedule included : (1) the difficulties reported by some officials in adopting new requirements annually, (2)

difficulties in retraining inspectors annually to familiarize them with the changes to each of the handbooks, (3) industry reporting that regulation is uneven across the country, (4) difficulties for the Regional Associations in dealing with the issues on an annual basis, (5) savings of OWM staff time and publications funds which could be reprogrammed for other tasks. The Executive Committee requested that the proposal be developed more thoroughly for reconsideration. Concern was expressed about several drawbacks to changing the schedule. Among them were that a two-year

cycle would (1) result in the NCWM falling further behind in keeping up with technology changes and (2) cause confusion in the field regarding the proper version of a handbook to use. Consequently, all 1990 editions of handbooks will be published in the same format as the 1989 editions.

If the proposal had been accepted, (a) the 1990 editions of both Handbook 44 and Handbook 130 would have been published following the 74th Annual Meeting in Seattle in July of 1989 and (b) subsequent editions of Handbook 44 would have been published in even years (1992, etc.) while subsequent editions of Handbook 130 would have been published in odd years (1991, etc

OWM will continue the practice of republishing other handbooks (i.e., 133, 143, 145, the 105 series) as required. See Appendix A for a listing of "Office of Weights and Measures Publications" including source, method of ordering, and cost. Coordination With Regional Associations . Steps have been taken to coordinate the work of the Regional

Associations with the NCWM. They include assigning Richard Smith, OWM, to provide the Regional Committees with the latest reports of the National Committees and to provide to the OWM Technical Advisors

the reports of the Regional Committees. Methods of streamlining the current procedures were discussed, including the possibility of establishing a permanent point of contact for each of the regional associations to be

equipped with a computer (with modem) or a FAX machine so that the Regional Committees could gain easy and broader access to the work of the National committees. Exploration of ways to better integrate the work of

the regional associations and the National will continue.

36
Executive Committee

Meeting Schedule. The workload of the Conference is growing in the number and complexity of issues. Also,

the NCWM has made a significant transition from a "standards development" body to both a "standards development" body and an operating organization (NTEP, NTP, and broad Association functions).

In the current method of operation, two major meetings are held each year (the Interim Meetings in January

at the NIST and the Annual Meeting in July in selected cities). Standing committees, task forces, and special committees hold additional meetings as needed. The work of the NCWM and the OWM is on a six-month cycle, either preparing for and holding the Interim Meetings, or preparing for and holding the Annual Meetings. Between the Annual Meeting and the Interim Meeting, the OWM must update and publish the NIST Handbooks (HB 44, HB 130, HB 133) and NCWM publications (Pubs. 1, 3, and 14 among others). The six-month cycle

Limits coordination of the work of the committees of the NCWM and the Regional Associations and places unnecessary pressure on states to institute changes every year. The regional meetings coincide with OWM staff attempts to prepare for the Interim or Annual Meetings. A 12-month cycle, augmented by meetings of the committees and task forces was proposed. In general, the scheduling would have the following features: L Eliminate the Interim Meetings.

2. Restructure the Annual Meeting as a composite meeting:

a. In the even years, the S&T Committee, the Liaison Committee, and the Metrologists Workshop

would function as they do now in the Interim Meetings, and in the odd years, as they do now

in the Annual Meeting. HB 44, HB 143, SP 686, and NCWM Publications 12 and 14 would

be published in the even years.

b. In the odd years, the L&R Committee, the Education Committee, and the Executive Committee

would function as they do now in the Interim Meetings, and in the even years, as they do now

in the Annual Meeting. HB 130, 133 and NCWM Pubs 1 through 14 (as necessary) would be

published in the odd years.

c. Supplement the above meetings with additional meetings of the individual committees or task forces as needed; this is done now. Perhaps a few more meetings would be needed. Such a plan would enable:

1. the Regional Associations to be better integrated into the work program of the NCWM;

2. the states and industry to understand changes and train their staffs for more effective implementation

of these changes;

3. the OWM advisory staff to (a) better develop the technical aspects of the issues and discuss them with

the states, industry, their committees, and the regional associations, and (b) increase the effectiveness of the NTEP and National Training Program;

4. the NCWM to use its resources more effectively;

the states to save the cost of purchasing all new handbooks every year, and the expense of the time

required to change their regulations and/or administrative procedures annually. The Executive Committee decided against taking action on the proposal pending additional study.

37
Executive Committee

101-3 I NCWM Publications NCWM publications were updated to reflect the changes adopted at the 73rd Annual Meeting. The current

status and future plans regarding NCWM publications were reviewed. The following changes were made:

1. NCWM Publication #3, "Policy, Interpretations, and Guidelines," was updated to include material from

the 73rd Annual Meeting. Copies were provided to the members of the Executive Committee and

mailed to the state directors and officers of the NCWM. Further distribution will be made "as needed."

2. NCWM Publication #14, "National Type Evaluation Program - Administrative Procedures, Technology

Policy, Checklists, and Test Procedures," was revised and updated. See Item 102-1 for additional information.

3. NCWM Publication #2, "Weights and Measures Directory, 1989," was printed and distributed in June

1989. See Appendix B for a listing of "National Conference on Weights and Measures Publications" including source.

101-4 I Role of Metrologists, Interaction with NIST and NCWM

The "METROLOGY WORKSHOP" Agenda was published as part of the Announcement Book, page 21, as a

result of discussions described below. During the 73rd Annual Meeting in Grand Rapids, a panel discussed the structuring of future Metrology

Workshops. The panel reported its findings and recommendations in a letter from its Chairman, Joseph

Rothleder, to NCWM Chairman John Bartfai as follows:

1. A recommendation for the structure of future workshops was developed.

2. A plan to rotate panel Chairmanship was agreed on.

3. Recommended activities to be included in the next agenda were identified, with the intent that the agenda for the workshop be included in the NCWM Program. The Executive Committee received other correspondence on this subject, plus a report made by Mr. Paul Krupenie, OWM, on behalf of the metrologists. Mr. Krupenie's presentation included a draft of the agenda

noted above.

Specific points made to the Executive Committee included the following:

1. The 1989 session will require 12 to 16 hours to cover the proposed agenda.

2. Assistance is needed in the use of computers and software in many areas of state laboratory operations; standardization among the laboratories is needed.

3. Laboratory equipment, including brands and models, should be centrally listed for reference in planning procurement and upgrading of laboratories.

4. Programs of RMAPS should be integrated with the program of the Annual Meeting Metrology Workshop. RMAPS and Workshop could provide significant technical review and assistance in updating

selected handbooks, such as the 105 series and 143. Several other issues and needs were identified. The metrologists plan to develop a more comprehensive report

to the Executive Committee in January 1990 based on their July 1989 meeting. The Executive Committee: (1) approved the printing of the agenda of the Metrology Workshop in the Conference Announcement Book: and,

38
Executive Committee

(2) encouraged the panel to continue to develop its program. A separate Report of the Metrology Workshop will be published at a later date.

101-5 I Site Selection Policy The selection of the site (city) of annual meetings is based on recommendations of the Executive Secretary to the Executive Committee. The Executive Secretary attempts to move the site among Regions in sequence and

considers invitations received from state and local jurisdictions. The Chairman proposed an alternative procedure for selection of host cities and hotels for the Annual Meetings, namely that the Regional Associations, in turn, would select the host city. The regional associations would make

the decisions when two or more cities compete to host an Annual Meeting. The responsibility for hotel evaluation and recommendation would remain with the Executive Secretary, subject to approval by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee tabled this proposal because it is satisfied with the present site selection process. The

Executive Secretary outlined the procedures followed and some of the criteria used in selecting the hotel for the Annual Meeting. The criteria are provided below as a guide for anyone wishing to propose a city for consideration; any city recommended must have at least one hotel meeting these criteria.

Site Selection Criteria The following criteria are provided for selection of cities and hotels for the annual meeting of the NCWM held

in July.

L Large full-service hotel (500 rooms), minimum AAA 4-diamond or Mobil 4-star rating, with complete meeting room facilities, i.e.,

a. General Sessions set for 400 classroom style with head podium for 12.

b. Seven (7) breakout rooms for simultaneous meetings throughout the week.

c. Four (4) additional breakout rooms for meetings simultaneous with those required under

paragraph l.b. above.

2. Active and supportive Convention Bureau.

3. Location safe for walking in the evening and with ample restaurants.

4. Several printing firms, within three or four blocks from the hotel, that will operate all night.

5. A variety of optional events and outings to choose from.

6. Full service airport for connections from all 50 states (small connector airlines not desirable). Transportation to and from the airport should be ample, either from host hotel or airport transportation system.

101-6 I Status Report, Membership

Membership. At the close of the Membership Year, June 30, 1989, the total membership was 2144, made up

of 1081 active weights and measures officials (575 state, 289 county, 217 city), 999 Associate members (domestic and foreign), 45 federal officials (including NIST), 19 foreign officials, and 36 retired members.

See Appendix C for "NCWM Membership by State" and "Composition of NCWM Mailing List."

39
Executive Committee

Significant improvements have been made to the administration of the NCWM mailing list since this time last year:

1. The NCWM Mailing List is now kept completely in the Conference (OWM) office; the outside mailing/computer service is no longer used. This permits up-to-the-minute corrections to names,

addresses, and telephone numbers, as well as providing the capability of generating mailing labels, mailing label files (for outside printers to use), certificates, invoices, and reports. The data was

generated in the Conference office, giving confidence in the totals. In years past, errors in coding and

in programming resulted in some unreliable totals.

2. Other improvements in the data base have been made, such as adding known FAX numbers, correcting the way the information is printed for the directories and recording when information is updated or when a person joins the Conference.

3. Data base information is kept on each NCWM member's attendance at the Annual Meeting and service as an officer, or member of a committee or task force, for the Conference. This permits listing those

eligible for honor awards (10, 15, 20, etc., years attendance at the Annual Meeting) and generating a report for the Nominating Committee to use in its deliberations.

4. Registration information for both the Interim and Annual Meetings is being maintained in this same

data base to serve as a means for generating badges for the attendees, registration lists, and a report

for the Treasurer concerning who has prepaid and who has registered for the Annual Meeting but still owes the fees. Brochure. The recruitment brochure was revised to clarify the benefits of membership and appeal to a broader

constituency. The brochure was printed and will be distributed to the NCWM mailing list plus other potential members not on the NCWM mailing list. Membership Plans. Mr. Allan Rogers, VA requested the NCWM to consider the possibility of developing a "package" membership plan that would link membership in the NCWM and the State Association for a single membership fee. Such a plan would make it possible for those states with state associations to have all of their association members also become members in the NCWM. During the past year, the fee for the Virginia State Association was $25; the fee for the NCWM was $35. He suggested a combined fee of $50 to be paid at the time of the State Association meeting as a method of instituting such a "package." The Executive Committee approved the concept provided that the NCWM share of the combined fee remain

$35.00.

101-7 I Treasurer's Report

The Treasurer reported on the current fiscal status of the NCWM including income and expenses to-date and

investment of surplus funds. As of June 30, 1989, income for the fiscal year was over $115,000 (compared to a budget goal of $90,200) and expenses exceeded budget by $5,000. Due to the increased membership, funds are accumulating beyond projected needs. The Treasurer and

Executive Secretary will review the balance sheet after all bills for the Interim Meeting have been paid and will invest any monies not needed for projected operations. Enough liquidity will be maintained to fund the $10,000

obligation made to the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs for train-the-trainer materials when it has an approved plan for spending the money. The Executive Secretary was requested to write a letter to the Treasurer to obligate $10,000 in the current year for the purposes discussed. The Report was accepted by the Executive Committee.

See separate Treasurers Report for details.

40
Executive Committee

101-8 I Operating Budget

1988/1989 Operating Budget. Mr. Tholen reported on the 88/89 Operating Budget. As the Treasurer reported, income and expenses both exceeded the budget. Expenses for meetings (Annual and Interim) were within the budget. The major cause for the expense overrun was the increasing cost associated with expenses incurred by members in their committee activities. More state and local officials are requesting the Conference to pay part or all of their expenses than in prior years, and the cost of air travel has increased. 1989/1990 Operating Budget. The draft operating budget for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1989, has been

reviewed by the members of the Budget Review Committee. Their recommendations have been incorporated

into the draft budget which was reviewed by the Executive Committee. The Executive Committee made three changes to the proposed budget: (1) $2,000 was added for Task Force

on Energy Systems meetings (Account 5.8), (2) $2,000 was added for Task Force on Belt Conveyor Scales meetings (Account 5.7); and $4,500 was added for the Chairman-Elect to attend three Regional Meetings,

including $1,000 for the Chairman to host an "invitation" breakfast at each Regional Meeting. These additions were offset by an increase in budgeted income of $4,500 and a reduction in the budgeted amount for support of OIML from $8,000 to $4,000 (Account 5.2). The reduction in OIML support was based on the anticipated rate of expenditures for the year. The Executive Committee reconfirmed its support of the National Training Program by budgeting a second

$10,000 for the development or acquisition of train-the-trainer materials. Witn the actions noted above, the Executive Committee adopted the proposed Operating Budget for the year beginning July 1989. See Appendix E for the operating budget as approved.

101-9 I Appointments and Assignments

Chairman Bartfai made the following appointments: Vice Chairman - Fred Clem, Ohio to replace Barbara DeSalvo, Ohio who could not attend the Annual

Meeting. Committee on Laws and Regulations - Fred Clem to complete unexpired term of Stewart Rosenthal who

resigned. Chaplain - John Lewis, WA retired, to replace Martin Coile, GA who could not attend the Annual

Meeting.

Credentials Committed - Gene Keeley, DE, to replace Jim Vanderwielen, IN who has changed jobs and

will not attend the Annual Meeting.

Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation. John Mac Donald, Howe Richardson, replacing Ralph Meehan. Joe Giannina, Port of Corpus Christi. Joseph Antkowiak, Hottinger Baldwin Measurement to replace Phillip Katz, HBM. William Paull, Hobart to replace Fred Katterheinrich who

retired. Carl Conrad, NJ to replace Frank Nagele who retired. Additionally, the following are new

appointees: Khalil Haker, BLH, John Skuce, Smith Meter, and Richard Wolf, Mobile Oil. Task Force on Energy Allocation. Roger Freischlag, Energy Billing Systems, Marvin Feldman, Nicon

Corporation, and MA. (Pete) Anderson, Energy Monitoring Systems.

41
Executive Committee

Auditing Committee - Steve Casto, WV, to complete the 1 year remaining on the term of James Rardin, WV, who resigned; and

Credentials Committee - Donald Weick, City of Topeka, KS, to complete the two years remaining on

the term of Ray Messing, Virginia Beach, VA, who resigned.

101-1 0 I Annual Meeting, 74th The 74th Annual Meeting was held at the Seattle Westin Hotel during the week of July 16 through 21, 1989. Attendance included 311 registered delegates and 111 guests; a total attendance of 422. The total registered guests was within the range of attendance for the past few years. The guest attendance was about 50% higher

that it has been. Except for Nevada, West Virginia, Colorado, and the District of Columbia, all states and

territories were represented. Canada and Thailand sent representatives.

101-11A I Interim Meeting, 75th

At a special meeting on June 24th, 1989, the Executive Committee voted to hold the January, 1990 Interim Meeting in Phoenix, AZ assuming an acceptable hotel rate is negotiated and the OWM staff is able to attend (because the Annual Meeting will be in D.C., the OWM will not have air travel expenses in the fiscal year; the assumption was made that the OWM budget could apply those savings to support of the Interim Meeting).

Mr. Gerk contacted Ray Helmick, AZ to initiate planning for the 1990 Interim Meetings in coordination with

the Executive Secretary.

101-11B I Annual Meeting, 75th

At the 72nd Annual Meeting, Albany, NY, was selected as the location for the 75th Annual Meeting. Washington, D.C., was subsequently recommended by the OWM due to the special significance of the 75th Annual Meeting and the relationship of the NCWM with the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Chairman Bartfai agreed to the change, but requested that Albany be the selected city for the 76th Annual

Meeting. The members of the Executive Committee were balloted on the change in city location. The

Committee was unanimous in accepting the change from Albany to Washington, DC.

Subsequently, the NCWM received two proposals, one from the Westin (between downtown Washington and Georgetown) and one from the J.W. Marriott (the site of the 70th Annual Meeting). The Marriott proposal

v/as better in terms of room rates and location. However, the week proposed was the second week in July instead of the usual third week. The Executive Committee members were balloted by telephone to get their position on switching the week of the meeting; again, they were unanimous in approving the time change. General plans for celebration of the 75th Annual Meeting of the NCWM were discussed (see report of the Committee on Liaison). The Executive Secretary has signed a contract with the J.W. Marriott in Washington, D.C. for the 75th Annual

Meeting. The rate is $ 100 flat rate (single or double). Program. The Executive Secretary proposed including a special session on "EC 92 and its Implications on the U.S. Weights and Measures System" at the 75th Annual Meeting. The European Community (EC) is developing an economic union to take effect by the end of 1992. Developing plans and some actions already taken indicate

that some newly adopted standards and legal requirements might be in conflict with those of the United States. Additionally, many questions are being raised concerning the possible impact of EC 92 actions on both exports

of U.S. companies and imports from the Common Market. The proposed sessions would bring speakers from

the U.S. Congress, the Bush Administration, and the Common Market to update our membership and other

42
Executive Committee

attendees on these concerns and issues. The Executive Committee voted for the Executive Secretary to proceed to develop plans for this type of session

at the 75th Annual Meeting.

101-12 I Annual Meeting, 76th Due to the change in city location for the 75th Annual Meeting, the Executive Secretary recommended that Albany, NY, be confirmed as the city for the 76th Annual Meeting. The Executive Committee agreed with the recommendation if suitable hotel arrangements can be made. The Executive Secretary visited Albany, NY on July 6, 1989 and met with the Marriott Hotel representative and with the Albany Convention Bureau. The Marriott is adding 3000 square feet of meeting space and 55

sleeping rooms plus a parking garage. This work is scheduled for completion at least a year prior to the NCWM

Annual Meeting. The Marriott had not responded during earlier visits by the Executive Secretary; they now

appear to be very interested. The Marriott is the preferred hotel in Albany, it is a 4 diamond property only 10 minutes from the Airport. It is located in the newest suburbs of Albany and is adjacent to all the national chain

restaurants, and to shopping malls and stores. Some Committee members expressed their opinions that Albany should be reconsidered as the location for the 76th Annual Meeting. See Item 101-13 for related action.

101-13 I Annual Meetings, Other

The Executive Secretary had been requested to explore Nashville, TN; Orlando, FL; and New Orleans, LA, as possible sites for later Annual Meetings.

Invitations have also been received from the following jurisdictions to host the Annual Meeting: Hawaii (various

locations). Indiana (Indianapolis), Ohio (Columbus), Connecticut (Hartford), and Arizona (Phoenix).

Site Visit Report The Executive Secretary visited hotels in Nashville, Orlando, New Orleans, and Indianapolis.

Nashville. The Executive Secretary is a member of the ISWM (International Society of Weighing

Measurements). Additionally, he is Chairman of the ISWM Program Committee for their Annual Meeting

originally scheduled for April 1992 in Nashville. The ISWM held a planning meeting in Nashville for their 1992 Meeting at which time the possibility of scheduling the Annual Meetings of both the ISWM and the NCWM in sequence was discussed. The ISWM Board thought so much of the idea that they unanimously voted to change

their meeting from April to July to match up with the NCWM. The Executive Secretary recommends that the planning for holding the two meetings in sequence go forward. The ISWM has already selected the Opryland

Hotel for its meeting. This hotel is a 5 diamond property of over 1900 rooms. It is adjacent to Opryland (theme

park) and Grand Ole Opry (the radio show that has been on the radio for over 60 years). All of these properties

are located on a beltway bypassing downtown Nashville. Downtown Nashville and surrounding suburbs have many attractions, mostly associated with music. The hotel room rate will be over $100 at the Opryland Hotel. There are many other hotels in the immediate vicinity in every price range to accommodate our membership.

We will need to examine our options for negotiating with the Hotel, and for arranging the meetings of the two

organizations to maximize the benefits to both constituencies for joining forces. Orlando. The Executive Secretary visited Orlando in March. In essence, there are four groups of hotels: (1) Disney hotels operated by Disney; (2) private hotels such as Hilton located on Disney property; (3) hotels not on Disney property but close to Disneyland and other Disney attractions; and (4) other hotels in the Orlando

area. The cost of the hotels runs from expensive (1) through moderate (4) for convention hotels. Hotels in (1) are booked or rates are too high for NCWM. Hotels in (2), including the Hilton might offer rates acceptable.

43
Executive Committee

Hotels in (3) and (4) are affordable, but our members could find themselves in traffic jams in July. New Orleans. The Executive Secretary visited several hotels near the French Quarter while he was attending

the ISWM Annual Meeting. There are several very good hotels to choose from, including the Hilton, Marriott, and Westin. He believes that we could get good rates in New Orleans, especially in July.

Indianapolis. The Executive Secretary visited hotels and the Convention Bureau in Indianapolis in February. Downtown Indianapolis has gone through a remarkable redevelopment. The city has added a large sports complex including a domed stadium for the Colts, an international Olympic water sports center, and a second

indoor arena for basketball and other events. Adjacent and connected to the sports complex by sky walks are

several first class (some new) hotels including a Hyatt, Holiday Inn (built into the reconstructed railroad station), and a Westin. Close by is a new Children's Museum, a Zoo, and many other interesting attractions. After a report by the Executive Secretary about his recent site visits, the Committee:

1. instructed him to develop a questionnaire for completion by the attendees at the Tuesday General

Session to solicit opinions about site selection and costs related to attendance at the Annual Meetings;

2. instructed him to drop Orlando, FL and New Orleans, LA as candidate locations for future meetings

at this time, and to proceed in planning a coordinated meeting of the NCWM and the ISWM in Nashville in July, 1992 (see discussion of the Nashville visit below).

101-14 I National Training Program

At the January 1989 Interim Meeting, Charles Greene reported on the status of program development, funding, and plans for the future. See the Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

for details on these subjects. The first $10,000 budgeted for training materials has been used to purchase a professional program consisting of video tapes and manuals for train-the-trainer seminars. An additional $10,000 was included in the 89-90 budget for additional train-the-trainer purposes. The Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs has been developing a "NCWM Award

for Excellence in Training." A copy of the proposal was sent to the Executive Committee in late January for comments. A majority of the Committee agreed with the proposal and provided comments. See Report of

the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs, Item 402-8 for details.

101-15 I Task Force on Commodity Requirements

The Task Force completed its work at the end of the 73rd Annual Meeting. Future work on the moisture loss issue was assigned to the Committee on Laws and Regulations and the Committee on Liaison. The guidelines developed for addressing such issues have been printed in NCWM Publication #3, Policy, Interpretations, and

Guidelines of the NCWM."

The Committee on Laws and Regulations has an Item 240-5 "Moisture Loss for Ice-Packed Poultry, Pet Foods, and Pasta" on its agenda.

101-16 I Task Force on Prevention of Fraud

Recommendations of the Task Force included the items listed below.

1. Request the Office of Weights and Measures to explore and develop, if possible,

44
Executive Committee

a. a definition of fraud applicable to weights and measures;

b. a uniform method of classifying types of fraudulent weights and measures activities for use as the basis of state information systems;

c. a mechanism by which information on fraudulent weights and measures activities could be col- lected and made available at the national level;

d. recommendations for contents of a module in the National Training Program for use by the

states in complaint handling and reduction of opportunities for weights and measures fraud based on items (a), (b), and (c) above, plus information available from other enforcement

agencies, associations, and classroom curriculum; and

e. recommendations for assessment of penalties and other legal action.

2. Assign to the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances the task of determining if changes to NBS

Handbook 44 are required to reduce opportunities for fraud. Each of the recommendations is being addressed by a committee of the Conference. Some items can be readily

dealt with; others are long term in nature. Items la and lb are being addressed by the Education Committee; Item lc by the Committee on Liaison; and Item Id by a module on Administration at a later date. The L&R Committee is dealing with civil and

administrative action tangential to Item le. Regarding Item 2, the S&T Committee is working on the issue of

"sealing" as one aspect of reducing opportunities for fraud in the near term.

101-17 V Task Force on Energy Allocation Systems

(This item was adopted)

Pat Nichols reported on the work of the Task Force. The summary of his report is contained in Appendix F. The Executive Committee reviewed the Task Force Report and presented the following Task Force recommendations to the membership for adoption.

1. Regulation of energy allocation systems should not be considered a weights and measures responsibility.

2. The committee on Liaison should:

a. contact an appropriate agency (such as the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners) to assume the responsibility for the regulation of such systems;

b. present the recommended "regulation" to the organization identified in 2(a) for its use; and

c. encourage industry groups, such as the American Society of Heating, Refrigeration, and the Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), International District Heating and Cooling Association (IDHCA), National Utilities Allocation Association (NUAA), or Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), to develop installation, maintenance, and system guidelines for these systems.

3. The Conference should adopt the guidelines for weights and measures officials to use when handling complaints about energy allocation systems.

4. The Task Force should be disbanded, but should remain available to assist and advise the Liaison Committee on an as needed basis.

45
Executive Committee

A separate NCWM publication will be prepared reporting on the work of the Task Force. This publication

will contain the draft regulation and a set of guidelines for use by weights and measures officials to respond to complaints related to energy allocation systems.

101-18 I Issues Roundtable

The use of "Issues Roundtables" at the NCWM and Regional Association Meetings was discussed, including

the question "should the discussions be summarized and made available to others?." The Executive Committee

asked that an OWM staff member in attendance at a Regional Meeting be assigned to collect summary

information of the issues addressed, and that this information be made available for use by other regional

association committees. Selected roundtable items might be good material for the newsletter and Bulletin Board.

101-19A Program Update, International Organization of Legal Metrology Sam Chappell, NIST, reported on (1) the results of the 8th International Conference on Legal Metrology of the OIML held in Sydney, Australia, during the week of October 24-29, 1988; and (2) the activities of OIML

working groups relevant to the interests of the NCWM. See Appendix D for his report. Appointments to Working Groups. The Committee on Specifications and Tolerances recommended that the following NCWM representatives be appointed to participate in future meetings of OIML:

Ray Helmick, AZ, to attend the meeting of the International Working Group on "Automatic Weighing

Instruments" in England, April 10 - 14, 1989; and

David Watson, Fort Worth, TX, to attend the meeting of the International Working Group on "Nonautomatic Weighing Instruments" to be scheduled.

101-19B V NCWM Member Of U.S. Delegation To OIML

(This item was adopted as amended)

It has been customary for the Head of the U.S. Delegation to select the Chairman of the National Conference

as a member of the official Delegation to the International Conference on Legal Metrology This conference is held every fourth year. The Head of the U.S. Delegation agreed to provide the NCWM the opportunity to nominate its representative. Accordingly, the following policy was developed by the Executive Committee and was recommended for adoption by the membership.

Amend 1.5.1., International Organization of Legal Metrology, NCWM Participation, as follows. Add a new paragraph E. to Part I - General:

E. The Executive Committee will select an NCWM member as a proposed member of the U.S. Delegation to the International Conference on Legal Metrology and forward the recommendation to the Head of the Delegation. Amend 1.5.1., Part II, Paragraph A to read as follows: A. This part of the policy applies to selection of NCWM members for OIML Pilot and

46
Executive Committee

Reporting Secretariats and the USNWGs overseeing these Secretariats. It does not apply to representation on the U.S. Delegation to the International Conference. At the Annual Meeting, the proposed new policy, paragraph E recommended by the Executive Committee was amended from the floor to read as follows:

E. The Executive Committee will submit the name of the individual serving as the NCWM Chairman at the time of the Quadrennial OIML meeting to the Head of the U.S. Delegation as its nominee to represent the NCWM at the Quadrennial Meeting.

If the Chairman is unable to represent the NCWM, the name of the Chairman-Elect

will be submitted as its nominee. The proposed policy as amended (Paragraph E as amended and Paragraph A as proposed by the Executive Committee) was adopted.

101-20 I Program Update, Office of Weights and Measures OWM Program . Albert Tholen, Chief of OWM, provided an update on the program of the Office. The

following changes have occurred or are planned re: the OWM staff:

1. Paul Krupenie retired; a vacancy announcement has been distributed nationwide for a replacement.

2. Joan Mindte has been hired into a newly created position; she will coordinate the planning for and

delivery of training.

3. Dick Smith plans to retire at the end of 1989; the OWM plans to recruit to fill Dick's vacancy. NIST Visiting Committee. The Executive Secretary reported on the changes at NIST, including the name change

from NBS, the new mission assignments, the proposed reorganization designed to meet the needs of the new

assignments, and the possible impacts of these activities on the program of the OWM and the NCWM.

Chairman Bartfai wrote a letter to the Director of the NIST regarding the interest of the NCWM in any changes

that might affect the program of OWM. He received reassuring responses from NIST to his letter. Copies of

the letters are available from the Office of Weights and Measures. The program of NIST is reviewed by a Visiting Committee composed of nine members. Nominations for membership on the Committee are made to the Director of NIST. The next class of the Visiting Committee

will take office October 1, 1989. Mr. Kammer, Acting Director, NIST was asked at the NCWM officers' luncheon at the Interim Meeting, January 9, 1989, if it would be appropriate for the NCWM to offer a candidate

for membership on the Visiting Committee. Mr. Kammer answered in the affirmative. Subsequently, the Executive Committee assigned the task of putting such a request together to Tom Geiler, and asked the Executive Secretary to provide Mr. Geiler with information concerning the current composition of the Visiting Committee, the criteria for selection of members, and any other information necessary for submission of a nomination. Tom Geiler, MA contacted potential NCWM candidates for appointment to the Visiting Committee. The

Executive Committee, by mail ballot selected Ed Heffron, MI. Chairman Bartfai wrote a letter to Mr. Kammer

recommending Ed Heffron as the NCWM candidate.

101-21 I Workplace Safety The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association established a Safety Subcommittee chaired by Charles Gardner to gather information and compile a report on the subject of "safety in the workplace" as it relates to the activities of weights and measures inspectors. The NEWMA Executive Committee directed Mr. Gardner

to contact NCWM to request that this subject be assigned to one of its standing committees.

47
Executive Committee

The results of Mr. Gardner's investigations to date were mailed to the members of the NCWM Executive Committee in November for their review prior to the Interim Meetings. Chairman Bartfai assigned this subject

to the Committee on Liaison for further study. At the Interim Meeting, Mr. Gardner, in a joint meeting of the Executive and Liaison Committees, summarized

background information leading to the submission of this item to the NCWM. The first effort was to gather information from other jurisdictions to find out what is being done regarding workplace safety. Of 39

jurisdictions responding, 30 reported that they do not have any training or procedures dealing with workplace

safety. Others have various kinds of activities. Mr. Gardner gave examples of some of the activities implemented in the states, including requirements for use of safety glasses and shoes, elimination of 50 lb weights (substituting 25 lb weights), and use of masks when working around petroleum products, etc. The Executive Committee:

1. agreed that the NCWM should become involved with this subject;

2. concluded that outside experts, such as OSHA, risk management specialists, insurance experts, and

API, should be brought into the process; and

3. agreed that more information should be gathered.

101-22 I Durability of Devices

The Executive Committee reviewed a pre-draft of an OIML IR "Testing Procedures for Pattern Examination

of Fuel Dispensers for Motor Vehicles." The issue of "durability testing," per se, was examined to address the question of how the U.S. should and could be effective in ensuring that the technical requirements included in OIML drafts are "cost effective" and necessary. Several members of the Committee requested that the issue of

durability testing (and the broader philosophical issue) be explored further. Mr. Guensler noted in his letter that the issue is the degree of testing, not the need for testing. At the Interim Meeting, it was agreed that testing for durability/permanence is well established in the United

States as well as in other OIML countries. Historically, permanence testing has been associated with mechanical

devices. The complications being faced now are related to durability of the electronic components of modern

devices. It was agreed that, when establishing requirements, consideration must be given to the benefits of proposed testing for durability versus the costs to both the manufacturer and to the regulator in conducting the

tests.

101-23 I Waiving of Fee at 74th Annual Meeting

In January 1989, the Executive Committee voted to waive the $100.00 portion of the registration fee for any

weights and measures official who attended the 74th Annual Meeting in July 1989 in Seattle, WA, and who

never attended an earlier Annual Meeting. Payment of $35.00 was to provide the official with all privileges given

to those paying the entire fee except for voting on the issues. The Executive Committee has extended this offer

at previous Annual Meetings to officials of the host state only. The Executive Committee encouraged the Executive Secretary to promote the fullest use possible of preregistration and pre-payment of fees for the Annual Meeting in order to shorten the lines at the registration desk.

48
Executive Committee

Part II - Board of Governors

102-1 I NCWM Publication #14

The document was updated and republished with all changes and additions adopted through the 73rd Annual

Meeting. Some editorial changes have been made to improve understanding and ease of use of the material. The changes included: (1) standardization of the forms used by the industry in requesting type evaluation; (2) highlighting the Handbook 44 requirements used in the checklists; and (3) identifying multipage testing procedures clearly. Distribution was made to the NTEP mailing list plus state directors. Others can obtain

copies through the NCWM Office. An electronic copy can be obtained on a 5 1/4" floppy disk.

102-2 I Acceptance by the States

Questionnaire of Device Regulation. The implementation of the NTEP and the subsequent acceptance of the program by the states was reviewed. At the request of the Committee, a letter was sent to every state requesting a description of its current operating procedures regarding these matters. An attachment to the letter provided a comprehensive discussion of: (1) the background leading up to the adoption of the new scales code and NTEP; and (2) detailed "Steps in Field Enforcement," especially in light of the fact that states cannot test devices in the field for compliance with "influence factors." The results of this correspondence were reviewed. Several of the responding states, indicated lack of understanding of NTEP and of the nature and intent of the Uniform Regulation. Problems identified as

inhibiting the full use of NTEP included:

1. states and industry not understanding the contents and value of the training program;

2. distributors not "getting the word" on NTEP;

3. information, although available (e.g., Certificates of Conformance), is not reaching inspectors, especially those at the county and city level;

4. the new scales code in Handbook 44 is not understood at the "grassroots" level, the field inspector;

5. state and local budgets limit the amount of resources available for promulgation, training, and

enforcement. At the January 1989 Interim Meeting, the Executive Committee requested that the Executive Secretary:

1. contact the states that did not respond in order to get more complete information;

2. give a presentation at each Regional Meeting to describe how NTEP operates, the information available from NTEP, and what "proper" field enforcement under Handbook 44 and NTEP is; and

3. contact the International Society of Weighing and Measuring to determine opportunities to "bring the message" to its members.

See the Report of the Committee on Laws and Regulations (Item 236) for additional action on this item.

States that did not respond to the original survey were contacted again to complete the questionnaire. Results

of the Questionnaire are contained in Appendix I.

49
Executive Committee

102-3 I Participating Laboratories

The Executive Secretary reported on the authorized Participating Laboratories and their evaluation capabilities and activities. In addition to the NIST, California, New York, Ohio, and the Federal Grain Inspection Service are Participating Laboratories. NIST is working with other states that have expressed a desire to establish Parti- cipating Laboratories, including Alabama, and North Carolina. See the following page for tabulations of "Certificates for Conformance Issued" by type device, and "Evaluations Conducted by Jurisdiction." 102-4 I Evaluation Report

The Executive Secretary reported on the NTEP evaluation activities, including the testing completed by each

Participating Laboratory and Certificates of Conformance (CC) issued. A summary of his report is shown in the

tables below. CERTIFICATES OF CONFORMANCE ISSUED

1985 1986 1987 1988

Total number of CCs 127 46 123 313

Full CCs 127 37 80 227

Provisional CCs 9

1 432 213 Load cells 9

1 432 20

4 Pre-NTEP CCs 45

1 Six provisional CCs (all for load cells) upgraded to full in 1987 and 1988.

2 Sixteen provisional CCs upgraded to full in 1988.

3 Excludes Load Cells

4 Thirteen provisional and seven full Certificates of Conformance. EVALUATIONS CONDUCTED BY JURISDICTION

NTEP LAB 1985 1986 1987 1988

California 28 30 54 102 Ohio 2 7 35 44 FGIS 2 1 4 NIST 43 42 38 163 TOTAL 75 80 127 313

50
Executive Committee

102-5 I Belt-Conveyor Scales, Test Procedures

Mr. Peter Perino, Chairman of this Sector, reported on the work of the Task Force. At a one-day organizational meeting in March, 1988, with representation from regulators, manufacturers, and users, it was decided that the approach for testing belt-conveyor scales would parallel that used for testing large capacity scales, that is, that the components would be tested in the laboratory and the total system would be tested in the field. Additional meetings were held in November, 1988 and June, 1989. A draft test procedure was produced. One additional working meeting is planned in early November, 1989 to convert the draft test procedures into a product for submission to the NCVVM.

The goal of the Sector is to complete its work prior to the 1990 Interim Meeting.

J. Bartfai, New York, Chairman

F. Gerk, New Mexico, Chairman-Elect

D. Guensler, California, Past Chairman

L. Draghetti, Town of Agawam, MA

T. Geiler, Barnstable, MA

E. Heffron, MI

S. Hindsman, AR

P. Nichols, Alameda County, CA

D. Stagg, Alabama

C. Gardner, Suffolk County, NY, Treasurer A. Tholen, N1ST, Executive Secretary Executive Committee

51
Executive Committee

Appendix A

Publications, Office of Weights and Measures

The following publications and current price information may be obtained from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC 20402 (202/783-3238). Remittance must accompany order.

NBS Handbook 44, Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices, H. V. Oppermann, editor, 1989 Edition (Sept. 1988) - SN003-003-02888-6 $15.00 NBS Handbook 130, Model State Laws and Regulations, C. S. Brickenkamp, editor, 1989 Edition (Sept. 1988)

- SN003-003-02890-8 $11.00 NBS Handbook 133, Third Edition - Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods, C.S. Brickenkamp, S. Hasko, and M.G. Natrella, authors & editors - SN003-003-02885-1 $16.00 NBS Handbook 105-3, Specifications and Tolerances for Graduated Neck Type Volumetric Field Standards - SN003-003-02044-3 NBS Special Publication 304, Metric Chart - SN003-003-02365-5 NBS Special Publication 304A, Brief History of Measurement Systems - SN003-003-02366-3 NBS Special Publication 345, A Metric America - A Decision Whose Time Has Come - SN003-003-00884-2 NBS Special Publication 430, Household Weights and Measures - SN003-003-01542-3 NBS Special Publication 691, INDEX to the REPORTS of the National Conference on Weights and Measures

- From the First to the Sixty-Ninth (1905-1984), W. G. Mott, editor, (1985) - SN003-003-02649-2 NBS Special Publication 442, Report of the 60th National Conference on Weights and Measures (1975) - SN003-003-01614-4 NBS Special Publication 471, Report of the 61st National Conference on Weights and Measures (1976) - SN003-003-01806-6 NBS Special Publication 517, Report of the 62nd National Conference on Weights and Measures (1977) - SN003-003-01966-1 NBS Special Publication 532, Report of the 63rd National Conference on Weights and Measures (1978) - SN003-003-02045-1 NBS Special Publication 566, Report of the 64th National Conference on Weights and Measures (1979) - SN003-003-02147-4 NBS Special Publication 599, Report of the 65th National Conference on Weights and Measures (1980) - SN003-003-02286-1 NBS Special Publication 629, Report of the 66th National Conference on Weights and Measures (1981) - PB821-78997

52
Executive Committee

See NTIS (next listing) for copies of 66th, 67th, and 68th NCWM Reports. NBS Special Publication 684, Report of the 69th National Conference on Weights and Measures (1984) - SN003-003-02637-9 NBS Special Publication 704, Report of the 70th National Conference on Weights and Measures (1985) - SN003-003-02702-2 NBS Special Publication 725 Report of the 71st National Conference on Weights and Measures, A. D. Tholen,

C. S. Brickenkamp, and A. P. Heffernan, editors, (1986) - SN003-003-02765-1 NBS Special Publication 734 Report of the 72nd National Conference on Weights and Measures, A. D. Tholen,

C. S. Brickenkamp, and A. P. Heffernan, editors, (1987) - SN003-003-02828-2 NBS Special Publication 750 Report of the 73rd National Conference on Weights and Measures, A. D. Tholen,

C.S. Brickenkamp, and A. P. Heffernan-Turner, editors, (1988) available from Office of Weights and Measures.

The following publications may be obtained from the National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161 (703/487-4780 or 4650). Please contact them for current price information - there

is a charge per page for paper copies. Remittance must accompany order. NBS Special Publication 629, Report of the 66th National Conference on Weights and Measures (1981) - PB821-78997 NBS Special Publication 645, Report of the 67th National Conference on Weights and Measures (1982) - PB831-67148 NBS Special Publication 663, Report of the 68th National Conference on Weights and Measures (1983) - PB841- 10998 NBSIR 85-3172, Package Checking Field Manual, to accompany NBS Handbook 133, Checking the Net Contents

of Packaged Goods, C. S. Brickenkamp, S. Hasko, and M. G. Natrella, editors, (Aug. 1985) - PB86- 108776/AS NBS Handbook 143, State Weights and Measures Laboratory Program Handbook, H. V. Oppermann and J. K. Taylor, (Feb. 1985) - PB85- 183358 NBS Handbook 117, Examination of Vapor-Measuring Devices for Liquefied Petroleum Gas, S. Hasko, - PB

248987 NBS Special Publication 686, State Weights and Measures Laboratories Program Description and Directory, H. V. Oppermann, (Jan. 1985) - PB85- 137651 NBS Handbook 145, Handbook for the Quality Assurance of Metrological Measurements (1986) - PB87140422NBS Handbook 94, The Examination of Weighing Equipment - COM. No. 73-10635 NBS Handbook 98, The Examination of Farm Milk Tanks - COM. No. 72-10619 (May 1964) NBS Handbook 99, The Examination of Liquefied Petroleum Gas Liquid-Measuring Devices - this has recently been replaced by National Training Program Module 21; call 301/975-4007 for information. NBS Handbook 112, Examination Procedure Outlines for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices - COM. No. 73-50836

53
Executive Committee

The following publications may be obtained from the Office of Weights and Measures, National Institute for Standards and Technology, A617, Gaithersburg, MD 20899. NBS Handbook 133, Third Edition Field Manual - Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods, C. S. Brickenkamp, editor, SN003-003-02885-1 $16.00 (continually updated) NBS Handbook 105-1, Specifications and Tolerances for Field Standard Weights NBS Handbook 105-2, Specifications and Tolerances for Field Measuring Flasks NBS Handbook 137, Examination of Distance Measuring Devices NBS Special Publication 447, Weights and Measures Standards of the United States, A Brief History

Letter Circular 1035, Units and Systems of Weights and Measures, Their Origin, Development, and Present

Status NBS Special Publication 750, Report of the 73rd National Conference on Weights and Measures

54
Executive Committee

Appendix B

Publications, NCWM

The following publications may be obtained from the National Conference on Weights and Measures, P.O. Box 4025, Gaithersburg, MD 20885. There is no charge for NCWM members; nonmembers, please call 301/975-4012 for current price. NCWM Pub L NCWM Pub 2. NCWM Pub 3. NCWM Pub 4. NCWM Pub 5. NCWM Pub 6. NCWM Pub 7. NCWM Pub 8. NCWM Pub 9. NCWM Pub 10. NCWM Pub 11. NCWM Pub 12 NCWM Pub 13. NCWM Pub 14. NCWM Pub 15. NCWM Pub 16. NCWM Pub 17. NCWM Pub 18.

NCWM Constitution and Bylaws, 1988

State and Local Weights & Measures Directory 1989 Edition NCWM Policy and Guidelines 1989 NTEP Policy and Procedures 1984 (combined with Pub. 14) NTEP Index of Evaluations (through 1988) NCWM Organization, Procedures, and Membership Plan Brochure, 1987 Weights & Measures Week Guide 1989

National Type Evaluation Program and Its Relationship to the Weights

and Measures Law, NBS Handbook 44, and the New Scales Code

Directory - Associate Members, 1988 Guide for Conduct of Annual Meeting (annually produced as script for Conference

officers) National Training Program 1987 Examination Procedure Outlines, 1987 Weights and Measures Information System (WAMIS) Guide NTEP Criteria and Procedures (1989) Interim Meeting Agenda 1988 Announcement Book

Report of TF on Prevention of Fraud

National Training Program Directory 1988

55
Executive Committee

Early NCWM Proceedings Available From NTIS

The proceedings of the first through the sixteenth NCWM annual meetings now are available for purchase from

the National Technical Information Service (NTIS) Springfield VA 22161 in paper copy form or in microfiche. The titles and NTIS accession numbers of all of the early proceedings that are currently available are listed below.

Title NTIS Accession No.

First Conference on the Weights and Measures of the U.S. - 1905 (NBS Misc. Pub. 4) PB87-232427 Second Conference on the Weights and Measures of the U.S. - 1906 (NBS Misc. Pub. 5) PB87-232435

Third Conference on the Weights and Measures of the U.S. - 1907 (NBS Misc. Pub. 6) PB87-232443

Fourth Conference on the Weights and Measures of the U.S. - 1908 (NBS Misc. Pub. 7) PB87-232450

Fifth Conference on the Weights and Measures of the U.S. - 1910 (NBS Misc. Pub. 8) PB87-232468

Sixth Conference on the Weights and Measures of the U.S. - 1911 (NBS Misc. Pub. 9) PB88- 124219 Seventh Conference on the Weights and Measures of the U.S. - 1912 (NBS Misc. Pub. 10) PB88- 124227

Eighth Conference on the Weights and Measures of the U.S. - 1913 (NBS Misc. Pub. 11) PB88- 124201 Ninth Conference on the Weights and Measures of the U.S. - 1914 (NBS Misc. Pub. 12) PB88-124235 Tenth Conference on the Weights and Measures of the U.S. - 1915 (NBS Misc. Pub. 13) PB89-122055

Eleventh Conference on the Weights and Measures of the U.S. - 1916 (NBS Misc. Pub. 14) PB89- 122063

Twelfth Conference on the Weights and Measures of the U.S. - 1919 (NBS Misc. Pub. 41) PB89-122071

Thirteenth Conference on the Weights and Measures of the U.S. - 1920 (NBS Misc. Pub. 43) PB89- 122089 Fourteenth Conference on the Weights and Measures of the U.S. - 1921 (NBS Misc. Pub. 48) PB89-122097

Fifteenth Conference on the Weights and Measures of the U.S. - 1922 (NBS Misc. Pub. 51) PB89-122105

Sixteenth Conference on the Weights and Measures of the U.S. - 1923 (NBS Misc. Pub. 55) PB89-122113

56
Executive Committee

Appendix C

NCWM Membership by State

(* 87 data as of 12/1/87)

(88 data as of 3/1/89)

Key: 88W = Weights and Measures officials who are members

881 = Associate (industry) members

Jurisdiction Members

86 87* 88W 881

Alabama 16 14 9 10 Alaska 3 10 12 2 American Samoa 1 1 1 0 Arizona 8 6 30 7 Arkansas 21 40 29 24

California 96 97 67 83 Colorado 18 13 2 10 Connecticut 23 25 14 27 Delaware 7 8 7 2

District of Columbia 36 47 0 28

Florida 20 20 8 11 Georgia 21 25 9 23 Guam 1 0 2 0 Hawaii 3 3 16 2 Idaho 14 7 4 2

Illinois 56 54 21 59

Indiana 50 48 49 16 Iowa 10 8 12 8 Kansas 32 33 22 17 Kentucky 3 6 4 4 Louisiana 4 7 3 5 Maine 5 11 13 2 Maryland 39 41 6 25 Massachusetts 54 51 84 36 Michigan 22 23 83 25 Minnesota 30 28 4 38

Mississippi 7 6 4 8 Missouri 53 57 34 32 Montana 1 1 1 0 Nebraska 26 23 22 8

57
Executive Committee

Jurisdiction Members

86 87* 88W 881

Nevada 1 2 1 0 New Hampshire 4 5 8 4 New Jersey 74 67 35 60 New Mexico 27 5 24 5 New York 72 71 58 43 North Carolina 25 21 6 26 North Dakota 2 2 1 2 Ohio 106 109 125 55 Oklahoma 19 17 5 18 Oregon 12 11 7 4

Pennsylvania 64 63 42 45 Puerto Rico 6 3 5 1 Rhode Island 2 4 4 1 South Carolina 4 7 3 5 South Dakota 13 11 11 7 Tennessee 11 13 9 11 Texas 46 41 12 44 Utah 4 4 1 5 Vermont 11 9 9 2

Virginia 33 65 12 19

Virgin Islands 1 2 3 0 Washington 19 15 13 11 West Virginia 9 6 27 7 Wisconsin 34 30 31 28 Wyoming 7 5 1 7

Total 1286 1301 1025 924

58
Executive Committee

PRESIDENTS AWARD

Most of the states that had qualified for banners prior to the July 1, 1987 - June 30, 1988 NCWM year repeated and qualified for streamers. The states that qualified in 1987 - 1988 membership year (awarded at the 73rd NCWM) are listed below.

This award is a banner presented to the State Director of each state having 100% of its weights and measures

officials as members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures.

First Year Banner Awards

District of Columbia Vermont Virginia Streamers for Second Year 100% Membership

Alaska Delaware Idaho Kansas South Dakota

Streamers for Third Year 100% Membership

Arkansas Nebraska

There are several states that have qualified for a banner or streamer for the 1988 - 89 year, and will be awarded

these banners or streamers at the 74th NCWM:

First Year Banner Awards

Arizona Hawaii Michigan New Hampshire West Virginia Streamers for Second Year 100% Membership

Vermont New Mexico

Streamers for Third Year 100% Membership

Alaska Delaware Idaho Kansas South Dakota

Streamers for Fourth Year 100% Membership

Arkansas Nebraska

State directors in other states are attempting to justify membership as a routine budget element by using it as an economic source of handbooks needed by the staff: Membership: $35 vs. H44 $15 H130 $11 H133 $16

Total $42

59
Executive Committee

Composition of NCWM Mailing List 86/87/88 (as of 3/1/89)

Category NCWMMembers

Non- Members Total % of Tot who are 86 87 88 % incr. 86 87 88 86 87 88 members

State 241 271 537 97 862 903 860 1103 1174 1397 38 County 1 162 275 /U 672 727 615 830 889 891 ji

City 126 115 213 85 436 398 453 562 513 666 32

Subtotal 525 548 1025 87 1970 2028 1929 2495 2576 2954 35

Industry (U.S.) Industry (frgn)* 749 717 924 29 2456 2372 1812 3205 3089 2736 35

15 50 65 23

Subtotal 749 717 939 2456 2372 1862 3205 3089 2801 34

Federal 31 27 44 63 18 21 135 49 48 179 25

Foreign Govt.* 18 65 83 22

Retirees 8 9 31 5 6 46 13 15 77 40

Subtotal 93 200 293 Guests 112 112

Total 1313 1326 2058 55 4449 4564 4148 5762 5890 6206 33

* Foreign industry and government was: Members 87 = 25; Nonmembers 87 = 137; Total 87 = 162

60
Executive Committee

Appendix D

Report on OIML to the Annual Meeting

Sam Chappell, NIST

Last year was a very busy year for OIML. I plan to give you highlights of some of those relevant activities since my last report to you at the Annual Meeting in Grand Rapids in July of 1988. I will also provide you with

highlights of planned and anticipated activities for the coming year. The important event last fall was the 8th quadrennial Conference on Legal Metrology held in Sydney, Australia. Dr. Stanley Warshaw (Associate Director for Industry and Standards, NIST) led the U.S. Delegation that included myself as the U.S. Representative to OIML, Mr. Albert Tholen representing the NIST Office of Weights and Measures, and Mr. John Bartfai (Chairman, NCWM) representing the NCWM. Of the total membership of 50 nations, representatives of 37 member nations attended. In addition, several liaison organizations attended including ISO, IEC, CGPM, and CECIP (the European Scale Manufacturers

Association). The main objectives of the Conference were to sanction the international recommendations completed during

the past four years, to approve a budget for the next four years (1989-92), and to debate and issue new work

plans and policies for the organization. Twenty-six international recommendations were approved on subjects addressing product labeling and instruments for measuring mass, volume, pressure, temperature, environmental

pollutants, and medical-health. The United States made significant contributions to over one-third of these recommendations. The NCWM's assistance in the development of several of these was noteworthy. We

supported the approved budget for the next 4 years. That budget would include funds for adding another member to the staff of the International Bureau of Legal Metrology (BIML) and for a much needed renovation

of the BIML headquarter's building. We supported all but the following three sanctioned recommendations; (1.) "Automatic Measurement of the Liquid Level in Fixed Storage Tanks," (2.) "Integrating-averaging Sound Level Meters," and (3.) "Non-automatic Weighing Instruments." The recommendation on fixed storage tanks was opposed mainly on the advice of a U.S. instrument manufacturer because it was limited to prescribing only one of several devices that could be

used for measuring liquid levels although the scope and requirements of this recommendation were presumed

to include all technical measuring means. As for the recommendation on "Non-automatic Measuring

Instruments," we opposed it mainly on advice from both SMA and NCWM because of requirements for "durability tests" that were specified by the Secretariat without any justifiable technical basis. This recommendation also was not in harmony with the advice provided in IR74 on "Electronic Weighing

Instruments." Opposing this recommendation was a difficult choice for us since we proposed this new

recommendation which combined the requirements of three existing recommendations, namely ones addressing

the metrologic (IR3), technical (IR28) and electronic (IR74) requirements for these instruments. Other than

the United States, Austria and Italy voted negative on this proposed IR for other reasons, and the Netherlands and Japan abstained. The record of the Conference will show that the Secretariat (France and West Germany)

agreed to begin work shortly on a revision of this recommendation to take into account some of the negative

issues raised by the U.SA. and other member nations. In view of this response, our negative vote may have a

positive effect on the future content of this recommendation. The companion IR74 on "Electronic Weighing

Instruments," for which the U.SA. is responsible, was approved without comments.

Other recommendations sanctioned of interest to the NCWM were as follows: o Measuring Assemblies for Liquids other than Water Fitted with Volume Meters (West Germany and

France) o Information of Package Labels (USA)

o Road and Rail Tankers (France and Romania)

o Measuring Devices and Measuring Systems for Cryogenic Liquids (USA)

o Heat Meters (West Germany)

61
Executive Committee

o General Provisions for Volumetric Gas Meters (West Germany)

o Rotary Piston Gas Meters and Turbine Gas Meters (West Germany)

0 Net Content in Packages (Switzerland) A complete list of all sanctioned recommendations will be attached to this report for your records. Two other important issues discussed at the Conference and recorded as resolutions were: (1.) an OIML

Certificate Program for Measuring Instruments and (2.) the CIML approval of international recommendations.

1 discussed the proposed voluntary Certificate Program with you earlier. It would be limited to type approval and not include verification. Draft implementation procedures for the voluntary program have been developed by BIML. We are now reviewing the second preliminary draft on that program and have distributed it for comments. Such a program could benefit both regulating officials and instrument manufacturers if properly designed and if member nations choose to participate in it. On the second point, CIML was given authority to approve recommendations at its meetings, which occur approximately once every 18 months; however, member

nations will still commit themselves at the quadrennial Conference to implement, or harmonize, such recommendations in their laws and regulations. This change in approval procedure should improve the timeliness of the work of the OIML Secretariats. A CIML meeting was held before and after the Conference mainly to implement the resolutions of the Conference. In addition, the four-year work plans and criteria for establishing priorities of work for the

Secretariats were approved. I was unanimously elected to fill one of the positions as Vice President of CIML.

Overall, our view was that the Conference was very successful with respect to the objectives of the United States. On November 17, Bernard Athane, Director of BIML, and Knut Birkeland, President of CIML and Director General of the Norwegian Metrology Services, visited Dr. Ambler and other NIST managers to discuss current and long range plans of OIML and to learn about the new organization of NIST with respect to its committment

to support U.S. representation and participation in OIML. These visitors particularily emphasized the anticipated and current influence on OIML by cooperative efforts in Western Europe, mainly in the EEC,

among national metrology laboratories, calibration services, testing laboratories, and accreditation schemes. The

plan to unify the EC market by 1992 is the driving force behind these cooperative efforts. The message was that

it was essential that OIML remain a forum for reflecting and providing recommendations and advice for legal measuring instruments applicable worldwide; therefore, strong participation is needed by nations outside Western Europe, including specially the United States, to counterbalance the European influences. The

responsible NIST management within the new organization indicated a determined committment of continued

support to U.S. participation and representation in OIML.

The following meetings of interest to NCWM were held since the last annual meeting: o PS5D/RS1 "Meters and Measuring Systems for Liquids other than Water with Measuring Chambers

or with Turbines" (France and West Germany) and PS5D/RS6 "Electronic Devices Applied to the Measurement of Volume of Liquids" (France)

April 17-20, 1989 in Paris o PS5D/RS10 "Direct Mass Flow Measurement of Quantities of Liquids" (U.SA.)

April 5-6, 1989 in Teddington, England

o PS7/RS5 "Automatic Weighing Instruments" (U.K.)

April 10-14, 1989 in Teddington, England discussing Continous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Instruments, Discontinuous Totalizing Automatic Weighing Machines, and Automatic Rail-Weighbridges. o PS8 "Weights" (USA)

April 7, 1989 in Teddington, England discussing the revision and possible compilation of several IRs on Weights including IR1, IR2, IR20, IR25, and IR52 and to discuss work plans for the Secretariat.

62
Executive Committee

Mr. Otto Warnlof (Office of Standards Management, N1ST) has already provided a detailed report on these

activities to the S & T Committee.

Other scheduled meetings of interest are: o CIML Presidential Council

April 13-14, 1989 in Paris at which the first preliminary draft on the OIML Certificate Program for Measuring Instruments was discussed. o Development Council Seminar on "Planning and Equipping Metrology and Testing Laboratories." September 25-26, 1989 in Paris o The 24th Meeting of CIML

September 27-29, 1989 in Paris. The agenda will include: Certification State of the Progress of Work

Adoption of 3 Recommendations Long Term Policy of the Organization o PS5D/RS7 "Methods and Devices for Verification of Measuring Instruments for Liquids" (Japan) and PS5D/RS10 "Vortex Meters" (Japan) November 6-10, 1989 in Tokyo. The draft recommendations to be discussed are: Characteristics of Pipe Provers and Test Methods for Measuring Assemblies,

Testing Procedures for Pattern Examination of Fuel Dispensers for Motor Vehicles, and Measuring Assemblies for Liquids fitted with Vortex Meters. o OIML Technical Seminar "Weighing at Braunschweig" May 15-18, 1990 at PTB in Braunschweig, Federal Republic of Germany to discuss recent developments

in both design and legal control of weighing instruments. We will look forward to your advice on our participation in all future meetings and will keep you informed

about the meeting results. Some related activities of interest are as follows: o An international intercomparison of six load cells has been carried out according to the requirements

of OIML IR60 on "Load Cells" among the national measurement laboratories of Australia, West

Germany, the Netherlands, the U.K., and the U.SA. A summary report on the measurement results has been prepared by the Force Measurement Group of NIST and distributed to participants for comment. A final report for publication and a proposed agreement among participants for mutual

recognition of test data are expected to be finalized soon. o BIML has developed a document on "Guidelines on the Use of Graphical Symbols on Measuring

Instruments." We provided comments on early drafts. This document is expected to become a joint publication among OIML, ISO, and IEC. A similar joint effort among these organizations and BIPM

on the "International Vocabulary of Basic and General Terms in Metrology" is being revised. The new

version of that vocabulary is expected to be completed by the end of 1989. o We are in the process of drafting an OIML document on "Quality Assurance Applied to Metrological

Control." This work will be under the Pilot Secretariat 22 on "Principles of Metrological Control" for which the U.SA. is responsible. This document will provide a guide to how instrument manufacturer's

quality control procedures might be used instead of traditional verification procedures for legal control of measuring instruments. We look forward to the continued collaboration and support of NCWM in those OIML activities of interest.

63
Executive Committee

Appendix E

Operating Budget 89/90

(July 1, 1989 to June 30, 1990)

Columns (c) and (d) contain the budgeted amounts proposed for the FY 89/90. Column (e) contains the budgeted amounts for FY 88/89 (the current year that began on July 1, 1988 and runs through June 30, 1989). Column (f) contains the actual income and expenses for the FY 87/88 (the year completed June 30, 1988). INCOME

Number Name

(a) (b)

FY89-90 Subaccount Account

(c) (d)

FY88-89

Budget

(e)

FY87-88

Actual (0

1.1 Registration Fees $30,000 $30,000 $31,305

1.2 Membership Fees 67,550' 45,500 61,402

1.3 Training Modules 6,500 6,500 7,420

1.3 NTP Modules

1.3a HB 133 Field

1.4 Interest 3,000

2 2,000 3,192

1.5 Promotional 1,000 1,000 668

1.6 Special Events 5,000 5,000 3,790

1.9 Miscellaneous 300 200 250

Total $ 113,350 $ 90,200 $108,027

Footnotes (INCOME'): Assumed membership of 1930 @ $35 = $ 67,550. Based on higher average of assets invested.

64
Executive Committee

Expenses

FY89-90 FY88-89 FY87-88 Number Name Subaccount Account Riirlcipt Actual

(a) (b) (O (d)

2.0 Annual Meeting $14,00r $12,000 $9,880

3.0 Interim Meeting 4,000 4,UUU

4.0 Committee Meetings 20,000 17 firm 1Q 747

4.1 Executive [5,000] p,uuuj

4.2 Laws and Regs [3,000] [Z,jUUJ 4.3 Specs & Tol [3,500] [2,500] [1,639] 4.4 Education [3,500] [3,500] [1,606]

4.5 Liaison [3,000] [Z,UUUJ 4.9 Misc [2,000] [l,JUUj

5 0 Special Meetings 18,000 14,000 16,060

5.1 NTEP [6,000]

s [4,000] [7,400] 5.2 OIML [4,000]

6 [4,000] [1,432] 5.7 TF on Belt Conveyor [2,000]

7 [3,000] [1,192]

5.8 TF on Energy Systems [2,000]

7 [2,000] [1,996]

5.9 TF on Safety [4,000] [1,000]

6.0 Chairman/Chairman Elect 12,550

s 6,000 7,972

7.0 Membership Program 6,000 6,000 7,106

8.0 Printing/Pubs 6,000

9 4,000 3,859

9.0 Administration 12,500" 7,000 10,203

10.0 Special Events 5,000 5,000 6,058

11.0 Promotion 1300 1,200 962

12.0 Training Modules 14,000 14,000 3,958

12.4 Printing Existing [4,000] [4,000] 12.5 Materials, Module

Implementation [10,000]

10 [10,000] Total Disbursements $113,550 $90,200 $87,683

Footnotes ^EXPENSES):

Expenses are increasing at about $ 2,000 per year due to cost of doing business including printing of Addendum Sheets.

Reflects increasing transportation costs. Increased to provide for one additional meeting to handle possible appeal(s). See NCWM Policy 1.5.2.; the NCWM adopted this policy in 1979 for budgeting of $ 8,000 per year for participation in the work of the OIML. This amount is augmented by the NIST which pays 50% of the expenses of NCWM participation in selected working groups. Based on anticipated participation, this item is budgeted at $4,000. These TFs will complete their work in the fall of 1989.

65
Executive Committee

Provides for additional participation in the work of the Regional Associations by the Chairman and the Chairman-Elect.

Reflects general increase in the cost of conducting routine business (paper, services, etc.) Second annual allocation of $ 10,000 for use in the implementation of the use of the modules.

66
Executive Committee

Appendix F

National Conference on Weights and Measures Task Force on Energy Allocation

Summary

The National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Task Force on Energy Allocation met October

6-7, 1988, April 5-6, 1989, and June 19-20, 1989 at NIST in Gaithersburg, Maryland. As a result of extensive study and discussion prior to and during these meetings, the Task Force concluded that:

1) energy or utilities allocation is not a weights and measures concern with respect to device

regulation;

2) the NCWM Liaison Committee should approach an organization which might more

appropriately regulate energy or utilities allocation systems;

3) information collected by the Task Force should be presented to such organization in the form

of a recommended regulation as a basis for that organization to begin its work;

4) the Task Force should assist the Liaison Committee as requested; and

5) guidelines should be provided for use by weights and measures jurisdictions that receive complaints on allocation systems.

Details of all Task Force meetings are available upon request. A copy of the Recommended Regulation for Energy or Utilities Allocation Systems referenced in Item (3) above was printed in NCWM Publication 16 as Appendix G to the Interim Report of the Executive Committee.

In the process of assisting the Task Force with the issue of energy or utilities allocation, members of the energy

or utilities allocation industry formed an association known as National Utilities Allocation Association. As a

result of the Task Force meetings held since the publication of Appendix G in NCWM Publication 16 and comments received from members of the energy or utilities allocation industry, changes have been made to the recommended regulation. A final version of the recommended regulation is given in a revised version of Appendix G along with a summary of the major changes.

In the process of developing the recommended regulation, the Task Force discussed the use of a standardized complaint form to be used for registering complaints about energy or utilities allocation systems. The Task

Force developed samples of a tenant complaint form and a management response form. These sample forms

are intended to be presented to the regulating agency for their use in developing their own version of such forms and might also be used by weights and measures jurisdictions. Copies of the forms accompany this report. A detailed report of the work of the Task Force since its establishment will be available in the form of a National Conference on Weights and Measures publication following the National Conference on Weights and Measures in July 1989. Background Information

Study of the issue prior to the October meeting provided the Task Force with an overview of the types and

capabilities of energy allocation systems in use in the United States. The systems used to allocate costs of energy usage are divided into two broad categories: a gas, oil, or electric fired heating system or a hydronic

heating/cooling system. The Task Force reviewed each type of system to determine its ability to provide the

actual measurement of energy usage as required by the weights and measures community. It examined the types of systems used with each of these heating methods. The criteria outlined below are considered to be minimum requirements for a system to be appropriate to the weights and measures community. Failure to meet these criteria indicates that "assumptions" are being made to arrive at a supposedly "measured" quantity. Many of the identified systems may utilize precise measuring instruments for part of the total energy measurement. However, these systems were found to make assumptions about various other parameters

67
Executive Committee

required to arrive at the final energy determination. Because these systems only approximate energy usage and do not provide actual energy measurement, it is the opinion of the Task Force that they do not lend themselves

to rigorous certification procedures (for example, testing for repeatability and accuracy) required by weights and

measures.Gas, Oil, or Electric Fired Furnace Systems:

1) Elapsed Time Monitors Many of these systems do not have all of the parameters considered necessary for determining energy usage. The following features are considered minimal for an

elapsed time monitor system to be adequate for determining energy usage. Note: Elapsed time monitors are not acceptable for use with variable rate heating

devices.

a) For constant rate furnaces, monitor the time of gas, electric, or oil delivery

(or cubic feet of gas delivered, or kilowatt hours consumed for electric systems, or gallons consumed for oil systems); b) Provide the rate of consumption of the furnace or, alternatively, the metered

rate of gas (cubic feet per hour), electricity (kilowatts), or oil consumption

(gallons per hour);

c) Provide means to assure that the timer is activated only when gas, electricity, or oil is being consumed. Comparisons with devices or systems that do provide measurements must be made

prior to concluding whether or not these systems are able to measure or provide a basis for calculation of actual energy usage.

2) BTU Meters No BTU meters for gas, oil, or electric fired systems are known. (Metered electric kilowatt hours, cubic feet of gas, or gallons of oil do provide a basis for the calculation of BTU energy input.)

3) Time/Temperature No time and temperature systems for gas, oil, or electric fired systems are known.

4) Comfort Systems These systems do not provide an acceptable means for determining energy usage; they only monitor the setting of the thermostat; they do not measure actual energy usage.

Hydronic Heated/Cooled Systems Served By In-Building Boilers and Chillers, Or By District Heating and Cooling:

1) Elapsed Time Monitors These systems are inappropriate since they do not measure two important parameters

for energy use determination: the temperature and the flow rate of the water.

If these\systems were to measure the temperature of the water and the flow rate, they would then fall into the category of BTU meters.

2) BTU Meters These meters are capable of completing the BTU Formula by determining the following parameters to be used in calculating the total energy usage:

68
Executive Committee

a) change in temperature of the water;

b) volume of water; and

c) time These devices appear to be acceptable means of determining energy usage for the purposes of cost allocation since they take into account the parameters required to determine actual energy usage. The landlord will determine a cost per unit of energy

for each billing period. When setting the cost per unit of energy, the landlord must

take into account the cost of maintaining the heating/cooling system and the amount

that was paid for the fuel, electricity, or thermal energy used to run the heating/cooling system. The tenant's bill will be calculated from the amount of energy used (as determined by the BTU meter) and the cost per unit of energy that the landlord set for that billing period.

In determining the cost of operating the hydronic heating system for the building, kilowatt hour meters (for electricity), and Btu meters (for thermal energy) can be used

to calculate or directly indicate the BTU energy input. Oil consumption meters (in gallons), or gas consumption meters (in cubic feet), can be used to calculate total BTU

energy input including stack loss. (They cannot be used to calculate the portion not

including stack loss.)

3) Time/Temperature Monitors These systems measure time by use of a timing device. They determine temperature

using a temperature sensor or by assumption. These systems were determined to be

inappropriate from a weights and measures standpoint since they do not measure flow

rate, and they may assume temperature. In order to be appropriate, flow rate should be measured, and the temperature value should not be assumed. If these two

parameters were to be measured, the system would then fall into the category of a BTU meter.

4) Comfort Systems The Task Force has determined that, from a weights and measures standpoint, these systems do not provide an acceptable means for determining energy usage. These

systems only monitor the setting of the thermostat; they do not measure actual energy

usage. Recommendations

Although energy or utilities allocation systems are not fully acceptable in terms of measurement, Task Force members recognize that they fulfill a need and serve a purpose to landlords and to tenants, and they may

provide an incentive to conserve energy. The Task Force feels that weights and measures should not regulate

these systems as measurement devices, but that it has an obligation to the members of the National Conference on Weights and Measures to guide the issue in a direction which will ultimately result in resolution. Failure to pursue the issue in this manner would prevent the Task Force from fulfilling the tasks originally delegated to it. The Task Force makes the following recommendations to the NCWM based on its extensive study and

discussion; they address the needs perceived by the members of the National Conference on Weights and

Measures.

1) Request that the Liaison Committee work with the Task Force to:

a) approach a national organization, such as the National Association of Regulatory

Utility Commissioners, which would more appropriately regulate energy or utilities allocation systems; and

b) work with industry groups such as the International District Heating and Cooling

69
Executive Committee

Association, American Society of Heating and Refrigeration Engineers (ASHRAE),

Building Owners and Managers Association (BOMA), or National Utilities Allocation Association (NUAA) to develop guidelines for these systems.

2) Request that the Liaison Committee present the information collected by the Task Force in the form of a recommended "regulation" (along with suggested tenant complaint and management response forms) to the regulating organization. The regulating organization could use the regulation as a basis for establishing its own set of requirements for the regulation of energy or utilities allocation systems. The intent of providing a model "regulation" is to:

a) provide an incentive for the regulating organization to develop requirements for the regulation of energy or utilities allocation systems; and

b) increase the likelihood that the requirements identified in the draft will be in the final regulations established by the regulating organization.

3) Provide the benefit of the knowledge of the Task Force members in the area of energy or

utilities allocation to the Liaison Committee in encouraging the regulating organization to implement these recommendations through its members in each state.

4) Propose that the following guidelines established by the Task Force for weights and measures

officials be utilized by jurisdictions that receive complaints on these systems.

Outline of Procedures for Responding to Complaints About Energy or Utilities Allocation Systems

a) Contact All Parties Involved

i) Gather as much information as possible from all parties involved to ascertain

if the complaint pertains to energy or utilities allocation systems. (Complaints which do not pertain to energy or utilities allocation systems should be

referred to the appropriate agency.) Include a detailed account of each party's version of the incidents which took place. If possible, include such information

as the nature of the complaint, the time period over which the complaint took

place, the manufacturer and model of the system involved in the complaint,

the names and addresses of all individuals involved, and what other agencies

the complainant has contacted.

b) Involvement of Other Agencies

i) If another agency (or agencies) is known to have regulatory authority over such systems, contact that agency (or agencies) and provide them with the information collected in (I)(A). Request that they proceed with the complaint and notify the complainant.

ii) If no other agency is known to have regulatory authority over energy or

utilities allocation systems, it will be necessary to identify other agencies which

might better provide assistance to the complainant.

iii) Some suggested contacts of regulatory and non-regulatory agencies include: Consumer Protection Agency of the Office of the Attorney General

Local or State Consumer Protection Office Landlord/Tenant Organization

National Utilities Allocation Association

Public Service Commission/ Public Utilities Commission

State or Local Building Inspector's Office

State Department of Energy

70
Executive Committee

iv) If the efforts listed in (A) and (B) fail to identify an agency which is able to

assist the complainant, an agency which will act as a mediator must be

identified. As a final alternative, it may be necessary for the state/local weights and measures office to act as a mediator for the parties involved.

Referral to the NUAA

i) Advise complainant to contact NUAA at NUAA's toll-free telephone number

(This number is to be established in August 1989 and will be distributed to

state weights and measures directors for distribution to local weights and measures offices.)

ii) Advise the complainant to contact weights and measures if NUAA is unable

to assist them in the resolution of their complaint.

Weights and Measures Office as Mediator

i) In the event that NUAA is unable to assist the complainant in the resolution of the complaint, it would be advisable for the weights and measures

jurisdiction to attempt to mediate the complaint in a non-regulatory role.

ii) If unable to successfully mediate, advise the complainant that, as a last course

of action, they may wish to pursue the complaint through their local legal system.

Documentation Adequate documentation should be maintained throughout the handling of the complaint. Any forms or procedures normally used by the weights and measures

jurisdictions for handling complaints should be used. Documentation should include

all details of the complaint, all details of weights and measures participation, and a

description of contacts with other agencies. Since it may be necessary for the weights and measures office to participate in the resolution of the complaint, sufficient documentation is essential. Completion of Complaint Whether or not the weights and measures jurisdiction has handled the entire complaint,

the weights and measures office should follow up by contacting the complainant after a reasonable period of time to insure that the complaint has been satisfactorily resolved. Use any additional procedures normally used by the jurisdiction for following up on a complaint to determine if the complaint can be closed.

71
Executive Committee

Appendix G

National Conference on Weights and Measures Task Force on Energy Allocation Recommended Regulation for Energy or Utilities Allocation Systems

Final Version

The following represents the final version of the recommended regulation originally published as an Appendix

to the Interim Report of the Executive Committee on Pages 1-36 to 1-44 of National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM) Publication 16. All changes made to the document as a result of the April and June

1989 meetings of the Task Force have been incorporated into this version. Many weights and measures jurisdictions reported receiving complaints about energy allocation systems, but were often unable to resolve them due to a lack of definitive regulations or of identification of an agency with

specific authority to regulate them. The establishment of regulations is necessary in order for energy allocation systems to be controlled and their benefits recognized. The Task Force recommends that this regulation be

presented to national associations of regulatory utility or energy commissions (for example the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners) for their use in developing regulations for energy allocation systems for adoption at the state and local level. This recommendation is not intended for adoption by weights and measures jurisdictions. Although intended for use in non-owner-occupied multi-unit facilities, this recommended regulation may be modified and adapted for application to owner-occupied multi-unit facilities or those multi-unit facilities which

utilize a time sharing plan. A time sharing plan can be defined in this context as any arrangement, plan, scheme, or similar device, whether by membership, agreement, tenancy in common, sale, lease, deed, rental agreement, license, or right-to-use agreement or by any other means, whereby a purchaser, in exchange for a consideration, receives a right to use accommodations, or facilities, or both, for a specific period of time less than a full year during any given year, but not necessarily for consecutive years and which extends for a period

of more than three years.

Chapter 01 General

01.01 Applicability A. The requirements contained in this regulation govern the use of energy or utilities allocation systems which allocate to a tenant of an individual unit a portion of the cost of all energy or

utilities consumed in a multi-unit facility based upon devices which indirectly approximate energy

or utilities usage.

B. An energy or utilities allocation system may not be used unless approved by the Agency 1 under

this regulation.

C. This regulation does not apply to submeters from which a separate bill issued by the energy- or

utilities-supplying company to the tenant is derived.

1 The term "Agency" is used in this document to refer to the organization which accepts responsibility for regulating energy or utilities allocation systems. 72
Executive Committee

01.02 Definitions Adjusted Bill: a bill issued to a tenant which is based on usage which has been adjusted from the utility company's

reported meter readings. Agency:

the local regulatory authority having jurisdiction over energy or utilities allocation systems. Approximate Energy or Utilities Use:

the energy or utilities allocated to an individual unit within a multi-unit facility as determined by a means other than actual measurement by meters or submeters such as are routinely employed by

regulated utility companies. Base Usage:

the energy or utilities consumed in maintaining an energy source available for consumption by

tenants, such as the boiler fuel consumed in a hydronic heating system during a period of no active load.

Billing Agent:

the entity authorized to issue energy or utilities allocation system billings to the tenant of an

individual unit in a multi-unit facility. Consumer Protection Division: the Consumer Protection Division of the Office of The Attorney General or equivalent agency. Costs: Distributed Costs: those fees, charges, or assessments for utility usage attributed to an individual unit by use of an Agency-approved method. Industry accepted practices currently include allocation on the basis of parameters such as individual measurement, number of occupants, or square footage. Measured Costs: those fees, charges, or assessments for utility usage in an individual unit which are allocated on the

basis of regularly recurring measurements of specified measurement units. Owner-Paid Costs:

those fees, charges, or assessments for utility costs outside individual units or in owner-occupied or shared common areas such as maintenance shops, vacant units, meeting rooms, hall spaces, offices, swimming pools, or model apartments. Energy or Utilities Allocation Equipment:

a measurement device or other equipment used to determine approximate energy or utilities use. Energy or Utilities Allocation Procedure:

the method by which the approximate energy or utilities use of an individual unit and the energy or

utilities costs billed to a tenant are determined in conjunction with the readings recorded by the energy or utilities allocation equipment. Estimated Bill: a bill issued to a tenant which is based on utility company estimated meter readings for either the

starting or the ending date of the utility company billing period.

Individual Unit:

a single unit within a multi-unit facility. 73
Executive Committee

Measurement Unit: the unit used to measure the characteristic recorded by a measurement device. Measurement Device:

a device which measures characteristics used to determine the approximate energy or utilities use

within an individual unit, (for example: furnace operating or running time, baseboard pipe temperature, steam radiator time/temperature, etc.) Multi-Unit Facility: a building facility or other complex having multiple units including, but not limited to, apartment

houses, retail store complexes (e.g., shopping malls), office buildings, condominiums, etc. Owner

a person or entity holding legal title to a multi-unit facility including any authorized agent of the owner. Regular Bill: a bill issued to a tenant for energy or utilities consumption on a periodic basis as specified in this regulation. A regular bill is based on determinations made through use of the energy or utilities allocation system in a multi-unit facility. Substitute Bill: a bill issued to a tenant in place of the tenant's regular bill and not based on regularly recurring measurements obtained by use of the energy or utilities allocation system. A substitute bill is issued only if the energy or utilities allocation system has been tampered with or is out of order and under

the conditions specified in Section 02.04. Tenant:

the occupant or occupants of a unit in a multi-unit facility who have entered into an agreement with

the owner.

Utilities: the amounts of gas, oil, thermal energy, electricity, water, or other resources consumed in the operation of a multi-unit facility.

Utility: the regulated public service company which supplies energy or utilities to a multi-unit facility. Vendor:

the entity which provides the energy or utilities allocation equipment and may also provide billing services for the owner to the tenants of a multi-unit facility.

01.03 Filing Requirements for Owners

A. An owner shall file an application with the Agency for approval of an energy or utilities allocation system.

B. The application shall include the following information:

1. name and address of the owner;

2. name and address of the general partner, if the owner is a partnership;

3. name and address of the Management Agent, if any;

4. name and address of the multi-unit facility;

5. the number of individual units;

6. a copy of all written information provided to an tenant including lease terms; and

7. a copy of the proposed billing format.

74
Executive Committee

C. The owner shall also provide the approval number assigned to the energy or utilities allocation system by the Agency. If the energy or utilities allocation system has not been previously assigned an approval number by the Agency, the owner must also provide the information required in part 01.04.(B).

01.04. Filing Requirements for Vendors

A. If not previously filed by the owner, the vendor shall file an application for approval of a model

of energy or utilities allocation equipment with the Agency.

B. The application shall include the following information:

1. a description of the energy or utilities allocation system, including a technical description of

the energy or utilities allocation system

2. a description of the method for converting a measurement unit into approximate energy or

utilities use in terms of a recognized unit of measurement as described in the definitions of

this regulation;

3. a description of any formulas used to arrive at the measurement unit and at the final energy

or utilities usage determination; and

4. a description of the method used for calculating the energy or utilities costs directly billed to

a tenant, including the calculation of a per unit energy or utilities cost.

01. 05 Distribution or Application A. The owner shall submit to the Agency an original and ( number to be determined by regulating agency) copies of the application, and shall provide copies to all other agencies as designated by the Agency.

01. 06 Waiver or Regulations The Agency may waive all or a portion of the requirements herein if unreasonable hardship results.

Chapter 02 Approval Required by the Commission

02.01 General Conditions for Approval

A. The Agency may approve an energy or utilities allocation system upon demonstration by the owner

or vendor that the system complies with the prevailing guidelines, standards, and recommended

practices for energy or utilities allocation systems as established by an organization recognized by

the Agency 2 and results in a reasonable determination of the cost of the energy or utilities use

attributable to an individual unit.

B. The Agency may require testing and inspection of the energy or utilities allocation system equipment.

C. The Agency may require testing and inspection of any furnace, appliance, or other equipment used

in conjunction with the energy or utilities allocation system.

2 Organizations such as National Utilities Allocation Association (NUAA), American Society of Heating,

Refrigeration, and Air Conditioning Engineers (ASHRAE), and International District Heating and Cooling

Association (IDHCA) are currently developing guidelines, standards, and recommended practices which may be

referenced by the Agency.

75
Executive Committee

D. If required under (B) or (C), testing shall be performed by the Agency or by another testing

facility specifically approved by the Agency.

E. All major measuring elements of an energy or utilities allocation system must be permanently marked with a model designation and a unique identification number.

F. The owner or the vendor shall be notified in writing by the Agency of the acceptance or the

rejection of an application within 30 3 days of filing the application under Section 01.04. If the application is denied, the written grounds for disapproval and an explanation of the steps necessary

to have the application approved will be provided with the statement of rejection. G. If the Agency proposes to revoke a previous owner- or vendor-approval of energy or utilities allocation system, the Agency must provide within 10 days the written grounds for revocation, and

an explanation of the steps necessary to have approval of the system reinstated. H. Upon acceptance of a model of an energy or utilities allocation system, the Agency shall assign a unique approval number to that model of the vendor's energy or utilities allocation system.

02.02 Direct Billing of Energy or Utilities Costs A. An owner using an energy or utilities allocation system shall directly bill a tenant only for the

cost of the approximate energy or utilities usage attributable to an individual unit which shall consist of measured costs and distributed costs as determined through the use of energy or utilities allocation equipment.

B. An owner using an energy or utilities allocation system shall not directly bill a tenant for ownerpaid costs. C. Measured costs shall be determined by direct measurement separately accumulated for each

individual unit. D. Distributed Costs:

1. Domestic water, cooking fuel, water-heating fuel, and base usage attributable to an individual

unit shall be cost allocated to the individual unit by an Agency-approved method. Industry accepted practices include allocation based on individual measurement, allocation on a per- occupant basis, and allocation on a square-footage basis

2. Administrative fees or charges may be allocated to each individual unit on a par basis such

that each individual unit shares equally in such costs.

02.03 Regular Bill, Format The owner shall include in each direct billing of energy or utilities costs to the tenant the following information: A. billing date (the date the bill was prepared);

B. billing period (time period covered by the bill); C. readings of the measurement device at the beginning and at the end of the billing period; D. number of measurement units recorded by each measurement device; E. approximate energy or utilities usage in terms of a recognized unit of measurement for each measurement device;

F. per unit energy or utilities charge for each measured cost category;

3 Time periods referenced in this document may be changed at the discretion of the regulating agency. 76
Executive Committee

G. distributed usage costs, identified as such, including administrative fees and charges; H. total energy or utilities costs billed to the tenant;

I. a statement that the bill is not from the utility; and

J. a local or toll-free telephone number for inquiries or complaints about the billing or about the energy or utilities allocation system.

02.04 Alternative Bills A. Substitute Bills

1. The owner may render substitute bills only if the energy or utilities allocation system has been tampered with or is out of order.

2. A substitute bill shall be distinctly marked as such.

3. The substitute bill shall be based on consumption for a similar billing period if available, or if not available, on a square footage basis.

4. The substitute bill shall include all information required in Section 02.03 for regular bills, with

the exception of Sections 02.03 (C) and 02.03 (D).

5. Substitute bills may not be rendered for more than 3 billing periods or 90 days for the same

cause unless specifically exempted by the Agency.

B. Estimated Bills

1. If the bill issued to the tenant is based on utility company estimated meter readings, the bill issued by the owner shall be distinctly marked as an estimated bill.

2. An estimated bill shall be reconciled in the billing period following the reconciliation of the

utility company's estimated meter readings.

3. An estimated bill shall include all information required in Section 02.03 for regular bills.

C. Adjusted Bills

1. An adjusted bill shall be issued only when the validity of utility company meter readings is questionable or when the bill issued is based upon an adjusted bill from the utility company.

2. An adjusted bill shall be distinctly marked as an adjusted bill.

3. An adjusted bill shall be reconciled in the billing period following the reconciliation of the utility company's meter readings which are in question.

4. An adjusted bill shall contain all information required in Section 02.03 for regular bills.

5. Adjusted bills may not be rendered for more than 2 billing intervals or 60 days for the same

cause unless specifically exempted by the Agency.

02.05 Rendering of Bills A. The owner or his representative shall bill a tenant for energy or utilities costs within 20 days after the owner receives the master bill from the utility company.

B. The owner shall read the measurement devices within 5 working days of the stipulated billing period.

C. The owner shall forward to the billing agent, within 3 working days of taking readings, the monthly

77
Executive Committee

information from the measurement devices. D. An owner can not consider a bill for energy or utilities costs past due earlier than what is specified

in the lease agreement.

02.06 Monitoring of Energy or Utilities Allocation System

A. The owner shall obtain monthly reports from the vendor which identify incidences of unusually high or low usage for individual units.

B. The owner shall investigate any unusually high or low usage and, if it is found that a problem

exists or if a written complaint has been filed by the tenant, the owner shall provide a written explanation to the tenant within 20 days of receipt of the monthly report from the vendor.

C. The owner shall take appropriate action, within 10 days of delivering written explanation to the

tenant, to correct the cause of the unusually high or low usage occurrence.

02.07 Records

A. Billing Records

1. The owner shall maintain the following records:

a) the bill from the utility company to the owner for each of the preceding 24 months;

b) the calculation of the property-wide average cost of energy or utilities for each particular type of unit for each of the preceding 24 months;

c) the readings of the measurement device in the individual unit of the tenant for each of the preceding 24 months ; and

d) the usage and billings for each individual unit for each of the preceding 24 months.

B. The owner shall maintain a record of all major measuring elements showing model designation, a unique identification number, and their locations.

C. The owner shall maintain a 24 month record of all written complaints received and copies of the inspection reports prepared under Section 03.05 of this regulation.

Chapter 03 Tenant Disclosures - Costs, Payments, and Complaint Procedures

03.01 General Requirement

A. An owner shall disclose in writing to a current or prospective tenant prior to the execution or modification of a lease or upon the installation of an energy or utilities allocation system:

1) that the energy or utilities allocation system:

a) approximates the amount of energy or utilities consumed in the individual unit by use of an energy or utilities allocation or conversion formula; and

b) might not measure the actual use of energy or utilities. 2) that the owner will directly bill the tenant for energy or utilities costs as determined by an energy or utilities allocation system;

3) that the billing period shall be monthly unless otherwise stipulated in this disclosure ; 4) how questions and complaints of a tenant concerning bills or about the energy or utilities allocation system will be answered by the owner, including a description of the procedures

described in Section 03.05.

78
Executive Committee

5) that, in the event of an unresolved inquiry or complaint concerning the energy or utilities allocation system, the tenant may contact the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney

General's Office, or an equivalent agency, to file a formal complaint.

6) that specific information regarding the operation of the energy or utilities allocation system usage and billing history are available.

B. Upon request, the owner shall disclose to a current or prospective tenant the estimated utilities cost reasonably expected to be incurred by the tenant calculated in a manner as described in Section

03.03.

C. The owner shall include language in the lease agreement which specifies all terms of payment for energy or utilities usage, including any terms for deposits, penalties for nonpayment or untimely payments, and penalties for tampering with the energy or utilities allocation system.

03.02 Disclosure of the Use of an Energy or Utilities Allocation System

A. The owner shall have available in writing for a current or prospective tenant all material aspects of the energy or utilities allocation system including, but not limited to:

1) the measurement unit or pertinent information recorded by the allocation system's device(s);

2) the method for converting measurement units or pertinent information into the approximate

energy or utilities costs, including any formulas used to determine the number of measurement units and the final approximate energy or utilities use; and

3) the method for calculating the per unit charge for energy or utilities consumed.

03.03 Estimated Energy or Utilities Costs A. An owner who has previously determined the approximate energy or utilities usage for an

individual unit by use of an energy or utilities allocation system, including use of a system prior to the promulgation of the regulation, shall disclose upon request to a current or prospective

tenant:

1) the highest monthly energy or utilities cost billed to the same individual unit in a month the

individual unit was fully leased during the preceding 12 months;

2) the lowest monthly energy or utilities cost billed to the same individual unit in a month the

individual unit was fully leased during the preceding 12 months, excluding $0.00 bills; 3) the average monthly energy or utilities cost billed to the same individual unit during the preceding 12 months including only months of full occupancy; and

4) the average monthly energy or utilities costs billed to similar-sized leased individual units in the preceding 12 months.

B. If the owner has not previously used an energy or utilities allocation system within the multi-unit

facility:

1) the owner shall disclose estimated energy or utilities costs upon request in the following

priority:

a) based on the actual billing to similar sized individual units in other multi-unit facilities within the same complex; or

b) based on the actual operating experience of the vendor for similar sized individual units

in other multi-unit facility complexes of comparable age, size, equipment, and geographic

location; or

c) based on a square footage allocation derived from energy or utilities bills received by the

79
Executive Committee

owner from the utility company and, if necessary, seasonally adjusted.

2) the owner shall provide the estimated energy or utilities costs required in Chapter 03, Section

03.03.B(1) in terms of an average monthly bill, the highest monthly bill, and the lowest monthly bill.

03.04 Disclosures of Influences on Energy or Utilities Usage and Costs A. The owner shall provide the current or prospective tenant with documentation available concerning energy or utilities conservation and information pertinent to the efficient use of the energy or utilities delivery system

4

.

03.05 Procedure for Handling Tenant Complaints

In the event a tenant contacts the owner concerning the correctness of the energy or utilities costs billed to a tenant: A. The owner shall inform the tenant how questions and complaints concerning bills or about the energy or utilities allocation system will be answered by the owner, including a description of the procedures described in Section 03.05.

B. The owner shall provide to the tenant an Agency- approved complaint form and request the tenant

to complete the form.

C. The owner shall provide the tenant with the name and address of the manager of the multi-unit

facility or other person who will receive the complaint form. D. The owner shall provide the tenant with written confirmation from the vendor within 15 business days of receiving a written complaint from a tenant whether the bill does or does not contain a

clerical, mathematical, or computational error. E. If the bill in question does not contain an error described in Section (D), the owner shall inspect the energy or utilities allocation equipment and the individual unit of the tenant to verify that the energy or utilities allocation system is functioning properly. If the energy or utilities allocation system is found to be malfunctioning, the owner shall initiate corrective actions immediately and

provide the tenant with written confirmation of the corrective action being taken as specified by

Section (F).

F. The owner shall provide the tenant with a copy of the written results of the inspections conducted

pursuant to the requirement in Section (E), prepared on Agency- approved forms within 30 days of

the receipt of the complaint. If the bill in question contained a clerical, mathematical, or computational error, or an error resulting from a mechanical malfunction, then a corrected bill shall be issued within 10 days of issuing the written results of the inspection. If any remedial actions have been or will be taken, written notification of these actions shall be issued to the tenant within this same 10 day period. G. In the event a tenant needs assistance in filing written inquiry or complaint, the owner shall provide

that assistance within 5 working days of receiving the tenant's request for assistance.

4The title and source of this document is to be identified by the regulating organization (e.g., the Agency).

This document will provide the tenant or prospective tenant with information about influences on energy usage and costs. The document should also provide the tenant with information about energy conservation and measures that can be taken to conserve energy and lower heating/cooling costs. The exact title and content of

this document may vary from State to State depending upon the decision of the Agency and the nature of energy usage in each State (e.g., influences of climatic conditions and building facilities vary with geographic location). 80
Executive Committee

H. In the event the tenant and owner have followed the procedures for an inquiry or complaint as established in Section 03.05 (A-G) and the tenant wishes to pursue the inquiry or complaint further, he may contact the Consumer Protection Division of the Attorney General's Office, or an equivalent agency, as noted in Section 03.01(A)(5).

Chapter 04 Operating Requirements

04.01 Repairs A. In the event an owner identifies a malfunctioning measurement device or other abnormal condition, the owner or his representative shall:

1. notify the billing agent, vendor, or other appropriate repair agent within 3 business days of such

identification;

2. authorize repair of the malfunctioning equipment or the abnormal condition within 30 days of such identification;

3. provide access to and through such buildings and individual units as reasonably necessary to

effect repairs after 24 hours advance access request from the billing agent, vendor, or other appropriate repair agent.

B. In the event the billing agent or vendor identifies a malfunctioning measurement device or other abnormal condition, the owner or his representative shall:

1. provide such on-site examination or evaluation of the malfunctioning measurement device or other abnormal condition as may be reasonably requested by the billing agent, vendor, or other appropriate repair agent within 5 business days of such request.

2. authorize repair of the malfunctioning equipment or abnormal condition within thirty days of such identification.

3. provide access to and through such buildings and/or individual units as reasonably necessary

to affect repairs after 24 hours advance access request from the billing agent, vendor, or other appropriate repair agent.

C. In the event the owner or the billing agent identifies measurements which are the result of malfunctioning or tampering with the measurement devices or other constituents of the energy or

utilities allocation system, all units affected by such tampering shall be issued a substitute bill consistent with the provisions of Section 02.04(A), Substitute Bills. D. If the Agency finds that an owner is not operating, maintaining, or repairing an energy or utilities allocation system consistent with the specifications of the manufacturer of the energy or utilities allocation system and the provisions of this regulation, the Agency may revoke approval for the use

of the energy or utilities allocation system in that installation. Revocation of approval of the energy

or utilities allocation system shall be implemented consistent with the provisions of Section 02.01, General Conditions for Approval.

81

Laws and Regulations Committee

Final Report of the

Laws and Regulations Committee

Kendrick J. Simila, Chairman

Administrator, Weights and Measures Division

State of Oregon

200 Introduction

This is the final report of the Laws and Regulations Committee for the 74th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures (NCWM). This report is based on the Interim Report (NCWM

Publication 16), the Addendum Sheets issued at the meeting, and the actions taken by the membership at the meeting. Table A identifies items in the Report by Reference Key Number, item title, and page number. The first three

digits of the Reference Key Numbers of the items in the Committee's report are assigned from the subject series

listed below. Not all subject series will appear in the report. The digits after the hyphen are assigned at the time

of assembly of the Interim Meeting agenda in the order of the appearance of the subject of the proposal in the handbooks. Several item numbers are therefore out of sequence with their appearance in the Final Report, because the Committee recommended revisions or additions to different sections or paragraphs from those

originally proposed. In addition, several items have been divided into parts since their numbers were assigned; these are delineated with the letters "A," "B," and so on, after the number, for example "231-1A." The titles of

voting items are in bold face print, with a "V" after the item number. At the Annual Meeting, the committee

grouped the less controversial voting items into a consent calendar. These are marked with "VC." In the Report,

the key text upon which a vote is to be taken is also highlighted by bold face print. Items marked with an "I" after the reference key number are information items. The items marked with a "W" were withdrawn by the Committee. Much of the Report contains recommendations to revise or amend National Institute of Standards and

Technology (NIST) Handbook 130, 1989 edition, "Uniform Laws and Regulations," or NIST Handbook 133, Third Edition, "Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods." Proposed revisions to handbooks are shown

in bold face print by cr ossi ng out what is to be deleted, and underlining what is to be added. Entirely new

paragraphs proposed for handbooks are designated as such and shown in bold face print. Subject Series HANDBOOK 130 - General 210 Series LAWS

Uniform Weights and Measures Law (UWML)

Uniform Weighmaster Law (UWL)

Uniform Motor Fuel Inspection Law (UMFIL)

220 Series 221 Series 222 Series 223 Series

83
Laws and Regulations Committee

Subject Series (Continued)

REGULATIONS 230 Series Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation (UPLR) 231 Series Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities (UMSCR) 232 Series Uniform Unit Pricing Regulation (UUPR) 233 Series Uniform Regulation for the Voluntary Registration of Servicepersons and Service Agencies for Commercial Weighing and Measuring Devices (URVRS) 234 Series Uniform Open Dating Regulation (UODR) 235 Series Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation (URNTE) 236 Series Uniform Regulation for Motor Fuel (URMF) 237 Series HANDBOOK 133 240 Series OTHER ITEMS 250 Series

Table A

Reference Key Items and Index

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

221 UNIFORM WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LAW

221-1 VC 1.10. Net Weight 86

221-2 VC 17. Method of Sale 87

221-3 V 22. Offenses and Penalties 87

222 V UNIFORM WEIGHMASTER LAW 90

231 UNIFORM PACKAGING AND LABELING REGULATION

231-1A VC Preamble 91 231-2 I 2.1. Commodity in Package Form 91 231-4 I 2.8. Multi-Unit Package 92 231-5B VC 2.9. Variety Package; 2.10. Combination Package 93

231-IB VC 6.4. Terms: Weight, Liquid Measure, Dry Measure, or Count 94 231-5C I 10.5. Combination Packages; 10.6. Variety Packages 94 231-5A VC 10.9.4. Exemption: Variety Textile Packages 96

240-3 V 10.13. Polyethylene: Variations from Declared Weight 96

231-3 VC 112. Random Packages 97 231-5D VC 11.19. Combination Packages 98

231-6 I 11.23. Camera Film 98

231-7 I 11.28. Commodities' Variable Weights and Sizes 99 232 UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES

232-1 VC Preamble 100 232-2A VC 1.1. Berries and Small Fruits; Delete "Open" 100 232-2B I 1.1. Berries and Small Fruits; Minimum Weights for Unit Volumes 101

84
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

232-3 I 1.5.1. In Combination with Other Foods 102

232-4 V 1.5.2. Stuffed Fish, Seafood, Poultry, or Meat Products 102

232-5 I 1.5.3. Meat, Poultry, Fish, and Seafood ~ Packaged with Other

Packages of Food 103 in a iii-o VL. 1 ,53.1 . Definition of the Term "Processed" 232-7A I 1.5.3.3. Oysters by Net Drained Weight 105

232-8 vc 1.6. Hum Milk Products IUj 232-10 w 1.9.2. Price Advertising 106

232-11 w 1.12. Ready-to-Eat Food 106

232-9 vc 2.X. Advertising and Price Computing of Bulk Commodities 107 232-12A I 2.15. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Cylinder Tare Weights/Compressed

or Liquefied Gases in Cylinders 107

232- 12B I 2.15. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Cylinder Tare Weights/Stamped Tare Weights 108

232- 12C I 2.15. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Cylinder Tare Weights/Acetylene 109

232-13 vc 2.X. Liquid Oxygen Used for Respiration 110 236 I UNIFORM REGULATION FOR NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION 111 237 UNIFORM MOTOR FUEL REGULATION

711 1 iiO l-l VP Octane Rating for Blend Dispensers 111 240 HANDBOOK 133

240- 1A I Proposed Sampling Plans and Smaller MAV's 113 240-1B vc 2.9. Individual Packages 121 232-7B vc 4.16. Fresh Oysters Labeled by Fluid Volume 122

240-2 4.12. Mulch/Test Measure 122

240-4 4.17. Polyethylene; Test Methods for Draw-String and Press-to-Close Bags 124 240-5A Moisture Loss for Ice-Packed Poultry and Other Meat and Poultry Items 124 240-5B Moisture Loss for Pet Foods 125 240-5C Moisture Loss for Pasta 125

Table B

Appendices

Appendix Title Reference Key No. Page A Uniform Weighmaster Law 222 126 B 4.16. Fresh Oysters Labeled by Fluid Volume 232-7B 133 C 4.17. Capacity of Plastic Trash and 240-42-5 136 Food Bags and Similar Containers

85
Laws and Regulations Committee

Order of Presentation

The report was presented to the membership as follows:

1. The Consent Calendar was presented. Item 231-3 was requested to be taken out of the Consent

Calendar and made a separate voting item. The Consent Calendar was then adopted.

2. The separate voting items were then presented.

3. The report in its entirety was then ratified.

Table C

Voting Results

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

Consent Calendar 47 0 59 0 Passed

221-3 47 0 63 0 Passed

222 47 0 59 0 Passed

232-4 47 0 61 1 Passed

240-3 46 0 62 0 Passed

231-3 46 1 54 7 Passed

Entire Report 47 0 70 0 Passed

Details of All Items

(In the Order They Appear in Table A) 221 Uniform Weights and Measures Law

221-1 VC 1.10. Net Weight

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Last year, the NCWM adopted a definition for net weight in the Uniform Weights and Measures Law. The term

"net weight" is defined as the weight of a commodity or collection of commodities. Section 10.5. of the Uniform

Packaging and Labeling Regulation, requires that labels on combination packages declare a quantity declaration

for each unit. It has been argued that the term "collection of commodities" may conflict with the packaging and

labeling requirements since it may be interpreted as not requiring individual net weight declarations on several separate commodities not forming a distinctive food product put up in the same package. See Items 232-3, 232-

4, and 232-5 for related information. The Committee is of the opinion that nothing in the definition is lost if the phrase "or collection of commodities" is deleted. The recommended revision is:

86
Laws and Regulations Committee

1.10. Net Weight. -- The term "net weight" means the weight of a commodity, or collection of commodities, excluding any materials, substances, or items not considered to be

part of the commodity. Materials, substances, or items not considered to be part of

the commodity include, but are not limited to, containers, conveyances, bags, wrappers, packaging materials, labels, individual piece coverings, decorative accompaniments, and coupons.

221-2 VC 17. Method of Sale

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) The Committee was asked if Section 6.4. of the UPLR could be interpreted as conflicting with Section 17. of the UWML. Section 6.4. of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation, which applies to packaged goods only,

restricts the net contents labeling of commodities as follows:

6.4. Terms: Weight, Liquid Measure, Dry Measure, or Count.-- The declaration of the quantity of a

particular commodity shall be expressed in terms of liquid measure if the commodity is liquid, or dry measure if the commodity is dry, or in terms of weight if the commodity is solid, semisolid, viscous, or

a mixture of solid and liquid, or in terms of numerical count. However, if there exists a firmly established general consumer usage and trade custom with respect to the terms used in expressing a

declaration of quantity of a particular commodity, such a declaration of quantity may be expressed in

its traditional terms, if such traditional declaration gives accurate and adequate information as to the quantity of the commodity.

Section 6.4. is a subset of the permitted methods of sale in Section 17. of the Uniform Weights and Measures

Law, which permits much broader use of measurement units in methods of sale.

In Section 17. of the UWML, there is no prohibition against any method of sale so long as it is accurate. Section 6.4. of the UPLR requires that the terms used be ."..accurate and adequate.. .as to the quantity of the commodity." The Committee is of the opinion that any method of sale should permit the buyer to make price and quantity comparisons. The Committee does not believe there is any conflict when Section 17. would permit all the types of measurement terms referenced in Section 6.4. The Committee therefore believes it is necessary to update

Section 17. of the Law to limit methods of sale to those that permit the purchaser to make price and quantity comparisons. The proposed revision to Section 17 is: Except as otherwise provided by the director, or by firmly established trade custom and

practice:

(a) commodities in liquid form shall be sold by liquid measure or by weight, and

(b) commodities not in liquid form shall be sold only by weight, ©r by measure, or by

count. so long as tThe method of sale shall provides accurate and adequate quantity information that permits the buyer to make price and quantity comparisons.

221-3 V Section 22. Offenses and Penalties

(This item was adopted.) The Task Force on Prevention of Fraud concluded that the penalties for weights and measures offenses were

not severe enough to deter fraud; the potential gains from fraudulent activity often far exceed the likely penalties

if caught.

87
Laws and Regulations Committee

The Committee has been concerned about the same issue and had been discussing the need and value of changes to the Uniform Law providing for (1) administrative hearings in lieu of criminal court proceedings, and

(2) civil penalties in addition to criminal penalties. As a result of the work of the Task Force on the Prevention Fraud, the Committee discussed a third change, that is classifying certain weights and measures violations as

felonies rather than misdemeanors.

Administrative Hearings in Lieu of Criminal Court Proceedings There are several advantages in removing the weights and measures violations from the criminal court.

1. The burden of proof in the criminal court is "beyond a reasonable doubt; in civil court hearings, the burden of proof is usually "a preponderance of evidence"; in administrative hearings, the burden of proof may be "substantial evidence".

2. Respondents in a civil proceedings will more likely agree to a proposed settlement that has no criminal record implications.

3. An administrative hearing is a relative speedy and efficient procedure, primarily because it eliminates the "discovery" process of criminal and civil procedures. An administrative hearing can often be set within 10 to 14 days after a violation occurs; setting a trial date in civil or criminal court may take more

than a year. The date of a hearing is usually set by mailing a hearing notice that identifies the basic charges and offers the accused the opportunity to provide a defense with or without legal counsel. The administrative hearing officer or law judge issues a ruling based on the evidence produced. Any ruling is subject to review by the Director, Commissioner, Secretary, or similar senior official and is reviewable on appeal to a civil court.

Civil Penalties in Addition to Criminal Penalties

In addition to the relative efficiency of civil litigation, resultant civil penalties are more easily assessed than

criminal penalties. Following the commencement of civil litigation (starting a lawsuit by serving a summons and

complaint), a civil court is asked to assess a monetary penalty. The court may also be asked to serve an

injunction to cease and desist from a specific act or practice. Imprisonment cannot be imposed for past

violations; however, monetary fines can be ordered by the court and can be increased in recognition of past

violations. The Committee realizes that some states may not have the authority to administer a range of monetary penalties.

It may then be necessary to define a fixed monetary penalty for the first infraction or less severe infraction, and

a higher monetary penalty for repeat offenses or more serious infractions (e.g., Illinois Revised Weights and Measures Statute, Chapter 147, paragraph 101 et. seq.). Some states (e.g., Colorado) have adopted regulations

that prescribe the specific dollar amount of their civil penalties based on severity, number of offenses, etc. Felonies in addition to Misdemeanors

Reclassifying certain intentional fraudulent criminal activities (or repetition of misdemeanors) as felonies provides the potential for heavier assessments and would probably be expected to inhibit significant acts of fraud.

Committee Recommendation The Committee proposes to split Section 22 into three sections: Section 22 (defining prohibited acts), Section

23) (civil penalties), and Section 24 (Criminal Penalties). Additionally, The Committee proposes to revise current Section 23 and renumber it Section 25. Former Sections 24 through 28 will be renumbered.

88
Laws and Regulations Committee

Section 22. Prohibited Acts No person shall:

(a) use or have in possession for use in commerce any incorrect weight or measure;

(b) sell or offer for sale for use in commerce any incorrect weight or measure;

(c) remove any tag, seal, or mark from any weight or measure without specific written authorization from the proper authority;

(d) hinder or obstruct any weights and measures official in the performance of his or her

duties; or

(e) violate any provisions of this Act or regulations promulgated under it.

Section 23. Civil Penalties Any person who by himself or herself, by his or her servant or agent, or as the servant or agent of another person commits any of the acts enumerated in Section 22 may be subject to a civil penalty.

23.1. Civil Action: A civil action may be brought by the director in any court of competent

jurisdiction to recover a civil penalty of

(a) not less than $ nor more than $ for a first violation,

(b) not less than $ nor more than $ for a second violation within two

years from the date of the first violation, and

(c) not less than $ nor more than $ for a third violation within two

years from the date of the first violation. 232 Administrative Hearing: The director or his/her designee shall be authorized to conduct an administrative hearing and, upon notice and an opportunity to be heard, may assess a civil penalty of

(a) not less than $ nor more than $ for a first violation,

(b) not less than $ nor more than $ for a second violation within two

years from the date of the first violation, and

(c) not less than $ nor more than $ for a third violation within two

years from the date of the first violation upon the finding of a violation of any provision of this Act. The decision of the director shall be subject to appropriate judicial review. Any civil penalty collected under this Act shall be transmitted to the state treasurer, who shall credit the same to the fund.

Section 24. Criminal Penalties

24.1. Misdemeanors: Any person who commits any of the acts enumerated in Section 22

shall be guilty of a class misdemeanor, and upon a first conviction thereof shall be punished by a fine of not less than $ nor more than $ or by imprisonment for not more than months, or both. Upon a subsequent conviction

89
Laws and Regulations Committee

thereof, he or she shall be punished by a fine of not less than $ nor more than

$ or by imprisonment for up to months, or by fine and imprisonment both. 242. Felony: Any person who

(a) intentionally violates any provisions of this Act or regulations under it;

(b) is convicted under the misdemeanor provisions of Section 24(a) more than

three times in a 2-year period;

(c) removes or counterfeits the departmental seal; or

(d) uses or has in his or her possession a device which has been altered to

facilitate fraud,

shall be guilty of a class felony, and upon a first offense, shall be punished by

a fine of not less than $ or by imprisonment for not more than , or by fine and imprisonment both . Section 25. Restraining Order and Injunction The director is authorized to apply to any court of competent jurisdiction for a restraining order, or a temporary or permanent injunction, restraining any person from violating any

provision of this Act.

222 V Uniform Weighmaster Law

(This item was adopted.)

(This carry-over item was Item 222 in the Report of the 73rd NCWM 1988.) Please see the Report of the 73rd

National Conference on Weights and Measures 1988, page 149, for the most recent information, or contact the Office of Weights and Measures for a copy of this report. The recommended revision of the Uniform Weighmaster Law appears in Appendix A, beginning on page 2-42. The most significant changes proposed in the revised Law are:

1. The definition of "public weighmaster" has been broadened to cover additional measurements performed

for hire.

2. Civil penalties and administrative hearings have been introduced instead of classifying all offenses as criminal offenses (as in the 1965 version).

3. Felony as well as misdemeanor classifications have been added to the criminal penalties section.

4. Outdated and nonessential requirements have been removed, such as a fixed rigid date for license expiration, the use of a notary-type of seal, the taking of an oath, the requirements for U.S. citizenship, and the minimum age of 21 years.

5. Statements of purpose and scope have been added.

6. Greater specificity concerning the information required on the certificate has been added.

7. All equipment used must meet Handbook 44 requirements.

8. Sections on offenses and penalties have been revised and reorganized.

90
Laws and Regulations Committee

9. A new section on prohibited acts has been added.

10. A general requirement empowering the state director to establish the manner in which tare is to be

taken has been added. (Some survey respondents recommended that tare be determined in every weighing operation. Several examples were given to indicate that requiring tare in every operation may

not be appropriate. As one example, holding truck tare weights in computer memory for short time

periods at landfill operations was judged appropriate by some weights and measures officials.)

11. The requirement for annual testing of scales by weights and measures officials (formerly Section 12) has been deleted.

Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation 231-1A VC Preamble

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) The Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation was originally written and promulgated to provide price and

quantity information in a standardized format for use by the purchaser. It was revised to conform to the

provisions of the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA). However, the UPLR covers a broader spectrum of packaged goods than does the FPLA. State weights and measures agencies are asked to provide guidance to packagers as to appropriate units for package net contents declarations. It is often difficult to explain

to them why the provisions in the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation must be followed when the UPLR has no specific reference to its purpose and guiding principle. It is recommended that a preamble be added to the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation taken from the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling

Act. Preamble The purpose of this regulation is to provide accurate and adequate information on packages

as to the identity and quantity of contents so that purchasers can make price and quantity comparisons.

231-2 I 2.1. Commodity in Package Form

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) A new training module, Module 22, is being developed on Handbook 130. The Education Committee has asked

the L&R Committee to provide an interpretation of the definition for "commodity in package form." The

definition reads as follows:

2.1. Commodity in Package Form. -- A commodity put up or packaged in any manner in advance of sale in units suitable for either wholesale or retail sale. An individual item or lot of any commodity not in package form as defined in this section, but on which there is marked a selling price based on an

established price per unit of weight or of measure, shall be considered a commodity in package form. Where the term "package" is used in this regulation, it shall mean "commodity in package form" as here

defined. The Committee makes the following observations and interpretations.

"Put up...in units..." means "premeasured." A premeasured amount of goods constitutes a commodity

in package form whether or not contained in a package. Items "on which there is marked a selling price based on an established price per unit of weight or of measure" applies to items that are priced by unit of weight or volume or area, but not packaged or bundled in any manner. Items for sale by count would ordinarily have to be bundled, wrapped, or

91
Laws and Regulations Committee

packaged. A commodity in package form can be assessed in the following ways:

1. Whether or not wrapped, has the commodity been measured before sale?

2. Is the quantity of commodity intended to be increased or decreased? Commodities weighed or measured at the time of sale can generally be considered sales from bulk; however, if they are wrapped or packaged in any way, they may be "commodities in package form" and therefore subject to the rules set out in the UPLR. The UPLR in Section 1. APPLICATION spells out those types of wrappings to which the packaging and labeling regulation does not apply; this includes open carriers or transparent wrappers

with no written or graphic matter on them, retail "tray pack displays," outer wrappings with no printing pertaining to any particular commodity, shipping containers used solely for transportation, and inner wrappings

not intended to be individually sold. Even if an item comes under the definition of a commodity in package

form, it may not be required to meet all labeling requirements. For example, most fresh fruits and vegetables, even though wrapped in clear packaging showing graphic matter, are exempted from: (1) identity requirements

if they "can easily be identified through the wrapper or container" (Section 19 of the Uniform Weights and Measures Law); (2) net contents requirements if they are weighed or measured "at the point of retail sale" (Subsection 11.28. of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation); and (3) statement of responsibility requirements if they are packaged on the premises where sold (Section 5 of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling

Regulation). Even if the item is not wrapped, but has been premeasured, the commodity can be considered to be in package

form. For example, firewood stacked in 1/10 cord amounts has been "put up" in advance of sale. Using the two

guidelines listed above, a hammer stamped with the price does not constitute a commodity in package form even though one might say that it has an established price per each (per count) on it. Section 2.1. is not intended to be applied to items which are not premeasured by weight, measure, or count prior to sale. However, it applies

to trimmer line sold by 10-foot lengths and sold loose from a box, with a price per 10 foot length on a sign above

the box. (The sign constitutes the label.) It applies to six coat hooks wrapped with a rubber band. It applies to fresh fruits or vegetables, such as bananas or watermelons marked with various prices directly on the fruit, because they are priced per pound. These latter items are random packages and, if marked only with a selling price, do not meet the minimum requirements for labeling a random package, which must show net weight, unit

price, and total price. Another example of a commodity in package form, rather than one sold from bulk, is a bunch of grapes sold loose or in a mesh bag with no printed or graphic matter on it. If the bag is open so that the purchaser can remove product, the sign above the grapes reads $.69/lb, and the grapes are weighed at the checkout stand (deducting for the weight of the mesh bag as tare), then the grapes are exempt from labeling a net contents

declaration. If a price is marked on each bag, for example, $.69, then the grapes are a commodity in package form and must either meet the labeling requirements for standard pack commodities (type size, location, net weight, free space, dual declaration, etc.) or have a random package label on each bag. Note that the Uniform

Packaging and Labeling Regulation permits the label to be adjacent to the package (i.e., a sign) rather than on

the package.

231-4 I 2.8. Multi-Unit Package

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.)

It was recommended that the definition in Section 2.8. MULTI-UNIT PACKAGE be changed to delete that part of the definition that narrowed multi-unit packages to only those for which the component packages are labeled

in full compliance with all requirements of the regulation. The argument in favor of this change is that requiring

a multi-unit declaration only when the components are fully labeled is a loophole that should be closed. That is, if the individual units inside a package are not labeled in full compliance with all packaging and labeling requirements, then a package containing a number of such units would not have to declare the number of units and their individual net weights as required by Section 10.4.; such package would only have to declare the total net weight. The example given of packages to which the multi-unit definition should apply was Halloween candy.

92
Laws and Regulations Committee

These packages are composed of separately wrapped candy bars, which the consumer buys on the basis of count

as well as total net weight. Because each individual bar is not fully labeled, no company provides the count and

net weight of each bar (although a few companies give supplemental information on the back of the package

concerning the approximate count per package.) It is argued, however, that such packages should be required

to be labeled by the number of individual bars, the net weight of each bar, and the total net weight. The Committee is sympathetic to the request. However, the current definition of multi-unit package in paragraph

2.8. of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation tracks the definitions in the Code of Federal Regulations

for both food (21 CFR 101.105 (s)) and non-food consumer (16 CFR 500.24 (a)) packages. Only when the units inside the package are in full compliance with labeling requirements and could be sold individually must a multiunit package declare count, individual package quantity, and total quantity. The Committee believes that it could be argued that the count and quantity of each unit is necessary for the

specific example of Halloween candy under Section 6.4.1. COMBINATION DECLARATION, paragraph (a) which reads: A declaration of quantity in terms of weight shall be combined with appropriate declarations of the measure, count, and size of the individual units unless a declaration of weight alone is fully informative. The Committee members believe that weight alone is not fully informative. Therefore, the Committee will request the Liaison Committee to petition the FDA to require count on specialty items, such as Halloween

candies, that are purchased as much by count as by total weight. The Committee will also contact the Chocolate Manufacturers Association and the Confectioners Association to determine if voluntary supplemental information

can be provided on the package that would meet the needs of the purchaser.

231-5B VC 2.9. Combination Package; 2.10. Variety Package

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Section 2.8. defines MULTI-UNIT PACKAGE separately from the requirements and exemptions that apply to them. Definitions for COMBINATION PACKAGE and VARIETY PACKAGE need to be added to the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation (UPLR) separate from the sections that set out requirements; exemptions for these types of packages have no definitions to which to refer. It is recommended that the

definitions in the Code of Federal Regulations under the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) (see 16 CFR 500.25 and 500.26), together with appropriate examples from Subsections 10.5 and 10.6 of the UPLR, be added as paragraphs 2.9. and 2.10. in the UPLR and paragraph 2.9. PETROLEUM PRODUCTS be renumbered 2.11. (There are no definitions for variety and combination packages in the regulations for food packages under the

jurisdiction of the Food and Drug Administration.) The recommended additions are:

2.9. Combination Package. -- A package intended for retail sale, containing two or more

individual packages or units of dissimilar commodities. (Examples: an antiquing or housecleaning kit; sponge and cleaner, seasonal gift package of wine and cheese;

lighter fluid and flints.)

2.10. Variety Package. - A package intended for retail sale, containing two or more

individual packages or units of similar but not identical commodities. Commodities

that are generically the same, but that differ in weight, measure, volume, appearance,

or quality, are considered similar but not identical. (Examples: 2 sponges of different

sizes; plastic tableware, consisting of 4 spoons, 4 knives, and 4 forks; seasonal gift packages of different varieties of cheeses; and packages of mixed types of cold cereal.) See Items 231-5C and 231-5D for related changes to Subsections 10.5, 10.6, and 11.19.

93
Laws and Regulations Committee

231-1B VC 6.4. Terms: Weight, Liquid Measure, Dry Measure, or Count

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) See the discussion in Item 231-1A. The UPLR was written to provide requirements for standardized quantity information so that the purchaser can make price and quantity comparisons. The regulation tracks the Federal

Fair Packaging and Labeling Act (FPLA). State and local weights and measures agencies are often asked to advise on appropriate units to use in declaring the net contents on a package. Section 6.4. TERMS: WEIGHT,

LIQUID MEASURE, DRY MEASURE, OR COUNT is too vague to specify terms for packages that will allow

price and quantity comparisons. For example, Section 6.4. permits dry measure if the commodity is dry, or weight if the commodity is solid, semisolid, viscous, or a mixture of solid and liquid. Many products are both

"dry" and "solid," such as sand, garden potting mixtures, etc., so they can be labeled either by weight or by dry measure. This leads to differing units on packages of competing commodities and purchasers not given enough

information to make price and quantity comparisons. Section 6.4. permits, but does not require, the use of other terms "if there exists a firmly established general consumer usage and trade custom" and "if such traditional declaration gives accurate and adequate information as to the quantity of the commodity." However, both FDA

and FTC require the declaration that has been firmly established by trade custom and consumer use in order

to permit purchasers to make price and quantity comparisons (see Item 232-7). Also, additional clarification of what is intended by the term "adequate" in Section 6.4. is needed; therefore, the Committee recommends the addition of a sentence to the definition as follows:

6.4. Terms: Weight, Liquid Measure, Dry Measure, or Count. -- The declaration of the quantity of a particular commodity shall be expressed in terms of liquid measure if the commodity is liquid, or dry measure if the commodity is dry, or in terms of weight

if the commodity is solid, semisolid, viscous, or a mixture of solid and liquid, or in terms of numerical count. However, if there exists a firmly established general consumer usage and trade custom with respect to the terms used in expressing a

declaration of quantity of a particular commodity, such a declaration of quantity may

be expressed in its traditional terms, if such traditional declaration gives accurate and

adequate information as to the quantity of the commodity. Any net contents statement

that does not permit price and quantity comparisons is forbidden.

231-5C I 10.5. Combination Packages; 10.6. Variety Packages

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.)

As a result of studying the provisions in the UPLR for combination and variety packages (see Items 221-1, 231- 5A, and 231-5B), the Committee believes the requirements in the UPLR need modification so that they track the requirements that implement the FPLA in the FTC regulations. FTC requirements are essentially the same

for variety and combination packages, that is, a variety package must declare the number of units of each identical commodity, a total net contents

for each identical commodity, and then the total quantity for the variety package;

a combination package must also declare the number of units of each identical commodity and the total net contents for each commodity. (The total net contents statement for the package is the listing of the

individual commodities in the package.) These requirements conflict with the UPLR. Subsection 10.5. COMBINATION PACKAGES requires a quantity declaration for each unit; however, Subsection 10.6. VARIETY PACKAGES requires only a total quantity

declaration. Because the requirements as presently written in the UPLR are different for combination and

variety packages, it is necessary to categorize what type of package is being labeled. Therefore, in the example

given at the end of paragraph 10.6. in the UPLR for plastic tableware, the total of each identical commodity,

(for example, the number of spoons) must be declared following the requirements under FTC; Subsection 10.6. VARIETY PACKAGES as currently written requires only a total quantity (i.e., total pieces of tableware)

declaration. There are additional requirements in the Federal regulations under the FTC that the UPLR should

94
Laws and Regulations Committee

track (16 CFR 500.25 and 500.26). (There are no references or definitions for combination or variety packages

in those regulations under the FDA.) The Committee planned to recommend replacing Section 10.5. and 10.6. with the following:

10.5. Combination Packages. — The declaration of net quantity shall contain an expression of weight, volume, measure, or count or a combination thereof, as appropriate for each individual package

or unit, but the quantity statements for identical packages or units shall be combined. Dual declarations shall be included where applicable. Examples:

(i) Lighter fluid and flints: "2 cans -- each 8 fl oz; 1 package -- 8 flints."

(ii) Sponges and cleaner: "2 sponges each 4 in x 6 in x 1 in; 1 box cleaner - Net Wt 6 oz."

(iii) Picnic Pack: "20 spoons, 10 knives, and 10 forks; 10 2-ply napkins 10 in x 10 in; 10 cups

-- 6 fl oz."

10.6. Variety Packages.-- The declaration of net quantity for a variety package shall be expressed as

follows:

(a) the number of units for each identical commodity followed by the weight, volume, or measure of that commodity including dual declarations when applicable; and

(b) the total quantity by weight, volume, measure, and count, as appropriate, of the variety package. Dual declarations may be omitted from the total quantity statement. The statement of total quantity shall appear as the last item in the declaration of net quantity and shall not be of greater prominence than other terms used. Examples:

(i) 2 sponges 4-1/2 in x 4 in x 3/4 in 1 sponge 4-1/2 in x 8 in x 3/4 in 4 sponges 2-1/4 in x 4 in x 1/2 in Total 7 sponges

(ii) 2 soap bars Net Wt 3.2 oz each

1 soap bar Net Wt 5.0 oz

Total 3 bars Net Wt 11.4 oz

(iii) Liquid Shoe Polish: 1 brown 3 fl oz

1 black 3 fl oz

1 white 5 fl oz

Total 11 fl oz

(iv) Picnic Ware: 34 spoons

33 forks 33 knives Total 100 pieces Comments on the above recommendation were received on the need to clarify the proposed language, that there could be misinterpretations on the required quantity statements as proposed. In addition, further study is 95
Laws and Regulations Committee

needed to determine the full impact of the recommended changes on food products. Therefore, the Committee recommends carrying this item over. See also Item 231-5D.

231-5A VC 10.9.4. Exemption: Variety Textile Packages

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

In the course of developing Training Module 22 on Handbook 130, the contractor has noted that Section 10.9.4. of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation is entitled "Exemption: Variety Textile Packages," but

requires a combination package declaration (See Section 10.5.) for the quantity of each individual unit. It therefore, appears that this section should be revised and retitled. It should also be moved from Section 10. REQUIREMENTS: SPECIFIC CONSUMER COMMODITIES, NONCONSUMER COMMODITIES,

PACKAGES, CONTAINERS to Section 11. EXEMPTIONS.

EXEMPTION: VARIETY TEXTILE PACKAGES.- Varicty-p Packages of

textiles that are required by reason of subsection 6.4.1. to provide a

combination declaration stating the quantity of each individual unit and the count shall be exempt from the requirements in this regulation for:

(a) location (see subsection 8.1.1.),

(b) free area (see subsection 8.1.4.), and

(c) minimum height of numbers and letters (see subsection 8.2.1.)

10.13. Polyethylene: Variations from Declared Weight

(This item was adopted.) This carryover item was Item 240-4B in the Report of the 73rd NCWM, 1988 (page 175). An MAV of 7% for thickness is permitted for a single package (this is an average of several measurements). Thickness can be

translated directly into weight by a formula adopted by the Conference. (See Item 230-3, Report of the 72nd NCWM 1987, p. 142.) However, the MAV for weight is much less than 7% (for example, the MAV for 11 lb

is 0.22 lb, or 2%). Some industry members have asked whether the MAV's for thickness and for weight of polyethylene can be made consistent. The State of Florida supplied the Committee with its package checking reports from four inspectors from July

1, 1988 to July 1, 1989. These reported contained the results of all tests conducted on this commodity, not just failed lots. Of 133 lots tested, only 87 averaged at or above the declared net weight, compliance level of only 65.4%. Of the 87 lots that met the average requirement, 14 (or 16%) would have failed to meet the individual package requirement if the MAV were set at 4% of the labeled weight. Seven (or 8%) would have failed if the MAV were set at 5% of the labeled weight. Five lots (or 6% of the 87 lots that met the average) would have

failed if the MAV were set at 7% of the labeled weight. Two years ago, the Committee was supplied data from one polyethylene manufacturer that was cited as proof

that 7% was too loose. In this instance 262 lots were checked by the manufacturer as the product came off the packaging line. Only 166 (or 63%) of the lots had average net weights that equalled or exceeded the labeled

net weight. Of the 166 lots that met the average requirement, 27 (or 16%) would have failed the requirements

if the MAV were set at 4% of the labeled net weight. 21 (or 13%) would have failed if the MAV were 5% of

the labeled weight, and 10 (or 6%) would have failed if the MAV were 7% of the labeled weight. Since there

is overwhelming support for an MAV of 4%, and since the level of compliance will not drop precipitously if the MAV is changed to 4% (from 63% to 53% for the data supplied by one manufacturer and from 65% to 55%

for the data supplied by Florida), the Committee recommends an MAV for the weight of polyethylene products

of 4%. In addition, since the thickness is directly related to the weight, the Committee also recommends that %
Laws and Regulations Committee

the MAV for thickness be changed to 4% of the labeled thickness. Finally, the Committee recommends

inserting the minimum density of polyethylene of 0.92 g/cm3 to be used to calculate the net weight (adopted by

the Conference for Handbook 133) into the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities.

Revise Section 10.12.(b) as follows.

10.12. (b) Average thickness for a single package: The average thickness of a single package of polyethylene sheeting, film, or bags may be as much as r 4 percent below the labeled thickness (i.e., at least 93 96% of the labeled thickness). Add Section 10.13.:

10.13. Polyethylene Products: Variations from Declared Weight1 -- An individual package minus variation greater than 4 percent of the declared weight shall be considered

unreasonable.

'In Addition, the net contents of lots, shipments, or deliveries must equal or exceed the labeled

net contents. See Section 12.1. Add to the end of Section 2.12.4. of the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities as follows: For the purpose of this regulation, the minimum density shall be 0.92 g/cm3

.

In addition, the Committee recommends that references to UPLR subparagraphs 10.12 and 10.13 be added to Section 2.13. EXCEPTIONS TO THE MAV'S and Table 2-8 MAV'S FOR AN INDIVIDUAL PACKAGE

LABELED BY WEIGHT as a footnote in Handbook 133. (Section 2.13.1 quotes subparagraph 10.12, but the reference to the UPLR was inadvertently left out.)

231-3 VC 11.2. Random Packages

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) When prepackaging fresh fruits and vegetables in retail stores, random-package label printers have been used

to indicate count, rather than weight. Section 11.2 exempts random package labels from type size, dual

declaration, placement, and free area requirements; however, random packages are defined as packages with no

fixed pattern of weight, not count. A proposal was made to broaden the definition of random packages to include other measures. The Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act, as well as the regulations promulgated

under it, define random packages only as those that have varying weights. However, Section 11.2 exempts uniform weight packages of cheese and cheese products from the type size, dual

declaration, placement, and free area requirements as long as such packages are labeled in the same manner and

by the same type of equipment as random packages. The Committee recommends adding fresh fruits and

vegetables suitable for sale by count to this section. The recommended revision is as follows: 112. Random Packages. -- A random package bearing a label conspicuously declaring:

(a) the net weight,

(b) the price per kilogram or pound, and

(c) the total price

shall be exempt from the type size, dual declaration, placement, and free area requirements of this regulation. In the case of a random package packed at one place

for subsequent sale at another, neither the price per unit of weight nor the total selling price need appear on the package, provided the package label includes both such prices at the time it is offered or exposed for sale at retail.

97
Laws and Regulations Committee

This exemption shall also apply to uniform weight packages of cheese and cheese products labeled in the same manner and by the same type of equipment as random

packages exempted by this section. This exemption shall also apply to packages of fresh fruit or vegetables labeled by count in the same manner and by the same type of equipment as random packages exempted by this section. Weights and measures officials should note that the Conference adopted guidelines for appropriate methods of

sale for fresh fruits and vegetables. (See NCWM Publication 3, "Policy, Interpretations, and Guidelines" 2.3.2. Fresh Fruits and Vegetables.) According to the guideline, the following commodities are suitable for sale by

count: apples, artichokes, avocados, whole cantaloupes, celery, coconuts, corn on the cob, cucumbers, eggplant,

garlic, grapefruit, lemons, lettuce, limes, mangoes, whole melons, nectarines, oranges, papaya, peaches, pears, peppers, persimmons, pineapples, pomegranates, pumpkins, and tangerines.

231-5D VC 11.19. Combination Packages

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

In order to track Federal requirements for variety and combination packages, this exemption from location, free area, and minimum height of numbers and letters should apply not only to combination, but also to variety packages (see 16 CFR 500.6). The recommended revision is:

11.19. Combination and Variety Packages. -- Combination and variety packages are exempt from the requirements in this regulation for

(a) location (see subsection 8.1.1.),

(b) free area (see subsection 8.1.4.), and

(c) minimum height of numbers and letters (see subsection 82.1.).

231-6 I 11.23. Camera Film

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) The Western Weights and Measures Association recommended that Section 11.23 of the Uniform Packaging and

Labeling Regulation be broadened to provide for new products in the film industry beyond "camera film," "movie

film" and "bulk still film." The recommendation was to add language to cover audio tapes, video film, and

magnetic film. After consultation with members of the American National Standards Institute Image Board, the following revision to Section 11.23. is proposed. Because of the lack of time for the membership to study the extensive revisions and for the industry to comment, the Committee will carry this item over until next year. Regional Associations are encouraged to comment.

11.23. Camera Film, Video Recording Tape. Audio Recording Tape and Other Image and Audio

Recording Media Intended for Retail Sale and Consumer Use. Imaging and audio media Camer a film packaged and labeled for retail sale is exempt from the net quantity statement requirements of this regulation that specify how measurement of commodities should be expressed; Provided that:

(a) Unexposed or Unrecorded Media. - The net quantity of contents of unexposed or unrecorded image and audio media on p

ackages of movie film and bulk still film is expressed in terms of

98
Laws and Regulations Committee

(1) for still film, tape, or other still image media, in terms of the usable or guaranteed number of available still image exposures. The length and width measurements of the individual exposures expressed in millimeters or inches, are authorized as an optional statement. (Example. "36 exposures. 36

millimeters x 24 millimeters" or "12 exposures. 2-1/4 inches x 2-1/4 inches."')

(2) For bulk or movie film, in terms of length (in meters or feet) of film available

for exposure, and

(3) For all other image and /or audio media, in terms of length of time of

electronic media available for recording, together with recording and/or playing speed or other machine settings as necessary. Supplemental

information concerning the length of the media may be provided. Supplemental information may be provided on other than the principal display panel- number of linear meters or feet of usable film contained therein. Note: Size, length of media, and format details to ensure interchangeabilitv and other

characteristics of audio and imaging media are available in the applicable American

National Standards.

(b) Exposed. Recorded, or Processed Media. — The net quantity of contents of exposed

or processed film or prerecorded electronic media shall be on packages of movie film » expressed in terms of the length of running time that is of entertainment value, of

the exposed film for that portion of film that is of entertainment value. "Entertainment value" is defined as that portion of a film , tape, or other media, that commences with the first frame of sound or picture, whichever comes first after the countdown sequence (if any) , and ends with either: (a) the last frame of credits; or (b) the last frame of the phrase "The End," or (c) the end of sound, whichever is last.

fe) The net quantity of contents on packages of still film is expressed in ter ms of the number of exposures the contents will provide. The length and width measurements

of the i ndi vidual exposures, expressed in millimeters or inches, arc authorized as an

op

tional statement. (Example : "36 exposur es, 36 millimeters x 24 millimeters" or "12 exposures, 2- 1/4 inches x 2- 1/4 inches")

231-7 I 11.28. Commodities' Variable Weights and Sizes

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) The Southern Weights and Measures Association recommended that all wholesale packers be required to print the tare weight of random packages on their shipping containers, whether the random packages are weighed by

the wholesaler or weighed and marked by the retailer (for example, hams or poultry). It is argued that field inspectors are required to destroy packages to determine the actual tare weight for products packaged at locations other than the retail store where tested. It is also contended that store and market personnel are often unaware of actual tare weights for packages and will often guess at a tare weight rather than destroy a package. Labeling the tare weight of random packages of poultry is already required on the shipping container by

regulations under the Wholesome Poultry Products Act. No specific rules are followed by poultry packagers

concerning the weighing equipment or rounding methods to obtain these tare weights. Many weights and

measures officials and retailers have complained about the lack of accuracy of the weights that are printed on

poultry shipping containers. One of the objectives of the Task Force on Commodity Requirements was to establish rules for all packagers in determining tare; however, a majority of weights and measures officials who

responded to the Task Force's inquiries placed a low priority on this objective, presumably because of their lack of confidence in the printed tare weights. The Task Force established rules concerning the number of decimal

99
Laws and Regulations Committee

places to which the tare should be recorded and the minimum quality of weighing devices used by the packer

to determine tare. For example, to be of value to the retailer, tare weights rounded up to 0.01 lb are sufficient. For weights and measures officials' equipment with 0.001 lb divisions, one would need more precise tare weights

to be printed on the shipping containers, but the weights may vary by more than 0.001 lb among the individual

tares in a production lot. An individual shipment, however, may show little variability in tare weights. The question arises as to how the enforcement official or store labeler is to trust printed tare information any more than the net weight declaration. The proposal was as follows:

11.28. Commodities' Variable Weights and Sizes. -Individual packaged commodities put up in variable weights and sizes for sale intact, and intended to be weighed and marked with the correct quantity statement prior to or at the point of retail sale, are exempt from the requirements of SECTION 6. DECLARATION OF QUANTITY: CONSUMER PACKAGES,

while moving in commerce and while held for sale prior to weighing and marking; provided that the bin container bears a label declaration of the total net weight and the tare weight or tare weights for the individual packages contained within. Regulations under the Wholesome Poultry Products Act administered by the U.S. Department of Agriculture

already require bulk packages of poultry to be labeled with the tare weight of the random consumer-sized packages contained within. The request of the Southern Association seeks to broaden this requirement to bulk packages of meat. Therefore, the Committee requests the Liaison Committee to petition the USDA to add the

tare weight information to their regulations covering meat and meat products. UNIFORM REGULATION FOR THE METHOD OF SALE OF COMMODITIES

232-1 VC Preamble

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

It is recommended that a statement of purpose be added to the regulation. See also Item 231-1. The proposal

is as follows: Preamble The purpose of this regulation is to require accurate and adequate information about commodities so that purchasers can make price and quantity comparisons.

232-2A VC 1.1. Berries and Small Fruits; Delete "Open"

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

It was proposed that Section 1.1. Berries and Small Fruits be broadened to allow the sale of these commodities

by volume, whether or not they are sold in "open" measure containers. The current regulation permits berries and small fruit to be sold by weight, or by volume when in measure

containers. (This latter method of sale is exempt from labeling requirements.)

California weights & measures officials have observed berries enclosed or covered, in legal measure containers. The Western Association believes that this method of protecting the berries is acceptable, hence should also be exempt from the labeling requirements from which measure containers are exempt. The Laws and Regulations Committee agrees; however, regulations written by the FDA (21 CFR 101.100 (c)) exempt only open measure

containers or those covered by an uncolored transparent wrapping. The regulation reads: An open container (a container of rigid or semirigid construction, which is not closed by lid, wrapper,

or otherwise other than by an uncolored transparent wrapper which does not obscure the contents) of

a fresh fruit or fresh vegetable, the quantity of contents of which is not more than 1 dry quart, shall be

100
Laws and Regulations Committee

exempt from the labeling requirements of section 403(e) (g)(2) (with respect to the name of the food

specified in the definition and standard) and (i)(l) of the act; but such exemption shall be on the condition that if two or more such containers are enclosed in a crate or other shipping package, such

crate or package shall bear labeling showing the number of such containers enclosed therein and the quantity of the contents of each. The Committee concurs with this further explanation in the Federal regulations: a wrapping should not exempt

the container from labeling requirements if the fruit cannot be seen in its natural color. Therefore, the Committee recommends the following revision:

1.1. Berries and Small Fruits.-- Shall be offered and exposed for sale and sold by weight, or by volume if in measure containers that are either open or else covered by

uncolored transparent lids or other wrappings that do not obscure the contents and

having capacities per subsection 1.1(a) or subsection l.l(b)r«tttHv. When seM selling berries and small fruits by volume in measure containers, whether or not covered, the measure containers themselves shall be deemed not to be packages for labeling purposes.

(a) Inch-Pound Capacities 1/2 dry pint, 1 dry pint, or 1 dry quart.

(b) Metric Capacities - 250 milliliters, 500 milliliters, or 1 liter.

If two or more measure containers are placed in a shipping package, the crate or package shall show the number of measure containers and the quantity of contents

of each. The Committee will entertain a new item next year to define the term "small fruits." The Committee would like to suggest that either a list of products that constitute "small fruit" or a maximum diameter of the product for

a given size of measure container be generated. The Regional Associations are encouraged to submit possible

definitions.

232-2B I 1.1. Berries and Small Fruits; Minimum Weights for Unit Volumes

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) The Western Weights and Measures Association proposed that berries and small fruits sold by volume have a corresponding minimum weight specified. It was argued that the field inspector cannot determine whether the

level of fill of the measure container is acceptable without minimum weight requirements. As proposed, these minimum weights would not be part of the net contents declaration on the label, but a specified minimum

amount of commodity would be required in a measure container. Such requirements have been in place in California since the 1930's.

It was argued that, even though a berry basket or box will test within H-44 requirements using rape seed, certain designs of berry baskets, (for example, those with narrow grooves in their base) hold significantly fewer berries than others. This places some berry packagers at a competitive disadvantage and prevents consumers from making value comparisons. The minimum net weights recommended were taken from the California regulation: 8 oz of berries or small fruits for 1/2 dry pint, 12 oz for 1 dry pint, and 1 lb 6 oz for 1 dry quart. (The reason

that 1/2 dry pint can contain 8 oz and 1 dry pint only 12 oz is that the traditional design of a 1/2-pint basket

differs from that of the 1-pint basket only in height. This allows the surface "heap" of fruit to be proportionally

larger for a 1/2-dry-pint container than for a 1-dry-pint basket.) The Committee members believe that the intent of Section 1.1 of the UMSCR is to permit packagers to fill and

label by volume as an alternative to weight. Consequently, "farmers' markets," for example, are not required to have a commercial scale in order to sell berries and small fruits. The above proposal would require sellers of

small fruits and berries to weigh all filled containers (or at least checkweigh filled containers periodically) to

101
Laws and Regulations Committee

ensure that the minimum weight has been delivered. This requirement would thus defeat the primary reason for

this section. If there is sufficient sentiment to do so, the Conference could eliminate the sale of small fruits and

berries by volume as a permitted method and require sale by weight only. If sellers are required to weigh these

types of commodities, then the purchasers should be informed as to the weight. The Committee therefore recommends no change to Section 1.1. at this time.

If certain berry baskets or boxes with thin grooves or indentations are designed to hold the necessary amount

of rape seed, but not the correct amount of small fruits or berries, their designs are unsuitable for their intended

use. The Committee requests the Specifications and Tolerances (S&T) Committee to review the Notes

subsection of Section 4.47 of Handbook 44 and add information on testing berry baskets so that their suitability for use is also tested (taping over small grooves, for example). See Item 347-1 of the S&T Report.

232-3 I 1.5.1. In Combination with Other Foods

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) Section 1.5.1. permits a total net weight statement when meat, poultry, fish, or seafood is combined with other food elements to form a "distinctive food product." The Committee has been asked to define what constitutes a distinctive food product under the meaning of this section. For example, packages of "chicken cordon bleu" and

"chicken kiev" (denoting a specific recipe or type of preparation) and products with fanciful names or names

without generic definition ("shrimp stir fry") have been cited as falling under this section, whereas some weights and measures enforcement officers would classify some of these types of products under Section 1.5.2. Stuffed

Fish, Seafood, Poultry, or Meat Products, which requires a minimum net weight statement of the fish, seafood,

poultry or meat in the product. Many jurisdictions have asked whether they can require the net weight of the meat portion only to be labeled on a store-prepared package of raw meat and vegetables sold as a "pot roast

stew," for example. However, frozen dinners have traditionally been permitted to declare only a total net weight

statement. (This must be accompanied with a statement listing the ingredients in order of their predominance

by weight.) The Committee did not have time to study this issue in any depth. It appears appropriate to consult with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) concerning the standards of identity for foods containing meat or poultry and named "chicken stir fry" or "beef stew." The Committee will hold this item over, asking the regional weights and measures associations to provide input concerning any problems they experience in interpreting and,

thus, enforcing this section.

232-4 V 1.5.2. Stuffed Fish, Seafood, Poultry, or Meat Products

(This item was adopted.) Subsection 1.5.2 reads:

1.5.2. Stuffed Fish, Seafood, Poultry, or Meat Products. In the case of ready-to-cook stuffed fish, seafood, poultry, or meat products, the label must show the total net weight of the stuffed fish, seafood, poultry, or meat product and the minimum net weight of the fish, seafood, poultry or meat in the product excluding the fish, seafood, meat, or poultry that may be part of the

stuffing. Two different recommendations were made concerning Subsection 1.5.2:

1. Subsection 1.5.2 doesn't refer to "packages," but does refer to "label." Delete references to the

label. Reason: in unpackaged stuffed chicken, fish, or pork chops prepared by the retail store and weighed at the time of purchase, the purchaser often cannot see the amount of stuffing, whether or not it is prepackaged.

2. Delete this subsection and permit stuffed items to be sold by total net weight. Reasons for: more than the protein ingredient is being sold; a stuffed item is a convenience food. A stuffed

102
Laws and Regulations Committee

meat or fish item is a subcategory of "distinctive food product" described in Subsection 1.5.1. In Combination with Other Foods. Subsection 1.5.1 permits distinctive food products to be

labeled by a total net weight. It is difficult for a packager or retailer to sort by minimum

weights the meat, poultry, or fish portion of the product before stuffing. Subsection 1.5.2 was originally written to conform with USDA labeling requirements for packaged stuffed poultry and poultry products. (See Report of the 54th NCWM 1969, p. 211.) It was broadened to include other protein-based products in 1982 and 1985. When the subsection was broadened in scope, the Committee Report

indicated that the requirement was to be applied to convenience foods prepared and displayed in the retail meat

case. However, at the present time, the Committee can find no jurisdiction enforcing these requirements and

requiring retailers to post a minimum net weight for the meat, poultry, fish, or seafood portion of a stuffed item. The Committee recommends deleting this subsection and modifying Subsection 1.5.1. In Combination with Other Foods by incorporating into the main body of text the footnote that indicates that an ingredient statement must also appear on the label. Subsection 1.5.1 will then read:

1.5.1. In Combination with Other Foods. - When meat, poultry, fish, or seafood is combined

with some other food element to form a distinctive food product, the quantity

representation may be in terms of the total weight of the product or combination, and

a quantity representation need not be made for each element, provided that a

statement listing the ingredients in order of their predominance by weight must also

a ppear on the label. Please see the discussion in Item 232-5 for related information.

232-5 I 1.5.3. Meat, Poultry, Fish, and Seafood -- Packaged with Other

Packages of Food

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) An increasing number of packaged fresh meat, poultry, fish, and seafood items are appearing with packets of condiments in the package, but with only a total net weight declaration (meat and gravy, for example) on the package. Since the meat or poultry item has not been combined with other food elements to form a distinctive food product (such as a meat stew, for example), but is packaged together with another package, the Western

Weights and Measures Association has recommended that these types of packages be treated as combination

packages (see Section 10.5 of the Uniform Packaging and Labeling Regulation) and be required to declare the

quantity of the packets separately from the quantity of the meat. This proposal stems from a City of Everett, WA, finding that turkey breasts of about 2-3 lb in weight were wrapped around 1/2 lb packets of gravy, and only

a total net weight statement appeared on the label. The Liaison Committee has been working with the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) on the turkey problem, since the USDA gave prior label approval for the

turkey product in question. The Western Weights and Measures Association now recommends that a more

generic solution be adopted since many types of combination packages other than turkey and gravy are on sale

at retail stores. These are often packaged at retail, for example, Chinese pork packed with small packets of sesame seed, hot mustard, and soy sauce; or beef ribs with packets of barbecue sauce. The Committee planned to recommend adding a new subsection to Section 1.5. Meat, Poultry, Fish, and

Seafood:

1.5.3. Packaged with Packages of Other Foods. ~ When meat, poultry, fish, or seafood is packaged

with other packages of food, (for example, pork with a separate packet of barbecue sauce, or turkey with a separate package of gravy), the net weight of the meat, poultry, fish, or seafood

portion in the combination package must be declared separately. If the total selling price is computed from the net weight of the meat, poultry, fish, or seafood portion only, then only the

net weight of meat, poultry, fish, or seafood portion must be declared. In such instance, a separate declaration of the net contents of the other packages included with the meat, poultry,

fish, or seafood is permitted, but not required. The Committee was informed that the Liaison Committee's request to the U.S. Department of Agriculture to

103
Laws and Regulations Committee

revise their regulations to conform with the proposed addition to Section 1.5. would be considered along with other comments on the net weight proposal made by USDA, since the portions of the Code of Federal Regulations dealing with this matter were those being proposed for revision by the agency. Therefore, the Committee will carry this item over until resolution by USDA.

232-6 VC 1.5.3.1. Definition of the Term "Processed"

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) This carry-over item was Item 232-2 in the Report of the 73rd NCWM, 1988 (page 157). Section 1.5.3.1 concerns

the method of sale for "processed" clams, mussels, and oysters. A clarification of the term "processed" in Section

1.5.3.1 was requested by the Shellfish Institute of North America (SINA). SINA asked whether merely breaking

the shellfish open (for example, oysters on the half shell) constitutes "processing", or whether the shellfish must

be taken out of its shell before Section 1.5.3.1 applies. SINA points out that the meat is often still attached to the shell, and that there is considerable variability in meat to shell weight, making estimates of the net weight

very difficult. The Committee consulted with a representative from the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) at the Interim Meetings. It was the opinion of the FDA representative and the Committee that a declaration of total net weight

including the weight of the shell would be meaningless, since the weight of the shell is a significant fraction of

the total weight. It was also the opinion of the Committee that a net weight declaration would be impossible without removing the meat from the shell. The Committee decided that merely breaking the shellfish open, or even cutting the meat out of the shell and then placing it back on the shell in a raw state, should not constitute processing. Neither would adding sauces or spices to the whole shellfish meat constitute "processing". In such

instances, the shellfish could be sold by count. The Committee believes the purchaser's concern is the number

of servings (i.e., count). It would be useful if standardized terminology for size were also provided, (e.g., "standard," "select," etc.); however, these terms are not well defined in all parts of the industry and the purchaser may not know, without considerable consumer education efforts, what the size designations mean. However, it is the belief of the Committee that this product is similar to the purchase of eggs, that is, that count is the most

meaningful net quantity designation. The Committee believes that taking the meat out of the shell and mixing it in any way with ingredients other than sauces or spices requires a net weight statement excluding the weight of any shell. In this instance, the shell

is merely a serving container. The term "processed" is specifically defined as the chopping, cutting, or commingling of the meat with other solid foods. The proposed revision to the subsection, including minor

editorial reorganization, is as follows:

1.53.41. Whole clams, oysters, or mussels in the shell (fresh or frozen) shall be sold by weight

(including the weight of the shell, but not including the liquid or ice packed with them), dry measure (e.g., bushel), and/or count. In addition, size designations may

be provided.

1.53.2. Whole clams, oysters, or mussels on the half shell (fresh, cooked, smoked, or frozen, with or without sauces or spices added) shall be sold by weight (excluding the weight

of the shell) or by count. Size designations may also be provided. 1.533. Fresh oysters, clams, or mussels removed from the shell and placed in a container

shall be sold by fluid volume. A maximum of 15 percent free liquid by weight is permitted.

1.53.14. Processed clams, mussels, or oysters on the half shell (fresh or frozen) shall be sold by net weight excluding the weight of the shell. The term "processed" means removing

the meat from the shell and chopping it or cutting it or commingling it with other

solid foods.

1.53.25. Canned (heat-processed) mussels, clams, or oysters shall be sold by net weight. A

maximum of 41 percent free liquid by weight is permitted for canned oysters.

104
Laws and Regulations Committee

It was recommended that other products such as pink scallops, and cockles were appearing in the marketplace and needed method of sale requirements. Therefore, retitle the section:

1.5-?. Clams. Mussels. Oysters, and Other Mollusks Add the term "and other mollusks" to all subsections in that section.

232-7A I 1.5.3.3. Oysters by Net Drained Weight

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) This cam-over item was Item 232-3 in the Report of the 73rd NCWM, 1988, (page 157). Section 1.5.33. requires that fresh oysters, clams, or mussels removed from the shell be sold by fluid volume. A maximum of 15% free liquid by weight is permitted. North Carolina reported that the largest number of complaints from restaurants and institutions in the state concerns short-measure oysters. Investigators have found product coming from many regions with the proper

fluid volume, but with free liquid amounts much higher than the permitted 15% by weight. There were also instances in which gallon-sized plastic containers similar to those used by ice-cream manufacturers were being used as containers for oysters. The problem frequently encountered was that a one-gallon container has a onegallon capacity only when brim full (as ice-cream would normally fill such containers); when filled with oysters, the containers can not be brim-filled, and therefore were all found short measure by volume. The Southern Weights and Measures Association requested the Liaison Committee and the L&R Committee

to study the feasibility of net drained weight, rather than fluid volume, as the required method of sale. The

Committee discussed this problem with a representative of the Seafood Institute of North America and asked

that its industry members determine the feasibility of drained weight as an alternative declaration. SINA

reported that their association is opposed to labeling of shucked oysters by drained weight, although indiridual companies are not opposed. SINA argues that the consumer would be confused if there appeared different weights of oyster meat in containers of the same size. The Committee discussed this issue with a representative

of the Food and Drug Administration at the Interim Meetings to determine if there are legal impediments to permitting drained weight as an alternative net contents declaration for fresh oysters removed from the shell. The FDA representative was adamant that the Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling Act requires that consumers

be able to make value comparisons, and that the trade custom is to sell oysters by fluid volume. Therefore, fluid volume is the only permitted net contents declaration. The National Marine Fisheries Service, FDA, SINA, and

state representatives all applauded the NCWM for standardizing the legal maximum amount of free liquid in shucked oysters to 159c. Therefore, the Committee recommends no change to Subsection 1.5.3.3. However, the

test method published in the Report of the 73rd NCWM, 1988, will be recommended for inclusion in Handbook

133. See Item 232-7B on page 2-38 and Appendix B.

232-8 VC 1.6. Fluid Milk Products

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) The Committee received a request for the addition of a 12-fl-oz size to the list of permitted fluid milk sizes. The

Milk Industry Foundation supported the proposal, but not at the expense of dropping the 10-fluid-ounce size. Testimony at the Interim Meetings indicated that the 12-fl-oz size (in plastic containers) competed at retail with

similarly packaged soft drink and juice items. The 12-fl-oz packages of milk were authorized in Delaware, where

they are reportedly not in competition with the 10-fl-oz "gable roof style fibre containers which have their own

distinct place in the marketplace. The Committee recognizes arguments on both sides of the question as to whether fluid dairy products (or other

products) should be limited in number and size of permitted packages. While lacking complete agreement on

this wider question, the Committee does believe that the specific issue of the proposed 12-fl-oz package size (and a corresponding size of 350 ml in the metric series) should be put before the Conference for its decision.

I '"5
Laws and Regulations Committee

The following change in Section 1.6. is therefore submitted:

(a) Inch-Pound Volumes - 1 gill, 1/2 liquid pint, 10 fluid ounces, 12 fluid ounces. 1 liquid

pint, 1 liquid quart, 1/2 gallon, 1 gallon, 1-1/2 gallons, 2 gallons, 2-1/2 gallons, or

multiples of 1 gallon.

(b) Metric Volumes - 125 milliliters, 250 milliliters, 350 milliliters. 500 milliliters, 1 liter, or multiples of 1 liter.

232-10 W 1.9.2. Price Advertising

(This item was withdrawn as part of the Interim Report and is reprinted below for information purposes.) This subsection requires the price of bulk food commodities to be advertised or displayed in terms of whole

units of pounds or kilograms. It does not require the price or identity to be displayed. Utah weights and measures officials point out that many stores post no prices at all for the bulk food commodities, or post the

prices in such a way that they are unreadable (too small print, too far from the consumer, or hidden by

equipment). There is often no clear connection between the product offered and the price charged. Since these

stores are not self-serve, the customer must ask for the product and can ask the price. The problem is that the customer has no idea about the price per pound of many items sold from bulk, for example, in a candy store, a boutique cookie store, etc. It is argued that the absence of posted pricing is in itself deceptive, i.e., many

purchasers select one or two cookies costing $1.00 without realizing that they are priced at $6.95 per pound. Many purchases are on impulse; the consumer cannot make a value comparison if he doesn't know the price. When many customers are in line, a person might have to wait quite some time before being able to ask a clerk the price of a product to decide whether to make the purchase. Customers may be embarrassed to refuse the product when it costs more than expected. If the price is clearly posted, they can readily decide whether to buy. Utah weights and measures recommends requiring that the unit price be posted. The revision recommended

was:

1.9.2. Price Advertising. - The price of bulk food commodities or food commodities not in package form and sold by weight shall be advertised or displayed in terms of whole weight units of pounds or kilograms only, not in common or decimal fractions or in ounces, and shall be

prominently displayed on each tray or bin along with the common or usual name of each

product. A supplemental declaration in common or decimal fractions, or in ounces, in print no

larger than the whole unit price, is permitted. The Committee found merit to the proposal, but had difficulty determining what the limits should be. For

example, it was noted that most meat or fish counters display a price per pound on or near the item, but rarely

identify the product "pork chop" or "flounder." How much identification is necessary? Must the seller distinguish lean hamburger from regular or post the percentage fat? Must a candy counter identify the type of peanut being

sold, or the type of hard candy? (Candies are often given fanciful names which are also the common or usual name, for example, "chocolate turtles.") Bakery products permitted to be sold by count would not be covered. Some cookies have traditionally been sold by count rather than weight. What about fresh fruits and vegetables

sold at a farmer's market by volume measure? Should the identification of the commodity be required in these

instances, even though the product is not sold by weight? These questions suggest that the regional weights and measures associations should further explore this issue and make recommendations together with arguments for their positions. Therefore, the Committee withdraws

this item until a regional association develops the issue.

232-11 W 1.12. Ready-to-Eat Food

(This item was withdrawn as part of the Interim Report and is reprinted below for information purposes.) Several recommendations have been made concerning this section.

106
Laws and Regulations Committee

L Subsection (a) exempts items "sold for consumption on the premises" from being sold by

weight, which exempts restaurants from selling food by weight. With the blurring of types of

retail businesses, such as grocery stores with a small eat-in delicatessen, it becomes increasingly

difficult to determine when food is sold for consumption on the premises. One recommendation

is to define "sold for consumption on the premises" as requiring either (a) a restaurant license or (b) table space in the store. Some states exempt restaurants from sales tax. Other

distinctions may be available in different jurisdictions.

2. Subsection (b) exempts items of at least three elements excluding condiments sold as a "readyto-eat meal" from being sold by weight, whether or not sold for consumption on the premises.

It is argued that exempting meals of three items from sale by weight is inconsistent with

requiring meals of two items to be sold by weight. Further, it is inconsistent to exempt carry- out "meals," but not carry-out ready-to-eat food of other sorts (for example, barbecued ribs). The Committee did not have time to explore this issue at the Interim Meetings, nor was it provided with a

specific proposal. It therefore requests the regional and state associations to develop these issues and carry forward recommendations for the NCWM for next year.

232-9 VC 2.X. Advertising and Price Computing of Bulk Commodities

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) The Southern Weights and Measures Association recommended broadening Subsection 1.9. Advertising and

Price Computing of Bulk Food Commodities to address non-food items. Very small and/or expensive seed and many other non-food commodities are most often sold from bulk on a price per 1/4- or 1/2-pound basis. In the

interest of equity and uniformity, any commodity sold on the basis of weight from bulk and not in packaged

form should be required to be sold in terms of whole units of weight. The proposal was to delete all references

to food. In addition, the Committee believes it is necessary to delete references to pricing only by the pound.

Construction materials may more appropriately be priced by the ton. Very expensive seed could legitimately be

priced by the ounce. Since the UMSCR is divided into a food and a non-food section, the Committee recommends adding the following subsection to the beginning of Section 2. Nonfood Products:

2.X. Advertising and Price Computing of Bulk Commodities. - The price of bulk commodities or commodities not in package form and sold by weight shall be

advertised, displayed, and computed in terms of whole units of weight (i.e., pounds,

ounces, grams, kilograms, etc.), and not in common or decimal fractions.

232-12A I 2.15. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Cylinder Tare Weights/ Compressed or Liquefied Gases in Cylinders

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) This is carried over from Item 232-5 in the Report of the 73rd NCWM 1988 (page 160) and Item 214-6 in the Report of the 72nd NCWM 1987 (page 134). See those reports for further information. The Committee developed substantial revisions to Section 2.15 in 1987. The committee delayed recommending

changes until a complete test procedure was also available for incorporation into Handbook 133 to permit safe

testing of cylinders. The Compressed Gas Association (CGA) volunteered to review the test procedures and

proposed additional precautions and procedures to protect the less experienced testing official and to address

the full range of product cylinder sizes. CGA has reviewed the test procedures (printed in the 73rd NCWM

Report), but has not provided input on cylinder sizes. The committee wishes to thank CGA for their help in

this important matter. This is an area in which many weights and measures officials are not well informed and

it appears to be poorly monitored. (See Items 232-12B, 232-12C, and 232-13.) The committee will propose the

revision to Subsection 2.15 below plus the test procedures (printed in Appendix D to the L&R Report in the 1988 Proceedings) to be incorporated into H-133 next year. The Committee urges weights and measures

officials to visit cylinder refilling operations in their jurisdictions during the following year to become familiar

107
Laws and Regulations Committee

with the practices for the measurement and sale of these commodities. Officials should note the amounts being charged for these important and widely used systems. The following is for information only; it will be proposed

to replace the current 2.15:

2.15. COMPRESSED OR LIQUEFIED GASES IN REFILLABLE CYLINDERS

This Section does not apply to disposable cylinders of compressed or liquefied gases.

2.15.1. NET CONTENTS. - The net contents shall be expressed in terms of cubic feet or cubic meters; pounds and ounces; or kilograms. A standard cubic foot of gas is defined as a cubic foot at a temperature of 70 °F and a pressure of 14.6% psia (or metric equivalent) except for liquefied petroleum gas as stated in Section 2.20.

2.15.2. CYLINDER LABELING. - Whenever cylinders are used for the sale of compressed or

liquefied gases by weight, or are filled by weight and converted to volume, the following shall apply:

2.15.2.1. TARE WEIGHTS - The tare weight shall be legibly and permanently stamped

or stenciled on the cylinder. All tare weight values shall be preceded by the

letters "TW" or the words "tare weight." The tare weight shall include the weight of the cylinder (including paint), valve, and other permanent

attachments. The weight of a protective cap shall not be included in tare or gross weights.

(a) ALLOWABLE DIFFERENCE. - The allowable difference between the actual

tare weight and the stamped (or stenciled) tare weight for a new or used

cylinder shall be one percent of the actual tare weight. However, when

cylinders are filled by weight, the actual tare weight of the cylinder shall be used in computing the net weight or cubic volume derived from the net weight.

(b) AVERAGE REQUIREMENT. - The tare weights of cylinders at a single place of business found to be in error predominantly in a direction favorable

to the seller and near the allowable difference limit shall be considered to be

not in conformance with these requirements.

2.15.2.2. ACETYLENE GAS CYLINDER TARE WEIGHTS. - Acetone in the

cylinder shall be included as part of the tare weight.

2.15.2.3. ACETYLENE GAS CYLINDER VOLUMES. - The volumes of acetylene

shall be determined from the product weight using approved tables such as those published in NBS Handbook 133 or those developed using 70 °F and

14.7 cu ft per pound at one atmosphere as conversion factors.

2.15.2.4. COMPRESSED GASES SUCH AS OXYGEN, ARGON, NITROGEN,

HELIUM, AND HYDROGEN. - The volumes of compressed gases such as oxygen, argon, nitrogen, helium, or hydrogen shall be determined using the

tables and procedures given in NBS Technical Note 1079, Tables of Industrial Gas Container Contents and Density for Oxygen, Argon, Nitrogen, Helium, and Hydrogen and supplemented by additional procedures and tables in NBS

Handbook 133.

232-12B I 2.15. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Cylinder Tare Weights/Stamped Tare Weights

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) Subsection 2.15 presently requires:

108
Laws and Regulations Committee

2.15. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Cylinder Tare Weights -- whenever stamped tare weights on cylinders are employed in the sale of liquefied petroleum gas, the following shall apply.

2.15.1. Allowable difference. -- The allowable difference between the actual tare weight and the stamped tare weight for a new or used cylinder shall be one percent of the actual tare weight. The tare weight shall include the weight of the cylinder (including paint), valve, and other permanent attachments. The weight of a protective cap shall not be included in tare or gross

weights.

2.15.2. Average requirement. -- The tare weights of cylinders at a single place of business found to be

in error predominantly in a direction favorable to the seller and near the allowable difference

limit shall be considered to be not in conformance with these requirements. North Carolina enforcement officials checked the tare weights of 20- and 100-pound compressed gas cylinders.

10 out of 14 (or 71%) of a lot of 22-lb cylinders were beyond the 1% allowable difference; 14 out of 26 (or 54%) of a lot of 18-lb cylinders were beyond the 1% allowable difference; and

14 out of a lot of 25 (or 56%) of 68-lb cylinders were beyond the 1% allowable difference.

All but one of the cylinders that were outside the allowable difference in one lot were uniformly heavier than

their stamped tare weights. This means that, for any gases put into these cylinders by weight, the actual net weights (or any volume computed from those weights) would all be less than the gross weights minus the stamped tare weights. The Committee urges weights and measures officials to test LPG-gas-cylinder tare weights and to enforce requirements.

232- 12C I 2.15. Liquefied Petroleum Gas Cylinder Tare Weights/Acetylene

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) One of the continuing issues discussed at the Interim Meeting concerned the sale of acetylene by weight or volume (14.7 cu ft per lb at 70 °F) and the methods employed by the businesses that refill these cylinders to determine the final net weight or volume. Acetylene is a relatively expensive material used mainly by industry and business in the manufacturing or repair sectors (e.g., welding). Acetylene is a highly unstable gas that is placed in cylinders containing a porous material and liquid acetone, which acts as a solvent into which the acetylene is absorbed in a stabilized condition. Acetylene cylinders are stamped with tare weights that include

the weight of the acetone. As acetylene is withdrawn from the cylinder, acetone will also be withdrawn.

Therefore, when the cylinders are returned for refilling, they must have acetone added to bring them back to

their stamped tare weights. Not all businesses that fill acetylene cylinders "reacetone" the cylinders to the stamped tare weight. Weights and measures officials have found some businesses not adding acetone to small

tanks, or only adding acetone to 1 lb less than the stamped tare weight "to reduce spitters." This practice means

that, if such businesses do not weigh tanks before and after filling, the "expected" amount of acetylene will not

enter the cylinders due to insufficient acetone to absorb it. Thus, one jurisdiction found the 40-cu-ft cylinders

in one business from 13 to 50% short measure. California regulations require that, if the tare weight is not brought back to the stamped tare weight, then the tag must show the tare weight to which the cylinder was

reacetoned; this requirement forces the refiller to weigh his cylinders prior to filling. California weights and

measures officials maintain that this tare weight can be determined (and the resulting tare weight used in determining final charges) to within 1/4%. The Compressed Gas Association (CGA) has pointed out that the regulations of the Department of Transportation (DoT) require that tare weights be stamped and accurate

within 1% of actual. Although safety is of prime importance, the degree of agreement between the stamped tare weight and the actual tare weight is not the concern of weights and measures officials unless (a) refilling businesses are not adding enough acetone to permit a given cylinder to reabsorb the amount of acetylene that

it is expected to contain, or (b) these businesses are not weighing their cylinders both before and after filling to determine whether the tanks contain the amount of acetylene for which they are charging. The issue of safety

is separate from that of good measurement practices in the sale of acetylene. The Committee will continue to study this issue in the coming year. Several questions must be answered:

109
Laws and Regulations Committee

1. What are the acetylene refilling practices in different parts of the country? Are gross and tare weights taken on all acetylene cylinders?

2. When charging by the cubic foot, what is the conversion factor(s) or other formula(s) used to get from

weight to volume?

3. Is the practice of uniformly reacetoning to less than the stamped tare weight safe? How much less than

the stamped tare weight can a cylinder be reacetoned and still be safe?

4. Are many acetylene refilling businesses not weighing the tanks after filling (or subtracting the stamped

rather than the actual tare weight) to ensure that the correct amount of acetylene went into the tank?

232-13 VC 2.X. Liquid Oxygen Used for Respiration

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) The County of Summit, Ohio, has requested that the Committee consider adding a requirement concerning

liquid oxygen used for respiration to the Uniform Regulation for the Method of Sale of Commodities.

Liquid oxygen is sold by weight and delivered to homes of people with respiratory problems. Rented oxygen

cylinders are removed from the home and "transfilled" from a large tank on the delivery truck. Liquid oxygen

costs from $.95 to $1.50 per pound, and the average delivery is 80-100 pounds per week. Medicare, Medicaid,

or other insurance is often billed for the product. The truck may be equipped with a platform or similar scale to weigh the cylinder before and after filling. Often,

the truck operator does not use the scale to weigh the cylinder at all. Summit County officials have weighed

cylinders immediately prior to and after filling and have documented monetary errors of $8 to $25 per delivery. They estimate 1000 customers for this product in their county alone. An alternative method of determining the amount delivered is to use a volume gauge. In investigations, Summit

County officials have found charts to convert from the gauge reading to a weight for invoicing purposes. When

liquid oxygen is sold by weight, it must be weighed, not measured by volume. The following method of sale is recommended:

2.X. Liquid Oxygen Used for Respiration. -

a. If sold by weight, the liquid oxygen must be weighed on an appropriate, sealed commercial scale. A pressure or other type of gauge may not be used to determine

weight.

b. A delivery ticket or sales invoice shall be provided and shall contain at least the

following information:

(1) date delivered,

(2) name and address of vendor,

(3) name and address of the purchaser

(4a) if sold by weight: weight of cylinder before filling, weight of cylinder after filling, and

the net weight of liquid oxygen delivered,

110
Laws and Regulations Committee

(4b) if sold by measure: method of measurement and any computation used to arrive at the net quantity of liquid oxygen delivered,

(5) the unit price,

(6) the total computed price,

(7) weigher's or measurer's signature.

The Committee will seek further input on appropriate methods of sale when liquid oxygen is not sold by weight

(i.e., metered or gauged.)

236 I UNIFORM REGULATION FOR NATIONAL TYPE EVALUATION

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) The Executive Secretary conducted a survey to determine the extent of adoption of the Uniform Regulation for National Type Evaluation (URNTE) by the States. Several states indicated in their responses that they had not adopted the URNTE because they did not plan to establish an NTEP Participating Laboratory. The Committee

wants to make it clear that the URNTE is intended for all states, not just those establishing Participating Laboratories. The key language in this regulation is as follows: Section 3. Certificate of Conformance. The Director may require any weight or measures, or any

weighing or measuring instrument or device, to be issued a Certificate of Conformance

prior to use for commercial or law enforcement purposes. The Committee will add the following to the Intent statement found on page IV-109 introducing the Uniform

Regulation:

If a state does not wish to establish a Participating Laboratory, Section 2.4. Participating Laboratory and Section 4. Participating Laboratory may be deleted.

237 UNIFORM MOTOR FUEL REGULATION

237-1 VC Octane Ratings for Blend Dispensers

This carry-over item was Item 237-1 in the Report of the 73rd NCWM 1988 (page 169). Additional trends bearing on this issue are: The sale of motor fuel from blending dispensers will likely increase in use throughout the country:

In order to reduce the possibility of underground leaks, the number of underground tanks will be

reduced; there are inherent economies of operation with fewer tanks. Marketing practices are generating purchaser demand for more choices in octane for a given type of motor fuel. A third type of motor fuel may soon be introduced, needing its own storage tanks. There are two types of blending dispensers: (1) those that blend at or close to the nozzle (requiring a double

111
Laws and Regulations Committee

hose to the nozzle) and (2) those that blend within the dispenser at a valve where the delivery hose connects to the dispenser (requiring onl\ a single hose to the nozzle). Blending systems of type (1) provide motor fuel of the selected octane almost instantaneously. Their drawback is the cumbersomeness of the double hose; in those

jurisdictions that presently require or are planning to require Stage II vapor recovery, the third hose for vapor

recovery makes the final hose configuration more unwieldy. Delivery systems of type (2), however, by their very

design, contain in the delivery hose residual fuel of the octane selected by the previous purchaser. Under worst

case conditions, this may be 87 octane gasoline prior to a customer selecting 92 octane. The questions to be answered are: What is the minimum purchase amount necessary for a customer to obtain essentially the advertised octane under worst case conditions?

Is this minimum purchase amount equitable for most purchasers? What is the minimum flush necessary before taking samples for octane testing by weights and measures

officials or motor fuel quality testing officials? With the cooperation of Gilbarco, Inc. and Arthur Price, Motor Fuel Quality Laboratory for the State of Maryland, the North Carolina Standards Division performed extensive testing of octane blends rendered by a Gilbarco blend dispenser of the single hose configuration. Their objective was to establish a uniform sampling procedure for blend dispensers. The particular blender provided four octane levels between 87 and 92 octane. A standard 10 1/2 foot hose was attached. Tests were conducted where the hose was charged with 87 octane and the next delivery was set to deliver 92 octane fuel. Each laboratory performed octane tests on 24 samples;

the first set represented the hose fully charged with 87 octane fuel; the second set after 0.1 gallon flush; the third

set after a 0.2 gallon flush and so on up to 0.7 gallon flush. Between sets of samples the hose was fully charged

with 87 octane fuel. Figure 1 gives the average octane determination for each set of samples. A 0.3 gallon

flush is the point after which 92 octane fuel is delivered. Tests on the base fuels, nominally 87 and 92 octane, indicated octanes of 87.2 and 92.1 respectively. Based upon the study conducted, a minimum flush of 0.3 gallon is necessary. A larger amount will be necessary

if the spread between maximum and minimum octane levels is larger or if the hose length is longer (as, for example, at a marina). Based upon these data, a customer who purchases at least 2-1/2 gallons will obtain the advertised octane. Marketing research results provided by Sun Oil Company based on a four-city survey of 2400 transactions in March and April determined that for those customers buying all grades, a "fill up" averaged 9.6 gallons: none buy less than 1 gallon and 99.2% buy 2 gallons or more. For those customers buying high octane product (those

subject to the worst case example), none buy less than 1 gallon and 99.5% buy 2 gallons or more. There may

be some bias since this data only recorded vehicle fillings (including motorcycles, if any), but not container

fillings. However, preliminary information indicates that blending dispensers of the single hose design do appear

to deliver the advertised octane to 99% or more of all customers. The Committee recommends that the following policy be added to NCWM Publication 3, "Policy, Interpretations, and Guidelines": A minimum of 03 gallon of motor fuel shall be flushed from the dispenser before taking a sample for octane verification. The flush shall be returned to the storage tank containing the lowest octane. Note: This guideline does not apply to a multi-product dispenser that is not a blender but has a single delivery hose. The Examination Procedure Outline for Motor-Fuel Dispensers (NCWM Publication 12) recommends a fast and

slow delivery on both extremes of octane for blending dispensers. In order to reduce the amount of product drawn from the dispenser, it is possible to incorporate this flush when testing motor-fuel quantity and quality by

the following:

Set the dispenser to the lowest octane and dispense 5 gallons each in a slow flow and regular delivery; draw an octane sample for the lowest octane indicated.

112
Laws and Regulations Committee

FLUSH TEST - 92 OCTANE

AVERAGE (MD * NC) 93 -| 1 1 1

1 1

87 H 1 1 1 1 1 1—

0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 GALLONS FLUSHED

Figure 1

Set the dispenser to the highest octane; dispense 0.3 gallons as indicated on the dispenser; then draw

an octane sample for the highest octane tested. Continue to run slow flow and other quantity tests at the highest octane setting. The Committee will submit this draft to the S&T Committee to be incorporated in their review and update of

the EPO's for blending dispensers.

240 HANDBOOK 133 240-1A I Proposed Sampling Plans and Smaller MAV'S

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) The Northeastern Weights and Measures Association endorsed a new sampling plan and MAV proposal prepared by New York and proposed these changes to the sampling plans and MAV's in Handbook 133. The

proposal would revise the sampling plans in Handbook 133 to permit more individual packages in any given sample to exceed the MAV, and to reduce the MAV's in the present Handbook 133. To quote from a letter from New York transmitting part of its supporting data: "Since the NY plan allows packages outside the MAV,

113
Laws and Regulations Committee

it recognizes the occasional outlier. However, it penalizes the packer with overall poor control. We think a sampling plan should discriminate against this condition and our plan is much more sensitive to this situation than the current HB 133." Data on 103 lots using Category B sampling and 75 lots using Category A sampling were given to the Committee

at the Interim Meeting to show how package lots would fare as compared with the present Handbook 133. This

data is available upon request from the Office of Weights and Measures. Category B

Of 103 lots tested using Category B plans, two lots would have failed the NY plans, none would have failed Handbook 133 plans. Category B sampling plans are used for routine inspection at retail stores. Category A

Of 85 lots tested using Category A plans, 7 of 85 lots (excluding a coffee lot about which NY expressed

reservations) would fail the NY plans, none would have failed Handbook 133 plans. Three lots that failed the NY Category A plans but passed the Handbook 133 plans consisted of fruit cookies packed in cellophane wrappers which might have lost moisture during distribution. However, to quote again from the letter of transmittal from New York: "This is a perfect example of lots that we in New York want to control. This is a case of a packer with poor net weight control, who is targeting at the mean. A consumer

buying one of these packages has a 16% (or 1 in 6) chance of getting short weights from 3.5 to 4.5% of the labeled weight. It is our view that this does not meet the intent of the net weight regulation, that no individual package error shall be unreasonably large." New York proposes Tables 2-2, 2-5, 2-8, 2-9, 3-1 and 4-2 printed on pages 115 through 121 to replace the tables with the same names in Handbook 133. Figures 2 and 3 on page 119 show the difference between the Handbook

133 and the New York proposed MAV's, along with a comparison with the European Economic Community

(EEC) individual package limits. Although the New York proposed MAV's are smaller than the Handbook 133 MAV's, both of the New York proposed Category A and Category B sampling plans permit more packages that are short weight or measure to exceed the MAV's. (Compare the fourth columns in proposed Tables 2-2 and

2-5 with the current tables.) For example, the current number of minus package errors allowed to exceed the MAV is 0 (zero) for a sample size of 10 (Category B plan); the proposed number is 1. This would allow one

package in every sample of 10 to exceed the MAV without failing the lot. With the small amount of data submitted, it is difficult to determine the benefits of switching to the NY sampling

plans. Since the preliminary data indicate about the same level of pass/fail of the New York proposed revisions, with Handbook 133 it is unclear how the changes in sampling plans and MAV's would penalize a packer with poor overall control unless the packer used a checkweigher or unless the weights and measures official tested the entire lot and sorted out all packages that exceeded the MAV. If an attempt is made to obtain a random

sample, the number of packages in a sample with shortages exceeding the MAV are not "outliers": they are the

direct result of the underlying distribution of package weights. In a sample of 10, if one package exceeds the MAV, this implies that as much as 10% of the lot is comprised of packages that exceed the MAV. If the MAV's

are reduced and the number of package shortages allowed to exceed them is increased, there may be no net

difference. Costs would accrue to inspection agencies to teach their field inspectors new procedures. Moreover,

similar or higher costs would be borne by packagers. Other points considered at the Interim Meetings were: Test data were provided only from retail food stores in New York City. No data were provided on fresh fruits and vegetables in packaged form and labeled by weight

(for example, 5-lb bags of potatoes, onions, etc). No data were provided on items often packaged by the retail stores themselves (fresh meat,

poultry, fish, or seafood in random weight packages). No data were provided on a vast variety of commodities not commonly available at retail food

stores, for example, gardening and yard materials such as mulch, potting soil, and chemicals, and hardware store/handy-man products such as polyethylene sheeting, nails, and portland

114
Laws and Regulations Committee

cement. No data were provided on meat or poultry products, (either fresh or processed) from Federally

inspected plants under USDA jurisdiction. Although the NY proposal also seeks to change the MAV's for packages labeled by liquid measure, no data were provided for these types of products. Although the NY-proposed MAV's are smaller than Handbook 133's MAV's, the NY-proposed

sampling plans permit more packages in a sample to exceed the MAV before they would fail the lot. This is the reason that the results from testing using the NY proposal are about the same as those using the current procedures. Since NY City currently levies fines and takes administrative action based on individual packages that fail to comply, it might be possible for the city to continue to take action on a package-by-package basis. This is not the intent of lot sampling nor of Handbook 133; nor was it the intent of Handbook 67 (which New York cites in their present regulations). Although the NY proposed MAV's are about the same as those used in the European Economic Community (EEC) (see Figures 3 and 4) the EEC plans are intended for use at the production or plant level, not at retail, where the NY proposal would be applied. The Committee did not feel that enough information was submitted with the proposal to make a decision or recommendation to the voting membership of the NCWM, nor was there enough time for weights and measures

or industry to determine the effects of the proposal on their operations. Therefore, the Committee publishes

the proposal for comment and will carry the item over. This proposal has been submitted for rulemaking by the

State of New York. New York has agreed to share the results of their deliberations with the Conference. The Committee proposes language (see Item 240-1B) to be included in Handbook 133 concerning the appropriate action to be taken on individual packages that exceed the MAV yet do not fail the lot (i.e., take the packages off-sale, but do not levy fines or other penalties on these individual packages).

Table 2-2. Sampling plans of Category A.

1

Lot size (number of packages

in lot) N

2

Sample size (number of packages

in sample)

n

3

Tare sample size

3 (number of packages chosen for tare determination)

n.

4

Number of package errors allowed to exceed

the MAV

30 or less all 2 0

31-800 30 2 2

801-2,000 50 5 4

2,001-5,000 80 5 6

5,001-15,000 125 5 9

15,001 and greater 200 10 13

a Special rules for tare sampling apply when Section 2.11.4. is followed (this is the tare procedure for variable tare and must be used for glass or aerosol packages).

bSee Tables B-9 through B-14, and Sections 2.12., and 2.13.

115
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table 2-5. Sampling plans of Category B.

1 2 3 4 Lot size (number of packages

in lot)

Sample size (number of packages

in sample)

Tare sample size

8 (number of packages chosen for tare determination)

Number of minus

package errors allowed to ex- ceed the MAV

N n n. Up to and

including 250 10 2 1 251 and greater 30 2 2

aSpecial rules for tare sampling apply when Section 2.11.4. is used (glass or aerosol packages).

bSee Tables 2-8 through 2-11 (pages B-9 to B-14), Sections 2.12. and 2.13.

116
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table 2-8. MAVs for an individual package labeled by weight".

Avoirdupois units Metric units

Labeled weight MAV Labeled weight grams MAV

Pounds or ounces Decimalpounds

Fractional ounces grams

up to and including

0.09 lb up to and including

1.40 oz 9% of

labeled weight

up to and

including 40 g 9% of

labeled weight

0.09 +

b toc 0.17 lb 1.40+ to 2.70 oz

0.008 1/8 40+ to 75 g 4

0.17+ to 0.32 lb 2.70+ to 5.10 oz

0.012 3/16 75+ to 150 g 5

0.32+ to 0.47 lb 5.10+ to 7.50 oz0.016 1/4 150+ to 200 g 7

0.47+ to 0.72 lb 7.50+ to 11.5 oz

0.020 5/16 200+ to 300 g 9

A . * „ A A1 ll~ 0.72+ to 0.91 lb 11.5+ to 14.6 oz

0.024 3/8 *^AA i * ~ A AA 300+ to 400 g10

0.91+ to 1.18 lb 14.6+ to 18.9 oz

0.028 7/16 400+ to 550 g 12

1.18+ to 1.62 1b 0.032 1/2 550+ to 750 g 14 1.62+ to 2.30 lb 0.038 9/16 750+ to 1000 g 18 2.30+ to 2.90 lb 0.046 3/4 1000+ to 1300 g 22

2.90+ to 3.60 lb 0.054 7/8 1300+ to 1600 g 26

3.60+ to 4.20 lb 0.064 1 1600+ to 2000 g 30

4.20+ lb 1.5% of label weight 2000 g + 1.5% of label weight

aApplies only to shortages in package weight (that is, the MAV is compared with minus package errors only)

b0.08+ means "greater than 0.08"

c"to" means "to and including"

117
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table 2-9. MAVs for an individual package labeled by volumeLiquid or Dry."

Inch-Pound Metric

Labeled Volume

fl oz MAV

fl oz Labeled Volume

cubic inches MAV

cu in Labeled Vol

milliliters MAVmL

Up to & incl 1.40 fl oz 9% of

label vol" up to and incl 2.5 cu in 9% of

label vol Up to and incl 40 mL

9% of

label vol"

1.40 +

d toe 2.70 fl oz 0.13 2.5+ to 4.9 cu in 0.23 40+ to 75 mL 4

2.70+ to 5.10 fl oz 0.17 4.9+ to 9.2 cu in 0.34 75+ to 150 mL 5 5.10+ to 7.50 fl oz 0.23 9.2+ to 13.5 cu in 0.45 150+ to 200 mL 6 7.50+ to 11.5 fl oz 0.30 13.5+ to 20.7 cu in 0.56 200+ to 320 mL 8 11.5+ to 14.6 fl oz 0.34 20.7+ to 26.3 cu in 0.68 320+ to 420 mL 10 14.6+ to 18.9 fl oz 0.40 26.3+ to 34.0 cu in 0.80 420+ to 540 mL 12 18.9+ to 25.9 fl oz 0.48 34.0+ to 46.6 cu in 0.90 540+ to 750 mL 14 25.9+ to 36.8 fl oz 0.60 46.6+ to 66.2 cu in 1.1 750+ to 1050 mL 17 36.8+ to 46.4 fl oz 0.75 66.2+ to 83.5 cu in 1.3 1050+ to 1320 mL 22

46.4+ to 57.6 fl oz 0.83 83.5+ to 104 cu in 1.5 1320+ to 1650 mL 28 57.6+ to 67.2 fl oz 1.00 104+ to 120 cu in 1.8 1650+ to 2000 mL 30

over 67.2 fl oz 1.5% of

label vol over 120 1.5% of

label vol over 2000 mL 1.5% of

label vol

"Applies to shortages in package volume (that is, minus package errors).

b Use laboratory glassware. TJse laboratory glassware.

d0.50+ means "greater than 0.50."

e"to" means "to and including."

118
Laws and Regulations Committee

Comparison of H133 MAV's with NY proposal

and EEC limits for lower labeled weights

~ 0.10

-0 D— -J133 MAVs

>4YMAV EC package Um •—

J

1

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 Labeled weight (lbs) Figure 2

Comparison of H133 MAV's with NY proposal

and EEC limits for larger labeled weights

2

2 i

1B— H133MAV

•— NYMAV — EEC package limits /

/

/

/

0 20 40 60 80 100 Labeled weight (lbs) Figure 3

119
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table 3-1. Recommended maximum units of measure to be used in recording package weights. Avoirdupois Metric units

Labeled weight Units of measure

(oz avoir) (lb)

Labeled weight

(g or kg)

Units of measure

(g) Up to and including 0.09 lb Up to and including 1.4 oz

a a Up to and including 40 g a

0.09+ to 0.47 lb 1.4+ lO I.J OZ l/32b 0.002

b 40+ to 200 g

0.001

b

0.47+ to 2.3 lb 7.5+ to 36.8 oz

1/16 0.005 200+ to 1 kg 0.002

2.3+ to 5.3 lb 36.8+ to 85 oz

1/8 0.01 1+ to 2.6 kg 0.005

5.3+ to 13.3 lb 1/4 0.02 2.6+ to 5.3 kg 0.01 13.3+ to 26.6 lb 1 0.05 5.3+ to 13.3 kg 0.02 26.6+ to 54 lb 2 0.1 13.3+ to 26.6 kg 0.05 54+ to 120 lb 4 0.2 26.6+ to 53.3 kg 0.1 120+ lb 8 0.5 53.3 kg + 0.2

aAn analytical or other high accuracy balance will be necessary for weighing packages in this category. The equal-arm package scale must be used as null-indicator for packages labeled from 1.92 to 5.44 oz or 82 to 250 g to eliminate effects of possible tower errors.

120
Laws and Regulations Committee

Table 4-2. Recommended maximum units of measure to be used for recording the weights of packaged goods labeled by liquid volume.

Inch-Pound Metric

Labeled volume

fl oz or gal Units of measure(oz avoir) (lb) Labeled volume mL or L

Units of measure

(g) Up to and including 4.50 fl oz a a Up to and including 130 mL a —

4.5+ to 14.0 fl oz l/32b 0.002b 130+ to 420 mL l

b

14.0+ to 44.0 fl oz 1/16 0.005 420+ mL to 1.25 L 2

44.0+ to 100 fl oz 1/8 0.01 1.25+ to 2.90 L 5 100+ to 200 fl oz

0.78+ to 1.56 gal 1/4 0.02 2.90+ to 5.80 L 10

1.56+ to 6.25 gal 1 0.05 5.80+ to 23.8 L 20

6.25 gal + 2 0.1 23.8 L + 50 "Use analytical or other high accuracy balance.

bUse package checking scale as null indicator.

240- IB VC 2.9. Individual Packages

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

Part of the discussion at the Interim Meeting centered around individual packages with shortages that exceed

the MAV but which don't fail the entire lot. Per Handbook 133 (Third Edition), in order for a lot to pass Category B sampling plans, a sample may contain no packages with shortages that exceed the MAV: if any are found, the entire lot is out of compliance. Handbook 133, Category A sampling plans permit some packages to exceed the MAV, but the language is vague as to handling these individual packages. In the New York proposal

presented in Item 240- 1A, more packages are permitted with shortages beyond the MAV without failing the

entire lot. The Committee discussed this issue in open session at the Interim Meeting and believes it necessary

to clarify what is appropriate action on packages that exceed the MAV's in Handbook 133. It was the consensus

of those enforcement officials at the meeting that no fines or other penalties should be levied for individual packages that are short weight or measure by more than the MAV; the packages should be called off-sale. The

proposal follows:

2.9. Individual Packages

In Eve n whe n a lot complyingtes with the package requirements as determined by either a Category A or B sampling plan, individual packages in the sample might be short weight or measure from the labeled quantity by more than the MAV from the labeled quan tity. However, any i ndiv idual package These are called "defective" packages. Enforcement action should be taken on the entire lot if the number of defective packages is greater than the allowed number in Category A (Table 2-2) or Category B

(Table 2-5). that i s s h ort by more than th e MAV from the labe l ed quantity is considered

defective. No fines or other penalties should be levied for defective packages, if the

121
Laws and Regulations Committee

number of such packages is less than the number that would require the lot to be

rejected. Defective packages should be ordered off-sale. Defective packages should not

be reintroduced into commerce.

Disposition of such packages may be recorded on the report forms on pages A-l or A2, under "Comments."

232-7B VC 4.16. Fresh Oysters Labeled by Fluid Volume

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) See the discussion on Item 232-7A concerning the sale of fresh shucked oysters by drained weight for the background on this item. Since fresh oysters must be labeled by fluid volume, the only way to control the amount of water that is packed with the oysters is to limit the amount of free liquid. Section 1.5.3.3 of the UMSCR sets a limit of 15% free liquid by weight. Thus, the testing official must test the capacity and fill of the container in which fresh shucked oysters are sold to determine that the volume declaration has been met, and must also weigh the amount of oysters and the amount of free liquid after draining the oysters to determine that the 15% limit has not been exceeded. This test method was published in the Report of the 73rd NCWM, 1988, and is reprinted in Appendix B. The Committee recommends its adoption as Section 4.16. in Handbook 133.

240-2 I 4.12. Mulch/Test Measure

This was Item 240-3C in the Report of the 73rd NCWM, 1988 (page 174). Based upon product measurement

tests conducted by the National Bark and Soil Producers Association (NBSPA) for various forms of mulch, the industry requested revision of the test procedure to replace the 3- or 4-foot-high test measure with a 1-cubic- foot measure. The justification was to better approximate the intended consumer use of mulch products (recommended mulch thicknesses of 4 to 6 inches, for example) and the industry packaging procedures (a depth

of 9 to 10 inches of material is conveyed by belt into the packages). The NBSPA believes that this change will eliminate the volume compression that results from using the 3-foot-high test measure as compared with the 1- foot-high test measure on 2-cubic-foot and larger sized packages. Data submitted by the NBSPA shows that the quantity determined when using a 1-cubic-foot test measure on 3-cubic-foot packages of bark is greater than

that determined when using a 3-cubic-foot test measure. The Committee asked volunteers to intercompare the differences in testing time and results. Data was analyzed for 28 lots of packaged mulch: hardwood, pine bark (shredded and nuggets), and cypress. Figures 4 and 5 show the results for these lots. Nine of the 28 lots (or 32%) failed to average the labeled volume when using either the 1-cu-ft or the 3-cu-ft test measure. Eighteen of the 28 lots (or 64%) averaged at or above the labeled volume using either the 1-cu-ft or the 3-cu-ft test measure (see Figure 4). Only one of the 28 lots would have passed using a 1-cu-ft test measure but failed using a 3-cu-ft test measure. Whether the tests were conducted at retail or at the bagging plant did not affect the results in net contents compliance. Only one of the 28 lots was found to have the same average error using either the 3-cu-ft measure or the 1-cuft measure. Nine lots (or 32%) gave greater results with a 3-cu-ft measure than with a 1-cu-ft measure (see Figure 5), but a majority of lots, (18 or 64%) indicated larger volumes when using the 1-cu-ft measure than with

the 3-cu-ft measure. The 3-cu-ft measure probably yielded larger volumes than the 1-cu-ft measure when large pieces of bark wedged in the corners of the test measure. The inspector was more aware of this "wedging" problem with the 1-cu-ft measure.

It took much less time to use the 3-cu-ft test measure than the 1-cu-ft measure. Out of 21 tests using two

inspectors, times to measure one bag in a 3-cu-ft measure ranged from 0.87 min (52 sec) to 1.95 min (117 sec); times for the 1-cu-ft measure ranged from 1.73 min (104 sec) to 5.17 min. The multiple dumps into a 1-cu-ft measure take considerably longer and cause housekeeping problems (cleaning up loose material). The NBSPA believs that the 1 cubic foot measure should be the standard. One might argue that a test measure

only 6 inches high would be more appropriate with respect to the recommended mulch thickness. However, the industry appears to be going to a 2-cubic-foot package; this negates much of the argument about compaction in a 3-foot-high measure. There is less compaction in a 2-foot-high column.

122
Laws and Regulations Committee

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Average Error in Cubic Inches Mulch Test Results jjgii^illiiiii

3cuft leu ft

Figure 4

400

w 300 3m

21 *

•m30: -

t

0

Mulch Test Results

Most of the data points

are above the zero line. This means most of the

1 cu ft test results give higher average package volumes than

those using 3-cu-ft

test measures.

3

'El 0

3

IB

3

3

CD a B

E

-600 -400 -200 0 200 400 600

3-cu-ft test results (average error in cubic inches)

Figure 5

123
Laws and Regulations Committee

The Committee is convinced that the cost of switching to a 1-cu-ft measure far outweighs the benefits. The

additional time to test the packages is most significant. Weights and measures officials said that the additional time and clean-up necessary when using a 1-cubic-foot measure made fewer tests possible in a given work day. As can be noted from the data, 32% of the lots tested failed to comply with the net volume requirements; this means weights and measures officials should be testing more of this product, not less. If all packers are now

using the 3-cu-ft measure to calibrate their filling machines, there should not be any significant problem. In fact, the packaging industry would share the same problems experienced by the testing official with the 1-cu-ft measure. One weights and measures official said "It's difficult enough to get [industry] to make checks in a three

cu. ft. test measure." Therefore, the Committee recommends no change to the test measure for package testing mulch.

240-4 I Polyethylene/Test Methods for Bags

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) This carry-over item was Item 240-4C in the Report of the 73rd NCWM, 1988. The Committee was asked to recommend test procedures for use by the industry when declaring the capacity of bags and by weights and measures officials when test the capacity, since a capacity statement is required. (See the Uniform Regulation

for the Method of Sale of Commodities, Sections 2.12.2.2. and 2.12.2.3. and the Uniform Packaging and Labeling

Regulation, Section 10.8.2.) The Committee was provided a draft test procedure by an industry representative. This procedure is very

straightforward and measures the usable capacity of a bag by determining how much vermiculite (a very light particulate material) a large bag will hold and how much water a small bag will hold. The Committee planned

to recommend that these test methods be incorporated into Handbook 133 for bag capacity. Several comments

were received before the Annual Meeting that vermiculite is a test product that should be improved upon; it is dangerous to the inspector unless he/she wears a dust mask (recommended in the test procedure) and it breaks up too much in use and does not reliably hold its volume. In addition, the method tests for tie-off volume only;

it does not test the capacity of bags labeled "fits x-gallon can." Therefore, the Committee recommends carrying

this item over. The methods are printed in Appendix C.

240-5A I Moisture Loss for Ice-Packed Poultry and Other Meat and

Poultry Items

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) The Task Force on Commodity Requirements completed its work at the 73rd Annual Meeting. Ongoing efforts to refine test methods and define specific approaches for different commodities subject to moisture loss were

left to the Laws and Regulations Committee and the Liaison Committee. The Task Force recommended that the Committee take up the issue of moisture-loss for ice-packed poultry shipped in bulk for repackaging by retail stores. Weights and measures agencies have repeatedly found gross shortages in bulk shipments of ice-packed

poultry and have been frustrated in their efforts to decrease the occurrences of shortages. The Task Force was

unable within the time allotted to it to design a data collection study that would shed light on the amounts of shortages that are caused by the loss of moisture during shipping. The U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA),

Food Safety and Inspection Service, has volunteered its help in collecting the necessary data. It may not be

possible to simulate the unused tare weights in order to accommodate moisture loss and determine the net weights as in the case of retail consumer sized packages. USDA has also proposed five more product categories (in addition to ice-packed poultry) for which to determine

gray areas: (1) cured pork products (hams, shoulders, loins, and picnics); (2) cured beef products (corned beef, corned beef brisket, and tongues); (3) raw meat products (chopped beef, ground beef, hamburger, and beef

patties); (4) ham patties, chopped ham, pressed ham, spiced ham and similar products; and (5) meat and poultry products that are cooked in vacuum packaging. Again, USDA has volunteered to obtain data for moisture loss by tracking product from selected Federal establishments. This recommendation and offer of assistance from USDA is evidence of the strong commitment USDA has to improve net weight compliance procedures and

achieve uniformity in net weight compliance test results. The Committee will communicate with USDA, the American Meat Institute, and with the National Broiler Council to plan the next steps in achieving the above

objectives.

124
Laws and Regulations Committee

240-5B I Moisture Loss for Pet Foods

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) Representatives of the Pet Food Institute met with the L&R Committee and the Liaison Committee at the Interim Meetings to express their interest in proposing moisture loss procedures for dry pet food using the guidelines adopted by the Conference at the 73rd Annual Meeting and published in NCWM Publication 3, "Policy, Interpretations, and Guidelines." The Pet Food Institute provided information concerning their dry pet food products, which are composed

principally of ground grains (cereal grains and soybean products) with other ingredients added. Their moisture

content typically ranges from 7 to 12% at the time of pack. They are packaged in paper or materials with

greater moisture barriers that retard the speed of moisture loss, but not the final moisture content, which is 6

to 7% at the lowest. The members of the Pet Food Institute manufacture 95% of the pet food in the U.S. Dry pet food products account for 54% of all retail pet food sales. Pet food ranked number 2 in the top 10 dry grocery food product groups in dollar sales in 1987. The association will prepare its recommended test methods and propose them at a future meeting of the Conference. The Liaison Committee will then invite the Food and Drug Administration to work with the weights and measures community to determine the viability of their proposal.

240-5C I Moisture Loss for Pasta

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) Representatives from the National Pasta Association met with the Liaison and L&R Committees at the Interim Meetings to express their interest in proposing moisture loss procedures using the guidelines adopted by the Conference at the 73rd Annual Meeting and published in NCWM Publication 3, "Policy, Interpretations, and

Guidelines." The membership of the National Pasta Association manufactures 80% of the pasta sold in the U.S. There are now only five major domestic manufacturers. Imported pasta constitutes 8% of the U.S. pasta market. All pasta

is comprised of the same ingredients (semolina - or durum wheat - and water) and derives its name (spaghetti,

rigatoni, etc.) from the final shape. Pasta is packaged either in paperboard boxes, in which the product takes 2 to 3 months to dry to its final moisture content, or in flexible bags, which lose moisture more slowly. All U.S. manufacturers make moisture tests on the final product at least every 2 hours when the packaging line is running

just before product is packaged. The Association reported that it had submitted a moisture loss study to the Food and Drug Administration several years ago when FDA solicited information from industry concerning

appropriate moisture loss allowances. They provided this same information to the L&R and Liaison Committees. It is available upon request. The Association will submit its proposed test methods in the future. This meeting was intended to familiarize the weights and measures regulatory officials with the product and in- plant controls used in the industry.

Kendrick J. Simila, Oregon, Chairman

Fred Clem, Columbus, Ohio (appointed to Mr. Rosenthal's remaining term)

Sidney A. Colbrook, Illinois Allan M. Nelson, Connecticut

Stuart Rosenthal, New York (resigned before the Annual Meeting)

N. David Smith, North Carolina

Carroll S. Brickenkamp, NIST, Technical Advisor Committee on Laws and Regulations

125
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix A

PROPOSED REVISION OF UNIFORM WEIGHMASTER LAW

SECTION 1. PURPOSE

This Act licenses and regulates public weighmasters in order to ensure accurate measurements by disinterested

third parties to a transaction.

SECTION 2. SCOPE

This Act establishes a registration, licensing, and enforcement program: provides authority for license fee

collection: and empowers the state to promulgate regulations as needed to carry out the provisions of the Act.

It provides for optional or voluntary licensing when the employing organization or other organizations require

it as part of the condition for employment. It also provides for civil and criminal penalties.

SECTION *-3. DEFINITIONS. When used in this Act:

3.1. PUBLIC WEIGHING means the weighing, measuring, or counting, upon request, of vehicles, property, produce, commodities, or articles other than those that the weigher or his/her employer, if any, is either buying or selling.

3.2. PUBLIC WEIGHMASTER means any person who shall perform public weighing as defined in 3_L hi LICENSED PUBLIC WEIGIIMASTER - The term "licensed public wcighmastcr" shall mean

and refer to a natural person licensed under the provisions of this Aet. h2 33. VEHICLE - The term "vehicle" shall means any device except railroad freight cars in, upon,

or by which any property, produce, commodity, or article is or may be transported or drawn. h3 3A. DIRECTOR The term "director" means the _____ of the Department of .

.

SECTION 2-4. ENFORCING OFFICER: RULES AND REGULATIONS

The director is authorized to enforce the provisions of this Act and shall issue from time to time reasonable

regulations for the enforcement of this Act, which regulations shall have the force and effect of law. The

director may adopt rules that include, but are not limited to. determining the qualifications of the applicant for a license as a public weighmaster: renewal or refusal of a license: period of license validity: measurement practices that must be followed, including the measurement or recording of tare: the required information to be

submitted with or as part of a certificate: the period of recordkeeping.

126
Laws and Regulations Committee

SECTION 3-5. QUALIFICATIONS FOR WEIGHMASTER

A citizen of the United States or a person who has declared his or her intention of becoming such a citizen, who

is a resident of the State of . not less than 21 years of age, of good moral character, who has the

ability to weigh or measure accurately, and to make correct weight certificates, possesses such other qualifications

as required by regulation, and who has received from the director a license as a licensed public weighmaster,

shall be styled and authorized to act as a licensed public weighmaster.

SECTION 4-6. LICENSE APPLICATION An application for a license as a licensed public weighmaster shall be made upon a form provided by the director and the application shall furnish evidence that the applicant has the qualifications required by Section 3 5 of this Act and regulations promulgated under the Act .

SECTION 5 7. EVALUATION OF QUALIFICATIONS OF

APPLICANTS: RECORDS

The di r ector may adopt r ules for deter mining the qualifications of the applicant for a license as a licensed public wei ghmaster. The director may pass upon the qualifications of the applicant upon the basis of the information

supplied in the application, and such other supplementary information as may be required, may examine such

applicant orally or in writ i ng, or both, for the purpose of determining his or her qualifications. The director shall grant licenses as licensed public weighmasters to such applicants as may be found to possess the qualifications required by Section 3 5 of this Act. The director shall keep a record of all such applications and of all licenses issued thereon.

SECTION 6 8. LICENSE FEES

The director shall have the authority to set fees for the administration of the licensing program. Before the issuance of any license as a lice nsed public weighmaster, or any renewal thereof, the applicant shall pay to the

director a fee of $ for the purposes of administering and effectively enforcing the provisions of this Act . Such fees shall be deposited with the State Treasure r to be cr edi ted to a fund to be used by the director for the admini st r at i on of this Act. SECTION 7 LIMITED LICENSES

The director may, upon request a n d without charge, issue a limited license as a l i censed public weighmaster to any

qualified officer or employe of a city or county of this State or of a State commission, board, institution, or agency, authorizing such officer or emp

loyee to act as a licensed publi c weighmaster only within the scope of

his official employment in the ease of an offiec r or emp

loyee of a city or county or only for and on behalf of

the State commission, boar d, inst i tution, or agency in the case of an officer or employee thereof.

SECTION 8 9. LICENSES: PERIOD, RENEWAL

Each license as l i censed public weighmaster shall be issued for a period to expire as established by the director. on the thir tyfi r st day of December of the calendar yea r for which it is issued: Provided, That any such license

shall be valid th r ough the thirtyfi rst day of Jan uary of the next e nsui ng calendar year or until issuance of the

r enewal license, whichever event fi rst occurs, if the holder thereof shall have filed a renewal application with the

director on or befor e the fifteenth day of December of the year for which the current l i cense was issued: And

provided fu r ther, That any license issued on or afte r the effective date of th i s Act and on or before the thirty-first day of December 19_, shall be issued to expi re on the thi r tyfi r st day of December of the next ensuing calendar year . Renewal applications shall be in such for m as the di rector shall p

r escr ibe.

127
Laws and Regulations Committee

SECTION 9. LICENSED WEIGHMASTER: OATH, SEAL

Each licensed public wcighmastcr shall, before entering upon his or her duties, make oath to cxeeutc faithfully his or her duties. The issuance of a license as l i censed public wcighmastcr shall not obligate the State to pay

to the licensee any compensation for his or her services as a licensed public wcighmastcr . Each l icensed public wcighmastcr shall, at his or her own exp

ense, provide himself or herself with an impression seal. I lis or her name and the word(s) (insert name of State) shall be inscribed around the outer margin of the seal and the words "licensed public wcighmastcr

" shall appear in the center thereof. The seal shall be impressed upon each

weight certificate i ssued by a licensed public wcighmastcr. SECTION 10. WEIGHT CERTIFICATE: REQUIRED ENTRIES

The director shall prescribe the form of weight certificate to be used by a licensed public weighmaster. The

weight certificate shall may include, but is not limited to. the following information:

(a) The name and license number of the public weighmaster

(b) The kind of commodity weighed, measured or counted

(c) The name of the owner, agent or consignee of the commodity

(d) The name of the recipient of the commodity, if applicable

(e) The date the certificate is issued (0 The consecutive number of the certificate (g^ The identification, including the identification number, if any, of the carrier transporting the commodity, and the identification number or license number of the vehicle

(h) Such other information as may be necessary to distinguish or identify the commodity from a like kind.

(i) The number of units of the commodity, if applicable

{j} The measure of the commodity, if applicable

(k) The weight of the commodity and the vehicle or container (if applicable) broken down as follows:

(1) The gross weight of the commodity and the vehicle or container thereof:

(2) The tare weight of the unladened vehicle or container: or

(3) Both the gross and tare weight and the resultant net weight of the commodity

(1) Signature of public weighmaster who determined the weight, measure, or count.

state the date of issuance, the kind of proper ty, produce, commodity, or article weighed, the name of the declared owner or agent of the owner or of the consi gnee of the material weighed, the accurate weight of the material weighed, the means by which the material was being t r anspor ted at the time it was weighed, and such

other available information as may be necessary to disti nguish or identify the property, produce, commodity, or article from others of like kind. Such weight certificate, when so made and propcily signed and sealed, shall be prima facie evidence of the accuracy of the weights measurements shown.

SECTION 11. WEIGHT CERTIFICATE: EXECUTION, REQUIREMENTS

A licensed public weighmaster shall not enter on a weight certificate issued by him or her any weight measurement values but such as he or she has personally determined, and shall make no entries on a weight certificate issued by some other person. A weight certificate shall be so prepared as to show clearly that weight or weights measurements were actually determined.

If the certificate form provides for the entry of gross, tare, and net weights, in any case in which only the gross, the tare, or the net weight is determined by the weighmaster, he or she shall strike through or otherwise cancel

the printed entries for the weights not determined or computed. If gross and tare weights are shown on a weight

certificate and both of these were not determined on the same scale and on the day for which the certificate is dated, the weighmaster shall identify on the certificate the scale used for determining each such weight and the date of each such determination.

128
Laws and Regulations Committee

SECTION 12. SCALE MEASUREMENT PRACTICES & EQUIPMENT USED: TYPE, TEST

When making a weight determination measurement as provided for by this Act, a lice nsed public weighmaster

shall use measurement practices and equipment in accordance with a weighing device that is of a type, all re- quirements of the latest edition of Handbook 44. "Specifications, Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements

for Weighing and Measuring Devices." suitable for the weighing of the amount and kind of material to be weighed and, that has been All measuring equipment must be examined, tested and approved for use by a weights and measures officer of this State, within a period of 12 months immediately preceding the date of the weighing.

SECTION 13. SCALE USED: CAPACITY, PLATFORM SIZE, ONE-DRAFT WEIGHING

A licensed public weighmaster shall not weigh a vehicle, or combination of vehicles, when part of the vehicle or connected combination, is not resting fully, completely, and as one entire unit on the scale, use any scale to weigh

a load the value of whi ch exceeds the nominal or r ated capacity of the scale. When the gross or tare weight of any vehicle or combination of vehi cles is to be determined, the wei ghi ng shall be performed upon a scale having

a platfor m of sufficient size to accommodate such vehicle or combination of vehicles fully, comp

letely, and as one

e nti re unit. If a combination of vehicles must be broken into se p

ar ate units in order to be weighed as p

rescr ibed

he r e in , each such se par ate unit shall be entirely d i scon nected befor e wei ghing and a se parate weight certificate shall be issued for each such separate unit. When weighing a combination of vehicles that will not rest fully, completely, and as one complete unit on the

scale platform, the combination shall be disconnected and weighed separately. The weights so taken may be combined for the purpose of issuing a single certificate, provided that the certificate indicates that the total represents a combination of single draft weighings.

SECTION 14. COPIES OF WEIGHT CERTIFICATES A licensed public weighmaster shall keep and preserve for the at least one year, or for such longer period as may

be specified in the regulations authorized to be issued for the enforcement of this Act, a legible carbon copy of each weight certificate issued by him or her, which copies shall be open at all reasonable times for inspection by any weights and measures officer of this State.

SECTION 15. RECIPROCAL ACCEPTANCE OF WEIGHT

CERTIFICATES

Whenever in any other State that licenses public weighmasters, there is statutory authority for the recognition and acceptance of the wei ght certificates issued by licensed weighmasters of this State, the director of this State

is authorized to recognize and accept the wei ght certificates of such other State.

SECTION 16. OPTIONAL LICENSING

The following persons shall not be required, but shall be permitted, to obtain licenses as licensed public weighmasters: (1) a law enforcement or weights and measures officer, or other qualified employee of a state,

city, or county agency or institution when acting within the scope of his official duties; (2) a person weighing

property, produce, commodities, or articles that he or his employer, if any, is either buying or selling; and (3) a person weighing property, produce, commodities, or articles in conformity with the requirements of Federal

statutes or the statutes of this State relative to warehousemen or processors.

129
Laws and Regulations Committee

SECTION 17. PROHIBITED ACTS

No pe r son shall assume the title of licensed public wcighmastcr, or any title of similar impor t, perform the duties or acts to be performed by a licensed public wcighmastcr unde r this Aet, hold himself or he r self out as a licensed public wcighmastcr , issue any weight certificate, ticket, memor andum, or statement for whieh a fee is charged, or engage in full- time or part- time business of public weighing, unless he or she holds a valid license as a licensed public wcighmastcr. "Public weighing," as used in this section, shall mean the weighing for any person, upon r equest, of prope r ty, produce, commodities, or articles othe r than those that the weigher or his employer,

if any, is either buying or selling.

It is a prohibited act for anv person to:

(a.) use anv device for certification purposes that does not meet Handbook 44. "Specifications. Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices:"

(b) operate devices in a manner not in accordance with applicable Handbook 44. "Specifications. Tolerances, and Other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices" requirements:

(c) use or have in his possession a device which has been altered to facilitate fraud:

(d) falselv certify anv gross, tare, or net weight or measure required by the Act to be on the

certificate: (e) Any licensed public wcighmastcr who falsifies a weight certificate;

(f) issue a certificate simulating the certificate in the Act:

(g) refuse without cause to weigh or measure anv article or thing which it is his duty to weigh or measure, or refuse to state in anv certificate anything required to be therein:

( h) hinder or obstruct in any wav the director or his authorized agent in the performance of the

director's official duties under this act;

(i) assume the title of public weighmaster. or anv title of similar import, without a valid license:

(j) perform the duties or acts to be performed bv a public weighmaster without a valid license: (k) hold himself or herself out as a public weighmaster without a valid license:

(T) issue anv certificate, ticket, memorandum, or statement for which a fee is charged without a valid license: (m) engage in full-time or part-time business of measuring for hire without a valid license: (n) who delegates his authority to any person not licensed as a licensed public weighmaster; who

prcseals a weight certificate wi th his official seal befor e perfor ming the aet of weighing,

(o) request a public weighmaster to weigh, measure, or count anv vehicle, property, produce. commodity, or article falselv or incorrectly:

(p) request a false or incorrect certificate: (q) violate any provision of this Act or anv regulations promulgated under it: (r) \iolate anv provision of this Act or anv regulation promulgated under this Act for which a

specific penalty has not been prescribed. SECTION 18. SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF LICENSE

The director is authorized to suspend or revoke the license of any licensed public weighmaster (1) when he or she is satisfied, after a hearing upon 10 days' notice to the licensee, that the said licensee has violated any

pro%ision of this Act or of any valid regulation of the director affecting licensed public weighmasters, or (2) when

a licensed public weighmaster has been convicted in any court of competent jurisdiction of violating any provision of this Act or of any regulation issued under authority of this Act, or ( 3) convicted of anv felony.

SECTION 19 . OITENSES AND CIVIL PENALTIES

Anv person who bv him /herself, bv his/her servant or agent, or as the servant or agent of another person commits any of the acts enumerated in Section l 7 may be subject to a civil penalty.

19.1. Civil Action. A civil action mav be brought bv the Director in anv court of competent jurisdiction

to recover a civil penalty of

(a) not less than $ nor more than $ for a first violation.

130
Laws and Regulations Committee

(b) not less than $ nor more than $ for a second violation within two years from the date of

the first violation, and

(c) not less than $ nor more than $ for a third violation within two years from the date of

the first violation.

19.2. Administrative Hearing. The Director or his/her designee shall be authorized to conduct an

administrative hearing and, upon notice and an opportunity to be heard, may assess a civil penalty oL

(a) not less than $ nor more than $ for a first violation,

(b) not less than $ nor more than $ for a second violation within two years from the date

of the first violation, and

(c) not less than $ nor more than $ for a third violation within two years from the date of

the first violation upon a finding of a violation of any provision of this Act. The final decision of the Director shall be subject to appropriate judicial review. Any civil penalty collected under this Act shall be transmitted to the state treasurer, who shall credit the same to the fund- Any person who requests a l i ce nsed publi c wcighmastcr to weigh any p

roper ty, produce, commodity, or ar ticle falsely or incorrectly, or who requests a false or incorrect weight certificate, or any person who issued a weight

certificate simulating the wei ght cer tificate prescribed in this Act and who i s not a licensed publi c wcighmastcr,

shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction for the fi rst offense shall be punished by a fine in any sum

not less than twenty- five dollars or more than one hundr ed dollars ; and upon a second or subsequent conviction such person shall be punished by a fine in any sum not less than one hundred dollars or more than five hundr ed

dollar s, or by imprisonment for not less than thirty days or mor e than ninety days, or by both such fine and i m- prisonment.

SECTION 20. OFFENSES AND CRIMINAL PENALTIES: MALFEASANCE

Any licensed public wcighmastcr who falsifies a weight ce r tificate, or who delegates his author ity to any per son

not licensed as a licensed public wcighmastcr, or who prcscals a weight certificate with his official seal before perfor ming the act of wei ghing, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be punished by a fine

in any sum not less than fifty dollars or more than five hundred dollars, or by imprisonment for not less than

thir ty days or more than ninety days, or by both such fine and im prisonment.

20.1. Misdemeanor. Any person who by him/herself by his/her servant or agent, or as the servant or agent of another person commits any of the acts enumerated in Section 17 or violates any other

provision of this act shall r equests a licensed public wcighmastcr to weigh any prope rty, produce, commodity, or article falsely or incorrectly, or who r equests a false or incorrect weight certificate, or any per son who issued a wei ght certificate simulating the wei ght certificate prescr ibed in this Act and who is not a licensed public wcighmastcr, shall be guilty of a Class misdemeanor and upon

conviction shall be punished by a fine in any sum not less than % nor more than $ fifty dollars $ or more than five hundr ed dollars or by imprisonment for not less than nor more than thir ty days or mor e than n inety days, or by both such fine and imprisonment.

20.2. Felony. Any person who by him/herself by his/her servant or agent, or as the servant or agent of another person intentionally commits any of the acts enumerated in Section 17 or repeatedly violates any other provision of this act shall be guilty of a Class felony and upon conviction shall be

punished by a fine not less than $ and/or by imprisonment for not less than nor more than

or more than .

131
Laws and Regulations Committee

SECTION 21. OFFENSES AND PENALTIES: GENERAL

Any person who violates any provision of this Act or any rule or regulation promulgated pursuant thereto for which no specific penalty has been provided shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be

punished by a fine in any amount not less than twenty- five dollars or more than one hundred dollars.

SECTION 21. RESTRAINING ORDER AND INJUNCTION

The director is authorized to apply to any court of competent jurisdiction for a restraining order, or a temporary

or permanent injunction restraining any person from violating any provision of this Act.

SECTION 22. VALIDITY OF PROSECUTIONS

Prosecutions for violation of any provision of this Act are declared to be valid and proper notwithstanding the existence of any other valid general or specific Act of this State dealing with matters that may be the same as or similar to those covered by this Act.

SECTION 23. SEPARABILITY PROVISION

If any provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional, or the applicability thereof to any person or circumstance

is held invalid, the constitutionality of the remainder of the Act and the applicability thereof to other persons and

circumstances shall not be affected thereby.

SECTION 24. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING LAWS

All laws and parts of laws contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of this Act, and specifically

, are repealed insofar as they might operate in the future; but as to offenses committed, lia- bilities incurred, and claims now existing thereunder, the existing law shall remain in full force and effect.

SECTION 25. CITATION

This Act may be cited as the "Public Weighmaster Act of

SECTION 26. EFFECTIVE DATE

This Act shall become effective on .

132
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix B

4.16. Fresh Oysters Labeled by Volume

Packaged fresh oysters removed from the shell are required to be labeled by volume, for example, "8 fl oz" or

"1 gallon." In addition, the maximum amount of permitted free liquid is 15% by weight. Testing the quantity

of contents of fresh oysters therefore requires a determination of total volume, total weight of solids and liquid, and the weight of the free liquid only.

Ordinarily, the contents of a package labeled by fluid volume can be poured into an inspector's field flask to determine the fluid volume (with an appropriate correction given for clingage remaining in the package). This

can be done when testing gallon-size containers or larger. However, oysters will not fit through necks of the smaller field flasks. Therefore, the procedure below determines the package net volume by measuring the volume of water delivered to the package container when filled to the same level as the original oyster contents. Determining the amount of free liquid requires draining the oysters and weighing the free liquid drained away. Worksheets are provided with the following method. Equipment

Small-capacity package testing scale Depth gauge

Bubble level Field flasks and graduate No. 8, 8-inch U.S. Standard sieve and receiving pan for small packages; 12-in sieve for 1-gallon containers Rubber spatula Stopwatch

Procedure

Every package in the sample must be opened. The following steps apply to each package:

1. Gross weigh the package. Record the weight on a worksheet.

2. Set the package container on a level surface. Open container. Use depth gauge to determine the

level of fill. Lock depth gauge. Mark location of gauge on the package.

3. Weigh a dry 8-inch or 12-inch receiving pan. Record the weight in box e on the worksheet. Set sieve over receiving pan.

4. Empty contents from package container onto sieve. Do not shake. Tip the sieve slightly to help it drain. Time drain for 2 minutes. Remove sieve with oysters. A mucous is often associated with the

oysters and will not go through the sieve. This is natural. Do not force the mucous through the

sieve.

5. Weigh the receiving pan and liquid. Record the weight in box d. Subtract the weight of the dry

receiving pan from the weight of pan and liquid to obtain the weight of free liquid. Record the weight in box f. Wash and wipe the package container (as necessary) and weigh it dry. Record the weight in box b. This is the tare weight of the package. Subtract the tare weight recorded in box b from the gross weight recorded in box a to obtain the total weight of the oysters and liquid. Record this total weight

in box c.

133
Laws and Regulations Committee

7. Determine percent of free liquid by weight as follows: Percent of free liquid by weight = weight of free liquid x 100

weight of oysters + liquid Record percentage in box g.

8. Set up depth gauge on dry package container exactly as in step 2.

9. Deliver water from flasks and graduate as needed to re-establish the level of fill in step 2. Record

all volumes in part II of the worksheet in boxes h through k. Sum all volumes. This is the actual net volume for that package.4

4Some containers will only hold the declared volume when filled brim full; they may have been designed for ice-cream or similar products, rather than for oysters. If a shortage is found in the net volume (per step 9), determine whether the container being used to package the product will only contain the volume if filled to the brim. Under such circumstance, the package net volumes will all be short measure because the container cannot be filled to the brim with a solid and liquid mixture such as oysters. A minimum head space is needed (space between the liquid level and the lid) in order to get the lid onto the container without losing any liquid.

134
Laws and Regulations Committee

Worksheet for Determining Net Volume of Oysters and

Percent of Free Liquid

I. Amount of Free Liquid

a. Package gross weight

b. Package tare weight

c. Weight of oysters and liquid = a - b =

d. Weight of receiving pan and drained liquid

e. Weight of dry receiving pan

f. Weight of free liquid = d - e =

g. Percentage of free liquid = f_ x 100 =

c

H. Net Volume

Establish the Level of Fill of package containing oysters using depth gage.

Reestablish the Level of Fill using water and depth gage set to same depth as oyster liquid level. Record below the amount(s) of water needed to reestablish liquid level.

h. Flask size

i. Flask size

j. Graduate

k. Graduate

I. TOTAL VOLUME = Sum all volumes recorded above =

135
Laws and Regulations Committee

Appendix C

4.17. Capacity of Plastic Trash and Food Bags and Similar Containers

Safety

1. Review the techniques for proper lifting.

2. Wear a dust mask and filter to avoid breathing the dust from vermiculite. Equipment

For large bags:

1. 2000 raL beaker or other suitable container of known capacity.

2. Vermiculite. Vermiculite is the preferred material for bags because it is a stable, non-combustible, and light- weight material. For small food storage bags:

1. 1000 mL graduated cylinder for measuring water.

2. Water.

3. Jar or box similar in dimensions to bag to support bag while filling it. Procedure:

1. Select one bag from the sample. The bag must be free from holes, cuts, ragged edges, or other

visible defects. For large bags:

4a. Fill the bag to the top with vermiculite.

4b. The bag should be tied off using the tie, drawstring, or other closure provided in the package. The

unused bag length (above the twisted closure that closes the top end) shall be at least 1 in and no more than 3 in. This does not apply to press-to-close, drawstring, or handle-tie closures, which are

to be closed per instructions on the package.

4c. Measure the vermiculite from the bag in 2000 mL portions. The total capacity of the bag is reported

in gallons. To convert mL to gallons, divide the capacity in mL by 3785. For small food storage bags:

4. Fill the graduated cylinder with water, then add water to the bag. If a tie-off is required to close the bag, fasten the closure to the bag before completing the filling operation. If the bag presses to close, close it almost completely before completing the fill.

136
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Final Report of the

Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Ross J. Andersen, Chairman

Metrologist, Bureau of Weights and Measures

State of New York

REFERENCE

KEY NO. 300 Introduction

This is the final report of the Committee on Specifications and Tolerances for the 74th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. This report is based upon its Interim Report (NCWM

Publication 16), the Addendum Sheets at the Annual Meeting, and the actions taken by the membership at the Annual Meeting. Table A identifies the 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 identified in bold face print, as

well as by the suffix "V." Information items are identified by the suffix "I." Withdrawn items are identified by

the suffix "W." Items marked with a "W" generally will be referred back to the regional weights and measures

associations because they either need additional development, analysis, and input, or did not have sufficient support of the Committee to bring them before the NCWM. Any new items were assigned the next number in sequence to maintain a correlation between the Interim Meeting Agenda and the Report. The attached Report contains many recommendations to revise or amend National Bureau of Standards (NBS) Handbook 44, 1989 Edition, "Specifications, Tolerances, and other Technical Requirements for Weighing and Measuring Devices." Proposed revisions to the handbook are shown in bold face print by crossing out what is to be deleted, and underlining what is to be added. Requirements that are proposed to be nonretroactive are

printed in italics. Entirely new paragraphs or sections proposed for addition to the handbook are designated as such and shown in bold face print.l

137
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table A

Index to Reference Key Items

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

310 GENERAL CODE

310-1 VC G-A.6. Nonretroactive Requirements and the Definition for Nonretroactive. 142 310-2 I G-S.l. Identification; Certificate of Conformance Number 143 310-3 w G-S.l. Identification; Year of Manufacture 143 310-4 w G-S.6. Marking, Operational Controls, Indications, and Features 143

310-5 V G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components 144

310-6 V G-T.l. Acceptance Tolerance 146

310-7 w Separate General Code for Scales and Meters 146

310-8 1 Interpretation of G-UR.2.2. and G-UR.3.3. 147 320 SCALES CODE

320-1 I Tare; Point-of-Sale Systems 147 320-2 w Marking Noncommercial Devices 148 320-3 I S.6.8. Weighing Elements and S.6.9. Indicating Elements; Not Permanently Attached 148 320-4 V Location of Marking Information 148

320-5 V T.l. Tolerance Values for Unmarked Scales 149 320-6 I Shut Test tor Wheel-Load Weighers 150

320-7 V Test Notes for Large Capacity Scales 151

jZXJ-o N.3.1. Minimum Test-Weight Load for Railway Track Scales 151 320-9 1 Proposed Test Procedures and Tolerances for Coupled-in-Motion

Railway Track Scales 320-10 VC T.1.9. Railway Track Scales Weighing in Motion 154 320-11 Weighing Individual Railroad Cars for Custody Transfer 155 320-12 V T.N.4.5. Time Dependence 157 320-13 V UR.1.1. Section Requirements - General, Table 7a 157 320-14 V UKJ,6 Approaches 158

320-15 V UR-3.7.1. Weighing Livestock and Definition of Livestock Scale 158

320-16 w Counting Scales 159 320-17 Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism 159 320-18 On-Board Weighing Systems 160 321 BELT CONVEYOR SCALES CODE

321-1 VC S.1.5. Rate of Flow Indicators and Recorders 160

321-2 VC S.1.6. Advancement of Primary Indicating or Recording Elements 161 321-3 VC S.1.8. Power Loss 161 321-4 VC SJ.l. Design of Zero Setting Mechanism 161 321-5 VC N.3.1. Zero-Load Tests 162

321-6 VC N.3.2. Material Tests 162

321-7 VC N33. Simulated Load Tests 163

138
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

321-8 w 1 .3. Reference Standards 163

321-9 vr T.4. Temperature 163 321-10 T

1 UR.2.2.1. For Scales Not Installed by the Manufacturer 164 330 LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES CODE

330-1A V Multi-Tier Pricing 164 330-1A (1) V UR-3. Use of Device; UR.#.#. (b) Computing Device 170

330-1

B

V S.l.6.4. Display of Unit Price and Product Identity 170

330-2 I Meters Used for the Measurement of Hot Oil 172

330-3 I N.4.1.1. Wholesale Devices Equipped with Automatic Temperature-Compensating Systems 172

330-4 V URJ.5.1. Use of Automatic Temperature Compensators 172

330-5 Definitions of Retail and Wholesale Devices 173

331 VEHICLE-TANK METERS CODE

331-1 V S.1.12. Units; Milk Meters 174

331-2 w S. 1.1.3. Value of Smallest Unit 175

331-3 V Code Changes to Permit Mass Flow Meters 176 331-4 w S.2.1. Vapor Elimination 178

331-5 w T.2. Tolerance Values, Split-Compartment Tests 179 332 LIQUEFIED PETROLEUM GAS AND ANHYDROUS AMMONIA

LIQUID-MEASURING DEVICES CODE

332-1 W S.3.1. Diversion of Measured Liquid 179 332-2 W Changes to Recognize On-Board Weighing Systems 179

332-3 W T.2. Tolerance Values 179 332-4 W UR.2.3. Vapor-Return Line 180 333 HYDROCARBON GAS VAPOR-MEASURING DEVICES CODE

333-1 VC S32. Shutoff Valves 180

333-2 I Use of Heat to Vaporize the Liquid LPG 180

333-3 w Recognize Mass Flow Meters 181 335 MILK METERS CODE

335-1 V Mass Flow Meters 181 342 LUBRICATING-OIL BOTTLES CODE

342-1 VC Delete the Entire Code 183 347 BERRY BASKETS AND BOXES CODE

347-1 I Test Procedures For Berry Baskets and Boxes 183

139
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

351 WIRE- AND CORDAGE-MEASURING DEVICES CODE

351-1 VC S.l. Units 184 354 TAXIMETERS CODE

354-1 vc S.7. Long Term Power Interruption, Electronic Taximeters 184 355 TIMING DEVICES CODE

355-1 I Parking Meters; Dropping of Remaining Time lot 355-2 w Computerized Parking Meters 185 356 GRAIN MOISTURE METERS CODE

356-1 vc N.1.1. Transfer Standards 185 356-2 N.1.3. Temperature-Measuring Equipment 186 360 OTHER ITEMS

360-1 Electric Watthour Meter Code 186 360-2 Carbon Dioxide Liquid Meter Code 186 360-3 w Compressed Natural Gas 186 360-4 I OIML Report 187

Order of Presentation The report was presented to the membership as follows:

1. The Consent Calendar was presented. Item 331-1 was requested to be removed from the Consent

Calendar and made a separate voting item. The Consent Calendar was then adopted.

2. The separate voting items were then presented.

3. The report in its entirety was then ratified.

Table B

Voting Results

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

Yes No Yes No

Consent Calendar 46 1 69 0 Passed

310-5 41 2 67 5 Passed

310-6 27 20 54

140

18 Passed
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Table B (Continued)

Voting Results

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

Yes No Yes No

320-4 48 0 71 0 Passed

320-7 46 2 66 0 Passed

320-320-12 43 2 63 3 Passed

320-13 2 44 3 58 Failed 320-14 Motion to table this item. 30 16 38 28 Tabled

320-15 47 0 73 0 Passed

330- 1A Part (b) of UR.3.3. was removed for a separate vote as Item

taken on the remainder of 330- 1A. 36 5 58 3 Passed

330- 1A (1) 14 30 12 55 Failed 330-1B 46 1 60 0 Passed

330-4 44 3 52 7 Passed

331-1 45 1 59 0 Passed

331-3 44 2 64 0 Passed

335-1 44 2 66 0 Passed

Entire Report 48 0 60 0 Passed

141
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Details of all Items

(In the order they appear in Table A)

310 General Code

310-1 VC G-A.6. Nonretroactive Requirements and the Definition for Nonretroactive

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Differences in language in G-A.6. and in the definition of nonretroactive could be confusing. The specific categories of devices to which the nonretroactive requirements apply must be deduced by reading both G-A.6. and the definition. The Committee recommends that G-A.6. be editorially changed to identify those specific devices to which the nonretroactive requirements apply. The Committee emphasizes that the revision does not change the range of devices to which the nonretroactive requirements apply; this is a clarification and combining of G-A.6. and the

definition. The Committee recommends that G-A.6. be amended to read: G-A.6. NONRETROACTIVE REQUIREMENTS. "Nonretroactive" requirements are enforceable after the effective date for: and only with respect to: device s that are manufac- tured in or brought into the State after that date. L devices manufactured within a State after the effective date:

2. both new and used devices brought into a State after the effective date: and

3. devices that have been used in noncommercial applications and are then being 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 areprinted in italic type.) For ease of reference, the Committee recommends that the current definition of "nonretroactive" be eliminated and the information in G-A.6. be repeated in the definition as follows: nonretroactive. "Nonretroactive" requirements are enforceable after the effective date for:

1. devices manufactured within a State after the effective date;

2. both new and used devices brought into a State after the effective date; and

3. devices that have been used in noncommercial applications and are then being 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.)

142
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

310-2 I G-S.l. Identification; Certificate of Conformance Number

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) Two proposals, Items 310-2 and 310-3, were submitted with the objective of requiring that each device be marked with the NTEP (National Type Evaluation Program) Certificate of Conformance number issued to each

device and the year of manufacture of the device. They would also address the need expressed by some weights and measures officials for a marking that clearly distinguishes devices that are designed to comply with Handbook 44 from those that are "not legal for trade." (See item 320-2.) The marking of the NTEP Certificate number would be one way to distinguish among these devices. Weights and measures officials would like to know, at the time of field inspection, whether or not a device has received a Certificate of Conformance. The

Certificate number would inform the weights and measures official and prospective purchasers of devices that

a device has undergone NTEP type evaluation. A rather large number of marking requirements have been added to Handbook 44 since 1985, particularly for scales marked with an accuracy class. The requirements for scales were added to provide both scale

distributors/installers and enforcement officials with the information needed to ensure that (1) a device is properly installed with respect to the number of scale divisions and (2) that the complete scale complies with the influence factor requirements within the parameters for which the scale or its main elements and load cells were

tested. The amount of information under various marking requirements, particularly for scales, has been

questioned. There has been a suggestion that some information could be omitted if the Certificate of Conformance number were marked on the device. The Committee believes that the subject should be reviewed before more marking requirements are adopted. The review should determine if new requirements might eliminate other marking requirements, and if a marking

could clearly identity those devices that are designed to comply with Handbook 44 from those designed only for noncommercial applications. The Technical Committee of the Scale Manufacturers Association is reviewing the requirements and may suggest possible action to the S&T Committee. Consequently, the Committee does not recommend any action on this item.

310-3 W G-S.l. Identification; Year of Manufacture

(This item was withdrawn.)

This proposal would require the year of manufacture to be marked on a device to assist in the proper application

of nonretroactive requirements. It was suggested that the year of manufacture be placed adjacent to the serial number, and that a uniform method of marking the date of manufacture be established, rather than permitting each manufacturer to use an individual company code. Several manufacturers already use date codes and

support the use of different codes. The Committee withdrew this item for the reasons given in Item 310-2.

310-4 W G-S.6. Marking, Operational Controls, Indications, and Features

(This item was withdrawn.)

This was information Item 310-1 in 1988. The suggestion was to change the language of G-S.6. to reflect interpretations that have been applied in type evaluation and to permit the use of some international symbols

(from a draft international document) without defining the symbols in a legend. There has been general support for the change to the language of G-S.6.; however, the responses from the regional associations indicate that this is a low priority item. There has been significant opposition to accepting

the international symbols before the international community has formally accepted them. Consequently, the Committee has withdrawn this item.

143
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

310-5 V G-S.8. Provision for Sealing Electronic Adjustable Components

(This item was adopted.) Expanding the Scope of G-S.8. There appears to be general support by weights and measures officials to expand the scope of G-S.8. to include protection of device operation parameters that may affect the validity of measurements or the proper operation

of selective device features. However, the proposal made in 1988, which required all metrological characteristics to be sealable, was too broad. Several representatives of the scale industry oppose the term "metrological

characteristics" and suggest the term "metrological integrity" in its place. The Committee has incorporated this suggestion into its recommendation; however, this latter term has a very different meaning in the international community. The Committee would prefer a term other than "metrological integrity" to specify the functions, parameters, and features that must be sealed to help ensure the integrity of a transaction. The Committee has

not yet found the specific language to identify those features to be sealed while excluding those for which sealing

is not critical. The primary purpose of a security seal is to provide evidence if someone has had access to the adjustment mechanism of the device since the last inspection or the last authorized adjustment. As discussed in the information item 310-2 in 1988, additional forms of security, specifically, electronic data trails, are available on

electronic devices and provide the same information as (or better information than) a physical security seal. One

possible approach is to require that a device retain in memory the dates for the last several (perhaps 10) adjust- ments and maintain a count of the number of times the calibration mode has been accessed. Another possible form of security is a non-resettable counter of the calibration operations, with or without the dates of adjust- ment. The Committee believes that those features that can affect the validity of a measurement, along with the

selection of the features and methods of operation, should be sealed. Examples of the features to be sealed are

the parameters for the automatic zero-setting mechanism, width of zero, motion detection capability, the

selection of measurement units when the selection is through an internal switch or programming set-up procedure, any adjustment for measurement accuracy, the gallon-to-liter conversion switch on retail motor-fuel

dispensers or consoles, and the selection of the value of the quantity division. The parameters for motion

detection include the settings for digital filtering, the motion detection setting, the display update rate, and the averaging time or number of readings for the display update when they affect the motion detection

characteristics of a scale. Due to the opposition of putting a definition in Handbook 44 listing device features, functions, and operations to be sealed, the Committee is explaining its intent as to the types of characteristics that are to be sealed if the recommended change is adopted by the Conference. Further clarification of the device characteristics to be sealed will have to be provided through the type evaluation process and Technical Committee sectors as the issues arise. Further explanation of the concept of an audit trail is necessary to indicate more clearly what the Committee

thinks is acceptable when device operation can be changed through software. As a minimum:

1. a code or password is needed to access the part of the software that permits changes to the operating parameters, features, and accuracy adjustment;

2. the system must automatically maintain (even during an extended power failure) a count of the number

of times the calibration and parameter selection software has been accessed; and

3. the device must be equipped with a means by which the enforcement official can easily access this information during an inspection of the device.

144
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee recommends that manufacturers include the automatic storage of the date and time during which the software has been accessed and provide for the entry of some identification of the individual who

accessed the software. It is recommended that this information be retained for at least the last 10 entries to the software to provide a history of adjustment and to serve as a basis for determining if the adjustment capability

is being abused. The Committee prefers that devices still be designed to require the breaking of a physical seal

to gain access to a switch that would enable the software calibration and the selection of features and operating parameters. The Scales Code requirement on the provision for sealing is comparable to the General Code requirement, but

it provides an exemption for class I scales. This paragraph should be changed at the same time to provide

consistency. Because the proposal provides for additional methods for sealing, but requires the sealing of more

parameters, the proposed changes for 1989 are to be nonretroactive. To eliminate confusion by retaining both the original nonretroactive requirements in G-S.8. and S.l.ll., the Committee recommends that the current text in G-S.8. of the General Code and S.l.ll. of the Scales Code be

deleted and new text added as follows. G-S.& PROVISION FOR SEALING ELECTRONICADJUSTABLE COMPONENTS

Provision shall be made for appfying a security seal in a manner that requires tlie seal to be broken before an adjustment eon be made to any electronic adjusting mechanism tlxat affects tlxe performance of the device. [Nonretroactive as of January I, 1986. ] A device shall be designed with provision(s) for applying a security seal that must be

broken, or for using other approved means ofproviding security (e.g.. data change audit

trail available at the time of inspection), before any change that affects the metrological

integrity of the device can be made to any electronic mechanism.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1. 1990.]

S. 1. 11. PROVISION FOR SEALING ADJUSTABLE COMPONENTS ON ELECTRONIC

DEVICES.Except on Class I scales, provision shall be madefor applying a security seal in a manner

that requires tlie security seal to be broken before an adjustment can be made to any

component affecting the performance of an electronic device. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, -f979vj Except on Class I scales, a device shall be designed with provision (s) for applying a

security seal that must be broken, orfor using other approved means ofproviding security

(e.g- data change audit trail available at the time of inspection), before any change that affects the metrological integrity of the device can be made to any electronic mechanism.

[Nonretroactive as of January 1. 1990.] Further Review Recommended

Although the Committee recommends that the permitted methods of sealing be expanded to include

electronically stored audit trails, the Committee believes that the justification for requiring a provision for sealing should be reviewed. The continuing trend to placing more device characteristics and selectable features

in software rather than hardware and the increasing use of systems utilizing flexible software raises the question

of whether or not sealing a device provides adequate control of device operation. Manufacturers change

software as problems and requests for specific features arise. It is not realistic to submit every version of software to type evaluation. Although manufacturers appear to submit major revisions to software for evaluation, not all minor revisions are submitted. The inability to seal computers, which are being used in commercial applications in increasing numbers, limits the practical application of the provision for sealing requirement. One example is that the temperature compensating software used in many loading-rack meter

applications cannot be sealed, but it certainly can affect the performance of the metering system. The

Committee recommends that the regional weights and measures associations review the benefits of requiring

145
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

provision for sealing to determine if the concept has become outmoded in view of the increased use of computers and user-accessible software.

310-6 V G-T.l. Acceptance Tolerances

(This item was adopted.) Acceptance tolerances are usually applied to devices undergoing type evaluation. These may be new devices submitted for laboratory evaluation; however, many devices must also undergo field evaluation and field permanence testing. They may have been installed and used for several months before the type evaluation is conducted. In these instances, the manufacturer usually tests and adjusts these devices within acceptance

tolerance prior to the type evaluation testing. These devices have been required to be within acceptance

tolerance throughout the permanence testing for type evaluation. A proposal was received to amend G-T.l. to clearly indicate that acceptance tolerances apply to equipment

undergoing type evaluation. Comments have been received from the industry suggesting that the time during which acceptance tolerances apply during type evaluation be limited to 30 days. The Committee decided against the 30-day limitation because some devices are installed for type evaluations in locations where they receive limited use. In these cases, the NTEP laboratories arrange with the device manufacturer to extend the time

required for the field permanence test to offset the fact that the scale is receiving less than "normal" use. In some cases, the devices are installed at the manufacturer's plant and special arrangements must be made to establish regular use of the device during the permanence test. In other cases, the NTEP representatives are unable to return to a device within a 30-day period. If the second test takes place 35 days after the initial test, a device that is performing properly should not have shifted to the limit of the maintenance tolerance. On the other hand, the Committee appreciates the concern of the industry that acceptance tolerances may continue to be applied for an excessive amount of time after the initial test. If the NTEP representatives are unable to conduct the second set of performance tests within approximately 30 days and prior arrangements have not been made with the manufacturer to extend the test period, then NTEP should use judgement when analyzing the data and apply either acceptance or maintenance tolerances as determined to be appropriate. To specifically recognize that acceptance tolerances are applicable during type evaluations, the Committee recommends that G-T.l. be amended to read: G-T.l. ACCEPTANCE TOLERANCES. - Acceptance tolerances shall apply to as follows;

(a) to-any equipment about to being put into commercial use for the first time;

(b) to equipment that has been placed in commercial service within the preceding 30 days and is being officially tested for the First time;

(c) to 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) to equipment that is being officially tested for the first time within 30 days after major

reconditioning or overhaul; and

(e) equipment undergoing type evaluation.

310-7 W Separate General Code for Scales and Meters

(This item was withdrawn.) A suggestion was made to explore the possibility of simplifying the language of the General Code and avoiding

potential conflicts by splitting the General Code into two separate General Codes, one for weighing devices and one for measuring devices.

146
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee was not convinced that there were enough requirements applicable to scales but not to measuring devices, and vice versa, to justify splitting the General Code. Consequently, the Committee has withdrawn this item.

310-8 I Interpretation of G-UR2.2. and G-UR.3.3.

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) The Committee was requested to review the 1976 interpretation of the application of General Code paragraphs G-UR.2.2. and G-UR.3.3. and to issue an updated interpretation. G-UR.2.2. requires that a device be installed such that "there is no obstruction between a primary indicating or recording element and the weighing or measuring element; otherwise there shall be convenient and permanently

installed means for direct communication, oral or visual, between an individual located at a primary indicating or recording element and an individual located at the weighing or measuring element." The objective of the requirement is to make certain that the weighing or measuring process is proceeding properly. For example, in the case of a vehicle scale, the person at the indicating element must have complete information concerning the

application of the load on the load-receiving element, such as whether or not all of the truck axles are scale- borne and whether or not the driver is on the truck. This requirement applies to BOTH direct and indirect

sales applications; however, G-UR.3.3. must also be satisfied for direct sale applications. In direct sales applications (except for prescription scales), the primary indicating element must be positioned in such a manner

"that its indications may be accurately read and the weighing or measuring operation may be observed from some reasonable customer position." In the case of a vehicle scale, if, in the normal weighing operation, the

driver of a truck does not normally get out of the truck to go to where the primary indication is readily visible to the driver, then a remote customer display must be provided to the truck driver at the weighing element so

that it is visible from a "reasonable customer position."

In summary, G-UR.2.2. applies to both direct and indirect sales; however, satisfying G-UR.2.2. is not sufficient

for direct sale applications; G-UR.3.3. must also be satisfied along with any other Handbook 44 requirements

that apply to the device and its application.

320 Scales Code

320-1 I S.2.3. Tare; Point-of-Sale Systems

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) Two proposals involving tare taken through point-of-sale systems were part of this agenda item. One proposal was to require that the tare taken through a point-of-sale system be recorded on the receipt. The Committee

does not support the recording of tare on the receipt, believing that the information would confuse consumers

and be of very limited benefit. It is unlikely that the customer would be able to verify the accuracy of the tare weight. The recording of tare was introduced several years ago by a manufacturer of point-of-sale systems, but

the feature was dropped on later systems due to customer confusion and the additional paper costs to equipment

owners. The sale of bulk items by net weight is required by the weights and measures law, and Handbook 44

specifies that the net weight be recorded on the receipt. The second proposal suggested that tare is taken for the tare associated with individually wrapped items purchased from bulk. The most efficient method of assuring that tare is taken for both the tare wrapping on

individual items and the bag or container into which the bulk items are placed appears to require point-of-sale systems to take a fixed tare for the container and a percentage tare for the wrapping on individual items. Equipment with this capability does not appear to be available at this time. The Committee recommends that equipment manufacturers design this capability into equipment available for application to this method of sale. Until the equipment problems and the associated requirements of supermarket software used for management

purposes are more fully addressed, the Committee is not willing to propose requiring the fixed and percentage

tare capability on point-of-sale systems. Until further progress is made in this area, the Committee believes that

147
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

jurisdictions should enforce the existing net weight requirements when bulk items are not being sold on the basis of net weight.

320-2 W Marking Noncommercial Devices

(This item was withdrawn.) A proposal was submitted to require that weighing and measuring devices that are not designed to meet Handbook 44 requirements be marked "Not Legal For Trade" or similar statement. This issue is repeatedly submitted to the Committee because noncommercial devices routinely appear in commercial applications. This

is a chronic problem for weights and measures officials. The Committee believes that a requirement to mark noncommercial devices as such would create a major

enforcement problem. Many devices that are not intended for commercial use, such as rulers for school

children, would not be marked "Not Legal For Trade" and would violate the requirement, but they do not now

appear in commercial applications. The weights and measures law was changed recently to make it a violation to sell an incorrect device. The Committee believes that the adoption and enforcement of this portion of the weights and measures law will have a greater impact than requiring a marking on all devices not designed to Handbook 44 requirements. Consequently, the Committee has withdrawn this item.

320-3 I S.6.8. Weighing Elements and S.6.9. Indicating Elements; Not Permanently Attached

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) Additional marking requirements were adopted in 1987 for weighing elements not permanently attached to indicating elements (S.6.8.). To clarify which weighing elements must carry this marking, the Technical Committee on National Type Evaluation - Weighing Industry Sector concluded that any time weighing and

indicating elements can be "mixed and matched," then they should be considered not permanently attached. This

conclusion means that dials and weighbeams are considered not permanently attached to the weighing element. On the other hand, when a weighing element and indicating element share a common enclosure or housing, then

the two are considered to be permanently attached. A definition of "not permanently attached" is needed, but the Committee has no proposal at this time. Some

indicating elements process only digital information received from the weighing element, and their performance

is not affected by temperature. However, it may not be apparent to an enforcement official or user which

indicators have analog-to-digital converters and which process only digital information. The existence of "smart"

printers complicates the situation because it is often not clear what information is processed by the printer and what by the indicating element. Suggestions for a clear definition of "not permanently attached" are encouraged.

320-4 V Location of Marking Information

(This item was adopted.) A proposal was made to permit more flexibility in the location of the marking information required by G-S.l.

as it applies to scales with a capacity of more than 2,000 lb. An exemption from the requirement that the information be "readily observable without the necessity of the disassembly of a part requiring the use of any means separate from the device" was requested. The basis for this proposal was that:

1. the identification information for a pit-type vehicle and floor scale must be marked in a protected area because if it were marked on a surface visible after installation, then the identification information could be destroyed by traffic over the scale; and

148
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

2. since weights and measures officials must do some disassembly to verify that the vmin rating of a load

cell is appropriate for the scale application, then the identification information could be located in a protected area, but still conveniently available to the official when verifying the load cell information. The Committee recognizes that, for floor scales installed such that the platform is the only visible surface of the weighing and load-receiving elements, a junction box under a cover plate is the only realistic location for the marking information. In these cases, the information is in an "easily accessible" location although a tool may be

required to gain access. The Committee does not support an exemption for all large-capacity scales, or even just for vehicle scales, because there usually are readily available places for locating the required information. Permitting all large- capacity scales to have the marking information in an area to which access is achieved only by the use of a tool would make it very difficult for the enforcement official to find the required information since the locations would not be standardized. The Committee recommends that an exemption be written to permit floor scales (whether installed on the floor or in a pit) and all other scales for which the top of the load-receiving element is the only portion of the weighing element and load-receiving element that is visible, to have the marking information in a location that may require the use of a tool. The Committee recommends that the current paragraphs S.6.9. and S.6.10. be renumbered as S.6.10. and S.6.11., respectively, and a new retroactive paragraph S.6.9. be added to read:

S.6.9. LOCATION OF MARKING INFORMATION. - Scales that are not permanently

attached to an indicating element and for which the load-receiving element is the only part of

the weighing/load-receiving element visible after installation, may have the marking

information required in G-S.l. of the General Code and S.6. of the Scales Code located in an

area that is accessible only through the use of a tool provided that the information is easily accessible (e.g., the information may appear on the junction box under an access plate). The

identification information for these scales shall be located on the weighbridge (load-receiving element) near the point where the signal leaves the weighing element or beneath the nearest

access cover.

320-5 I T.l. Tolerance Values for Unmarked Scales

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) The Committee received one request in 1987 and three requests in 1988 to modify T.l.l., T.l. 1.1., T.I.2., and

T.1.3. to simplify the tolerance application to unmarked scales with less than 2,000 and more than 5,000 divisions. The Committee reviewed two proposals and concluded that one, which would have referred only digital scales with less that 2,000 scale divisions to Table 6, would still result in considerable confusion for both service personnel and enforcement officials. The Committee believes that it would be better to substantially simplify the tolerance application for unmarked

scales although it would result in significantly larger tolerances for some scales. Consequently, the Committee recommends that the tolerances for all unmarked scales with 5,000 scale divisions or less, except those with

tolerances specified in T.1.3. through T.l.ll., be the tolerances in Table 6. To further simplify the tolerances and offset some of the increased tolerances for some scales, the Committee recommends that the additional onehalf scale division tolerance given to digital indicating scales as specified in T.l. 1.2. be dropped. The additional

0.5 division tolerance didn't make much difference in the past because the fractions of a division were truncated when the tolerance was applied. The extra tolerance for the decreasing-load test would be retained for scales with more than 5,000 scale divisions. Scales with less than 5,000 scale divisions would lose the 1.5 multiplier for the decreasing-load test; however, the increase in the tolerances resulting from applying Table 6 to these scales would adequately compensate for the elimination of the decreasing-load test multiplier for scales with less than

2,000 divisions. Scales with 2,000 to 5,000 divisions, inclusive, already have the tolerances specified in Table 6

as their tolerances. The minimum tolerance for scales with more than 5,000 divisions is included in the amended

T.1.2. Table 5 would remain in the Scales Code, but it would apply only to postal and parcel post scales (T.I.8.).

149
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Based upon comments received during the Conference, the Committee recommends that this item be changed

to an information item. As the basis for further discussion, the Committee recommends that T.1.2. be amended

to read:

T.1.2. SCALES WITH LESS THAN 2000 SCALE DIVISIONS OR MORE THAN 5000 SCALE

DIVISIONS. - Except for scales specified in paragraphs T.13. through T.l.ll., the maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall be as shown in Table 5 ( next page) 0.1 percent of an applied

test load; the acceptance tolerance shall be 0.05 percent of the applied test load. In any case, the tolerance shall not be less than 0.5 scale division. Paragraphs T.N.2.5., T.N.4.I., T.N.4.2., T.N.43., T.NJ., and T.N.7-2. also apply. The heading for Table 5 would be changed to: Maintenance and Acceptance Tolerances for Postal and Parcel Post Scales The Committee recommends that T.l.1.2. and T.1.13. be deleted. The Committee realizes that this recommendation, if adopted, would significantly increase the tolerances on a number of scales. The Committee has based this recommendation on the belief that many weights and measures

officials are already giving these scales a one-division maintenance tolerance instead of the Table 5 tolerances and that relatively few scales in service will receive the larger tolerances, and that these are used in applications where the effect of the tolerance change will be minor. The larger tolerance may occasionally result in unacceptably large errors in the application. In these instances, the weights and measures officials may have

to apply the suitability of equipment requirements (G-UR.1.1. and Scales Code UR.l.) to control the use of these scales. Examples of scale capacities by scale divisions that will be affected by this change are listed below. 9 x 0.005 lb 24 lb x 1 oz

15 lb x 1 oz

390 x 0.2 lb

2 lb x 1/4 oz

30 lb x 1 oz

6 x 0.01 lb

5 lb x 1 oz

10 lb x 1 oz

1 lb x 1/8 oz 4 lb x 1/4 oz

5 lb x 1/2 oz

18 lb x 1 oz

15 lb x 1/4 oz 20 lb x 1/2 oz

60 lb x 1 oz

320-6 I Shift Test for Wheel-Load Weighers

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) Wheel-load weighers are exempt from the shift test due to the specific language in N.l.3.7. However, wheelload weighers are often subjected to off-center loading during normal use. The proposal is to establish an off- center load test for wheel-load weighers. The justification for the proposal is that the designs of wheel-load weighers today are, in many cases, quite different from the design of the original wheel-load weighers.

It is suggested that the shift test on wheel-load weighers consist of positioning a test load equal to one-half of

the scale capacity a distance of one-fourth the distance from the center to each edge of the wheel-load weigher. The regional weights and measures associations are encouraged to review this proposal for possible adoption in 1990. Additionally, the "footprint" issue must be reviewed because different results have been obtained when

placing weights directly on the weighing element as compared to placing the weights on a rubber pad that is intended to simulate the effects of a tire. It is recommended that the NTEP continue to test wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load scales for off-center loading that is representative of conditions of normal use.

150
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-7 V Test Notes for Large-Capacity Scales

(This item was adopted.) The Note paragraph N.3. was changed in 1988 to make the minimum amount of test weights and test loads mandatory in 1994. The current test methods and test loads for large-capacity scales are thought to be

insufficient for an adequate test. However, when testing a large-capacity scale, it is often more efficient to use

a combination of the substitution and strain-load test methods rather than use the substitution method to test to the used capacity of the scale. The proposed procedures would apply to all types of class III L scales except railway track scales. Due to the

large capacities of railroad track scales and the limited amount of test loads that can be assembled to test railway

track scales, they are to be exempted from the proposed test procedure. The Committee recommends that the following be added as a footnote to Table 4. Except for railway track scales, the recommended** minimum test of a class III L scale shall consist of the following:

1. one test from zero to at least 25% of the scale capacity; and then

2. one strain load test to at least the used capacity of the device. Each test is to be conducted using a known test load of at least 25% of scale capacity. This

test load may be comprised entirely of test weights or a combination of test weights equal to at least 12.5% of scale capacity and a substitution load. Add the following definition for the strain-load test. strain-load test. The test of a scale beginning with the scale under load and applying known

test weights to determine accuracy over a portion of the weighing range. The scale errors for a strain-load test are the errors observed for the known test loads only. The tolerances to be

applied are based on the known test load used for each error that is determined. The Committee recommends that procedures for substitution and strain-load tests along with the tolerance

application be written based upon those contained in NBS Handbook 94 and incorporated into the appropriate examination procedure outlines for those devices.

320-8 I N.3.1. Minimum Test-Weight Load for Railway Track Scales

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) A proposal suggested that a test load of 30,000 lb is insufficient to test a railway track scale. A minimum test load of 60,000 lb was suggested instead. While the Committee agrees that the larger loads would provide a better test, the Committee does not want to make a recommendation that would obsolete some test equipment currently in use. The Committee does not recommend adjusting and certifying a railway track scale using a 30,000 lb of test load; larger test loads should be used. The Committee believes that the minimum test load is only a part of the overall issue; more

comprehensive test procedures must be specified.

151
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-9 I Proposed Test Procedures and Tolerances for Coupled-InMotion Railway Track Scales

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.)

In 1987, the Railroad Advisory Committee submitted recommendations to the S&T Committee for changes in the test procedures and tolerances for coupled-in-motion railway track scales. This was information item 320-

9 in the 1988 Report of the S&T Committee. Overall, the Committee supports the procedures that have been

developed by the Railroad Advisory Committee; however, there were numerous comments from the industry requesting additional time to fully evaluate the proposed procedures. The Committee does not want to rush an issue to a vote if the industry and enforcement officials have not adequately studied the issue. Consequently, the Committee has chosen to keep this as an information item in 1989 with the objective of proposing the test procedures for adoption in 1990. Revisions may be based on comments expected over the next year. The Committee has concerns about "grandfathering" existing scales that are tested using 10 cars passed over the scale 10 times to satisfy the accuracy requirements when the scale is used to weigh much longer trains to determine individual car weights for custody transfer. The Committee will continue to study the proposal over the next year.

It is emphasized that the test procedure using the full-length test train must be conducted only for the initial verification. If the test results show that the use of a shorter train will produce an equally acceptable test result, then the shorter test train may be used for subsequent testing. The proposal includes a subsequent verification

test using 10 cars passed over the scale five times, a reduction in the number of cars needed for subsequent

testing. The test procedures developed by the Railroad Advisory Committee and published in 1987 are repeated below

for additional study. PROPOSED TEST PROCEDURES & TOLERANCES

FOR COUPLED-IN-MOTION RAILWAY TRACK SCALES

Add the following definitions: Test train. A train consisting of cars weighed on a reference scale and used to test coupled- in-motion railway track scales. The test cars may be placed consecutively or distributed in different places within a train. Consecutive-car test train. A train consisting of cars weighed on a reference scale, then coupled consecutively and run over the coupled-in-motion railway track scale under test. Distributed-car test train. A train consisting of cars weighed first on a reference scale, cars coupled consecutively in groups at different locations within the train, then run over the coupled-in-motion railway track scale under test. The groups are typically placed at the front, middle, and rear of the train. Delete the existing N.3.1.1. and renumber the existing N.4. as N.5. Add the following paragraphs:

N.4. COUPLED-IN-MOTION RAILWAY TRACK SCALES

N.4.1. SCALES USED TO WEIGH TRAINS OF LESS THAN 10 CARS.-

(a) These scales shall be tested using a consecutive-car test train consisting of the number of cars weighed in the normal operation.

(b) The test train shall be run over the scale a minimum of five times in each mode of operation

following the final calibration.

152
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

N.4.2. SCALES USED TO WEIGH TRAINS OF 10 OR MORE CARS.-

N.4.2.1. SCALES PLACED IN SERVICE PRIOR TO JANUARY 1, 1990,-Scales placed in service prior to January 1, 1990, shall be tested for initial verification using a consecutive-car

test train of no less than 10 cars run over the scale a minimum of five times.

N.4.2.2. SCALES PLACED IN SERVICE ON OR AFTER JANUARY 1,1990.- These scales

shall be tested in a manner that represents the normal method of operation and length(s) of

trains normally weighed. The scales may be tested using either:

(a) a consecutive-car test train of a length typical of train(s) normally weighed; or

(b) a distributed-car test train of a length typical of train(s) normally weighed.

(c) However, a consecutive-car test train of a shorter length may be used provided that

initial verification test results for the shorter consecutive-car test train agree with the

test results for the distributed-car or full-length consecutive-car test train as specified

in N.3.1.2.1. The testing authority shall be responsible for determining the minimum test train length to be

used on subsequent tests.

N.4.2.2. 1. INITIAL VERIFICATION.- Initial verification tests shall be performed on

any new scale and whenever either the track structure or the operating procedure

changes. If a consecutive-car test train of length shorter than trains normally weighed

is to be used for subsequent verification, the shorter consecutive-car test train results

shall be compared to either a distributed-car or consecutive-car test train of length(s)

typical of train(s) normally weighed. The difference between the total train weight of the train(s) representing the normal method of operation and the shorter consecutive-car test train shall not exceed 0.15 percent. If the difference in test results exceeds 0.15 percent, the length of the shorter consecutive-car test train shall be increased until agreement within 0.15 percent is achieved.

N.4.2.2.2. SUBSEQUENT VERIFICATION.- The test train may consist of either a consecutive-car test train with a length not less than that used in initial verification, or a distributed-car test train representing the number of cars used in the normal

operation.

N.4.2.2.3. DISTRIBUTED CAR TEST TRAINS.

-

(a) The length of the train shall be typical of trains that are normally weighed.

(b) The test cars shall be split into three groups, each group of which shall consist of 10 cars or 10 percent of the train length, whichever is less.

(c) The test groups shall be placed near the front, around the middle, and near

the end of the train.

(d) Following the final adjustment, the distributed-car test train shall be run over

the scale at least three times or shall produce 50 weight values, whichever is greater.

(e) The scale shall be tested in each mode of operation.

153
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

N.4.2.2.4. CONSECUTIVE-CAR TEST TRAINS.-

(a) A consecutive-car test train shall consist of at least 10 cars.

(b) If the consecutive-car test train consists of more than 20 cars, it shall be run

over the scale a minimum of three times in each mode of operation.

(c) If the consecutive-car test train consists of between 10 and 20 cars, inclusive,

it shall be run over the scale a minimum of five times in each mode of operation following the final adjustment of the scale.

T.N.3.6. CQUPLED-IN-MOTIQN WEIGHING, OTHER THAN MONORAIL SCALES.-Tolerances

for a the group of wcighmcnts weight values appropriate to the application must satisfy the following

conditions:

T.N.3.6. 1. - For any group of wcighmcnts weight values, the error difference in the sum of the

individual in-motion car weights of the group as compared to the sum of the maintenance

tolerances appropriate to the weights of the g

roup: and individual static weights shall not exceed two tenths of one percent (0.2%).

T.N.3.6.2. - For any group of wcighmcnts, the wcighmcnt error shall not exceed the limits given below? If a scale is used to weigh trains of five or more cars, and if the individual car weights

are used, any single weight value within the group must meet the following criteria:

(a) no single error may exceed three times the static maintenance tolerance;

(b) not more than 5 percent of the errors may exceed two times the static maintenance

tolerance; and

(c) not more than 35 percent of the errors may exceed the static maintenance tolerance.

T.N.3.6.3. - For any group of wcighmcnts wherein the sole purpose is to deter mine the sum of

the group of wcighmcnts, T.N.3.6.1. alone applies. For a scale used to weigh trains of less than

five cars, no single car weight within the group may exceed the static maintenance tolerance. Current T.N.3.6.3. and T.N.3.6.4. become T.N.3.6.4. and T.N.3.6.5. Add a new User Requirement UR.5. to impress upon the scale owner/user that a scale is to be tested in the manner in which it is normally used and the proper test procedures must be followed for coupled-in-motion

scales. UR.5. RAILWAY TRACK SCALES WEIGHING COUPLED-IN-MOTION.- A coupled-in-motion

scale placed in service on or after January 1, 1990, shall be tested in the manner in which it is operated, with the locomotive either pushing or pulling the cars at the designed speed and in the proper direction. The cars used in the test train should represent the range of gross weights that will be used during

the normal operation of the scale. Normal operating procedures should be simulated as nearly as

practical. Approach conditions for a train length in each direction of the scale site are more critical for a scale used for individual car weights than for a unit-train-weights-only facility, and should be

considered prior to the installation of the coupled-in-motion weighing system.

The reference to the maintenance static weight multipliers in T.N.3.6. is incorrect since T.N.3.6. was changed in 1987. It is proposed to change T.1.9. editorially in 1989 to read:

320-10 VC T.1.9. Railway Track Scales Weighing in Motion

(This item was adopted.)

154
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

T.1.9. RAILWAY TRACK SCALES WEIGHING IN MOTION. - The maintenance and

acceptance tolerances shall be as set forth in T.N.3.6., except that the maintenance tolerance

static multiplier for 5% of the group shall be 4. for T.N3.62. (a), no single error shall exceed

four times the maintenance tolerance.

320-11 I Weighing Individual Railroad Cars for Custody Transfer

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) As reported in item 320-9 last year, the Committee has serious reservations regarding the current practice of

using in-motion weighing to determine the weight of individual cars for custody transfer. The coupled- and

uncoupled-in-motion weighing of liquids in tank cars for custody transfer adds to this concern. The Committee

asked for and received advice from the Railroad Advisory Committee for possible language to address these

issues. The Railroad Advisory Committee recommended adding the following two user requirements to address the weighing of liquids: UR.3.8. IN-MOTION WEIGHING OF TANK CARS ON RAILWAY TRACK SCALES.-The

acceptability of weighing tank cars (liquids) on a multi-draft in-motion railway track scale when the lading is of an unstable nature is to be determined by conducting comparison tests between static and

in-motion weights. The test must employ the same types of loaded tank cars and commodities that are intended to be weighed in the normal operation. UR.3.9. MANUALLY CONTROLLED STATIC WEIGHING DEVICES ON RAILWAY TRACK

SCALES.- The indication of a manually controlled static weighing device must be stable within plus or minus three graduations before the weight is recorded. The Committee is still concerned about the accuracy of individual car weights obtained from coupled-in-motion

weighing. Based upon the comments that have been received and the potential impact of decisions in this area on both the railroads and users of rail transportation, the Committee wants to provide an adequate opportunity

to the industry to study the issues and present additional information to the Committee. Consequently, the Committee is presenting this item for information and reporting its current positions for adequate study and

review before the Committee presents recommendations to the Conference for a vote. Summary of Comments

The Committee received over 60 letters on the issue of using individual car weights determined by coupled-in- motion (CIM) weighing for custody transfer (sale of the commodity). The Committee has received test data

indicating both great accuracy and poor accuracy of the individual car weights obtained from CIM weighing. Most of the comments received by the Committee were strongly in favor of permitting the use of individual car weights obtained from CIM weighing as the basis for custody transfer. Most of these letters were from the

railroads and from owners of CIM scales who shipped product over these scales. The common positions expressed in most of the letters were that a restriction on CIM weighing would significantly increase operating

costs, would have a severe adverse impact on the operations of the railroads, would decrease competitiveness, and unjustifiably increase costs to users. Many letters cited the fact that they have had good accuracy in transactions when using CIM weighing. The appropriateness of CIM weighing for custody transfer is primarily an economic issue. The cost of weighing

cars statically or uncoupled-in-motion is quite high relative to weighing coupled-in-motion. Additionally, the

delays in routing and transport to perform static or uncoupled-in-motion weighing requires more cars to ship the same quantity of material. On the other hand, the question of accuracy of individual car weights derived by CIM

weighing is of great concern to weights and measures officials and undoubtedly of significant concern to the buyers of commodities in individual car-load lots. The cost of weighing must be considered relative to the cost

to buyers and sellers of commodities due to inaccuracies in weighing. The definition of unit train must also be

clarified: it is evident weights and measures officials and industry representatives have different interpretations.

155
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee has received comments that errors in CIM weighing can occur when different types of couplers

are used within a train and when empty cars are interspaced with loaded cars. It was also stated that some CIM

scales can weigh loaded cars accurately, but may not be able to weigh empty cars with similar accuracy. The

accuracy may depend on the method of moving the cars over the scale, e.g., pushing or pulling the train, and the

direction of movement of the cars. Some of the test data indicates that a given CIM scale may weigh some

liquids accurately, but other liquids not accurately. Consequently, it appears that a scale must be tested with the

particular commodities, including liquid commodities, that are to be weighed on that scale. The types of cars

in a train may also affect the accuracy of individual car weights. In general, it appears that accuracy well within the tolerances specified in Handbook 44 is achievable when a scale has been tested in the manner in which it is used, using the method of movement of cars typical for the application, and testing the scales using trains of

lengths that are normally weighed.

Railroad industry representatives have assured the Committee that virtually all users of rail transportation are aware of the scale tolerances for both static and CIM weighing railway track scales. Furthermore, they report

that virtually all the users are also aware of their recourse to have cars reweighed if there is a question regarding

the accuracy of car weights. A user may also specify in advance the method of weighing a car or cars. However,

an additional charge is usually associated with other than CIM weighing in those cases were CIM weighing is the normal practice of the railroads. Additionally, requiring static or uncoupled-in-motion weighing would cause

delays because the cars would often have to be routed to locations where an appropriate scale is installed. It was reported that the human element in static weighing results in weighing errors. Committee Positions The Committee has established the following positions based upon considerations of the economics of the weighing practices, the cost to buyers and sellers associated with weighing errors on individual cars, the current

practices of the industry, and the availability of the different types of railway track scales.

1. The custody transfer of commodities weighed as a unit train was recognized in Handbook 44 in 1973. The Committee believes that unit trains were understood to consist of similar types of cars carrying a

single non-liquid commodity.

2. The definition of a unit train must be clarified and the minimum length of a unit train must be specified. A unit train is a number of contiguous cars carrying a single commodity from one consignor to one

consignee. The Committee is willing to accept the industry practice of combining unit trains to form

a single train.

3. Individual car weights obtained from CIM weighing may be used for custody transfer when the train consists of unit trains of similar cars containing the same commodity.

4. Mixed manifest trains are trains in which individual cars of different types and commodities are transported for different shippers and purchasers. The Committee does not consider individual car weights obtained from CIM weighing to be acceptable for the custody transfer of cars for mixed

manifest trains. However, the Committee has received comments suggesting that there may be scales

installed where site conditions and operations are adequate to produce individual car weights acceptable

for custody transfer. The Committee will review any submitted data and recommendations. The

Committee does not want to unjustifiably restrict the use of scales that are designed, installed, and used

properly, but the Committee wants to ensure sufficient accuracy when individual cars weights are obtained from CIM weighing. Based on comments made at the Interim Meeting, it appears that the CIM weighing of mixed manifest trains for custody transfer is infrequent.

Individual car weights obtained from CIM weighing of individual cars may be used for the purposes of determining freight charges, even for mixed manifest trains. The Railroad Advisory Committee is conducting a study which incorporates a computer-generated

analysis of the accuracy of weighing various groups of cars within a given train, i.e., 2-, 3-, 4-, and 5- car groups in all possible combinations. The Committee will review this data to determine if this approach may establish a good foundation for the accurate measurement of groups of cars that may be used for custody transfer.

156
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

5. If individual car weights are to be obtained from CIM scales for custody transfer, then the CIM scales must be tested with cars and train lengths that represent the normal use of the scale.

6. The Committee believes that a User Requirement should be added to Handbook 44 restricting the use of CIM scales to the weighing of cars only in the manner in which the scale was tested and limited to the commodities for which it was tested. The User Requirement would also require that the restrictions on the use of the scale be posted. These restrictions may include specifying if the scale may be used

for full cars, empty cars, trains consisting of a combination of full and empty cars and the sequence of

full and empty cars, the train speed, type of commodity, types of cars, couplers (rotary and hazardous

material safety couplers), length of trains, direction of movement, pushing or pulling the train, nonliquid or liquid commodities; if liquid commodities are to be weighed, then the type of liquids, full loads,

partial loads, empty cars, baffled cars, and any other factors that are known to affect the accuracy. The Committee requests further information and data to aid in a more thorough review of this issue before

action is recommended for a vote in 1990.

320-12 V T.N.4.5. Time Dependence

(This item was adopted.) The tolerance for the creep (time dependence) test is excessively large for class III L scales. A new tolerance

for the creep test was discussed with the Technical Committee for National Type Evaluation - Weighing Industry

Sector. A smaller and more appropriate tolerance is needed. The proposed tolerance would apply to both

scales and load cells. The Committee recommends that T.N.4.5. be amended to specify a separate tolerance for class III L scales.

T.N.4.5. TIME DEPENDENCE. - 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 HI L devices; and

(b) the absolute value of the applicable tolerance for the applied load for all other devices.

320-13 V UR.1.1. Selection Requirements - General, Table 7a

(This item failed.) The Committee was requested to clarify the listing of devices under class IIII. Not all scales used as highway

law enforcement scales are class IIII; only wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load weighers are highway

weight enforcement scales classified as class IIII. Permanently installed vehicle and axle-load scales used for highway law enforcement must meet class III L requirements. The Committee recommends that the text in the second column of Table 7a for Class IIII devices be amended

to read: Wheel-load weighers and portable axle-load scales used for highway weight enforcement.

[This item was changed from an information item to a voting item.]

157
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

320-14 V UR.2.6. Approaches

(This item was tabled.) Some scales have been installed with rather steep approaches. The Scales Code paragraph UR.2.6.1. is vague

regarding the amount of slope that is acceptable. The requirement has had a wide range of interpretations depending upon the point-of-view of the individual. Since the cost of approaches may be significant, the bidding

for a scale installation may vary significantly if different approach slopes are proposed by competing companies.

This has resulted in unfair competition and complaints to weights and measures officials. Some jurisdictions have reported difficulty in the enforcement of the slope of approaches. The Committee believes that it is necessary to provide a specific clarification to an ambiguous requirement and

therefore recommends that the slope on approaches not exceed 1/2 inch per foot. The primary objections to

this proposal are that (1) the clarification is not necessary and (2) that the proposal would require too much real estate for many scale installations. The proposed language permits the purchaser of a scale to request any needed exemptions from the requirement prior to the installation of the scale. If space is a severe limitation, the scale should be installed in a pit. The Committee recommends that UR.2.6. be amended to read: UR.2.6. APPROACHES.

UR-2.6.1. VEHICLE SCALES. - On the approach end or ends of a vehicle scale

installed in any one location for a period of 6 months or more, there shall be a

straight approach as follows:

(a) the width at least the width of the platform,

(b) the length at least one-half the length of the platform, but not [required to

be] more than 40 feet, and

(c) not less than at least 10 feet of any approach adjacent to the platform shall be constructed of concrete or similar durable material to ensure that this portion remains smooth and level and in the same plane as the platform. However, grating of sufficient strength to withstand all loads equal to the

sectional capacity of the scale may be installed in this portion. Any slope in the re maini ng portion of the approach shall insu re (1) ease of vehicle access,

(2) ease for testing purposes, and (3) drainage away from the scale.

(d) Ifnot level, the remainingportion ofthe approach shall slope awayfrom the scale and the slope shall not exceed 1/2 inch per foot unless written approval for a

greater slope is obtained prior to installation from the weights and measures

authority having jurisdiction over the device. [Nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1990] [A motion was made to retain the last sentence in part (c) and make part (d) a recommendation. The proposed amendment did not pass. After further discussion, a motion was made to table this item. The motion passed.]

320-15 V UR.3.7.1. Weighing Livestock and Definition of Livestock Scale

(This item was adopted.) The minimum number of scale divisions permitted in a class III scale is 500 and the maximum is 10,000. (Table

3). Additionally, a class HI L scale cannot have a scale division of less than 5 lb. For marked scales, this combination of requirements makes the reference to a scale capacity of 60,000 lb in the definition of a livestock scale inconsistent with the III L requirements.

158
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Under paragraph UR.3.7.1., a vehicle scale that is adapted to weighing livestock and that has 10- and 20-lb scale

divisions may be used to weigh livestock when the net load exceeds 5,000 lb and 10,000 lb, respectively. These minimum loads correspond to 500 scale divisions for 10- and 20-lb scale divisions. However, it is a common

practice to weigh single animals on a livestock scale with 5-lb scale divisions. The Committee has been requested to clearly indicate that when weighing loads of livestock less than 5,000 lb, the maximum allowable scale division is 5 lb. Weighing single animals on livestock scales is considered

reasonable because it is an established practice. The objective of these changes is to permit livestock or single animals to be weighed on any scale with adequate resolution for the minimum load. A minimum net load of 500 d means that a minimum net load of 10,000 lb of livestock (excluding the truck) is required before livestock can be weighed on a vehicle scale with 20-lb divisions when the livestock is on a truck. The Committee recommends that the following changes be made: L Delete the entry for livestock scales from Table 7b.

2. Delete the existing paragraph UR.3.7.1.

3. Add a new paragraph UR.3.8. to read: L RJ.8. Minimum Load for Weighing Livestock. - A scale with scale divisions greater than 5

lb shall not be used for weighing net loads smaller than 500d.

4. Amend the definition of livestock scale to read:

livestock scale. A scale of 60 000- pound capacity or le93 equipped with stock racks and gates and adapted to weighing livestock standing on the scale platform.

320-16 W Counting Scales

(This item was withdrawn.) The development of requirements for counting scales has been under consideration for the last 2 years. Little time has been available to devote to this subject. Consequently, this item has been withdrawn. 320-17 I Initial Zero-Setting Mechanism

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) A proposal has been received to define an "initial zero-setting device" that would permit a scale to zero a load

of up to 20 percent of scale capacity when power is first applied to the scale. This capability would allow a manufacturer to automatically compensate electronically for a variation in the dead load of scale platforms

instead of laboriously adjusting the weight of platforms to satisfy S.1.7. when power is first applied to the scale. The proposal suggested that Handbook 44 be changed to be consistent with the OIML (International Organization of Legal Metrology) draft International Recommendation for Non-Automatic Weighing

Instruments. Under the draft OIML Recommendation, scales may zero up to 20 percent of the scale capacity when the unit is first connected to its power supply without the need for any additional testing during type

evaluation. The scale would still be required to indicate up to 100 percent of its capacity and be accurate. No

special testing would be required during type evaluation if the maximum amount of weight that can be zeroed when power is supplied is not more than 20 percent. The draft OIML Recommendation also permits a scale to zero more than 20 percent when power is first supplied; however, additional testing must be performed during type evaluation. If a scale is able to zero more

than 20 percent of capacity, then the maximum amount of weight that can be zeroed must be zeroed during the

type evaluation process and the complete set of type evaluation tests must be run to verify that the performance

requirements are still satisfied when the maximum dead load has been zeroed.

159
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee believes this feature would be appropriate on class I and II scales. However, it does not seem

appropriate to allow this feature on vehicle scales. The Committee did not have enough time to address this issue during the Interim Meeting, hence has not made a recommendation. The regional weights and measures

associations are requested to place this issue on their agenda to evaluate the proposal and submit comments to the Committee for consideration for next year.

320-18 I On-Board Weighing Systems

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) This was item 332-2 on the Interim Meeting agenda. A proposal was submitted to modify the Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring

Devices Code to permit the use of on-board weighing systems for measuring LPG and NH3 by classifying them

as liquid-measuring devices and mass flow meters. The classification of a scale as a metering device was adopted

in the Cryogenic Liquid-Measuring Devices Code (Section 3.34). Classifying an on-board weighing system as either a liquid-measuring device or a mass flow meter would exempt the system from the tolerances and the influence factor requirements of the Scales Code.

It is the position of the Committee that the on-board weighing system is a scale. It should be recognized under

the Scales Code or new requirements should be written for on-board weighing systems. Although an on-board

weighing system may perform as well or better than the metering devices currently in use, the proposal to

classify a scale as another type of device based upon the product being measured would remove device technology as a basis for determining which code is applicable to a device. For example, a vehicle scale that is being used exclusively to weigh refined petroleum products might then be classified as a wholesale meter and

not have to meet the requirements of the Scales Code. The issue extends beyond the weighing of anhydrous ammonia. An additional application for on-board weighing systems for which inquiries have been received is to weigh dumpsters when they are emptied into trash-collection trucks. The Committee is interested in recognizing devices that will improve measurement accuracy; however, it does

not support the classification of a scale as a metering device simply because it is measuring a liquid product. On-board weighing systems are not new devices; they have been used in feedlot operations for many years. The Committee is not ready to proceed with action on this item until it has received further review. Additional

consideration must be given to determine if these devices can be appropriately used under the existing requirements of the Scales Code.

321 Belt Conveyor Scales Code

321-1 VC S.1.5. Rate of Flow Indicators and Recorders

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) The language of S.1.5. stating that a belt-conveyor scale "may be equipped with a disc or strip chart recorder"

conflicts with S.l.l. It is proposed that the first sentence of S.1.5. be changed to make it consistent with S.l.l.

Additionally, most analog chart recorders for the rate of flow have a range of zero to 100 percent of the maximum flow rate without any way to record above 100 percent. It has been suggested that when the flow rate exceeds 98 percent of the maximum rated flow rate, then an alarm should sound. This would alert the operator

that the scale may be operating in excess of its maximum rated flow rate. By setting the alarm at 98 percent, enough space would still be left on the chart recorder for flow rates within the capacity of the analog chart recorder.

160
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee recommends that paragraph S.1.5. be amended to read:

5.7.5. RATE OF FLOWINDICATORS AND RECORDERS. - A belt-conveyor scale shall be equipped with a rate offlow indicator and may also be equipped with a disc or strip chart recorder an analog or digital recorder. Permanent means shall be provided to produce an audio or visual signal when the rate offlow is equal to or less than 35% and when the rate of flow is equal to or

greater than 100% 98 percent of the rated capacity of the scale. The type of alarm (audio or

visual) shall be determined by the individual installation. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986.]

321-2 VC S.1.6. Advancement of Primary Indicating or Recording Elements

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Most recording elements used with belt-conveyor scales today simply receive information from the master weight

totalizer for printing. Information is received by the recording element from the master weight totalizer. The

Committee recommends that S.1.6. be changed to correctly reflect this fact by changing it to read:

S.1.6. ADVANCEMENT OF PRIMARY INDICATING OR RECORDING ELEMENTS. - The primary ind i cating a n d recording e leme nts master weight totalizer shall advance only when the belt conveyor is in operation and under load.

321-3 VC S.1.8. Power Loss

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) The length of time for which information must be retained in the master weight totalizer is not defined. This

implies that the information should be retained indefinitely, which is not believed to be necessary. The

Committee recommends that S.1.8. be amended to be consistent with the OIML International Recommendation

74, which specifies that the information should be retained for 24 hours. This should be sufficient for this application. The recommended language is:

S. 1.8. POWER LOSS. - In the event of a power failure of up to 24 hours, the accumulated measured quantity on the master weight totalizer of an electronic digital indicator shall be retained

in memory during the power loss. [Nonretroactive as of January 1, 1986.

]

321-4 VC S.3.1. Design of Zero-Setting Mechanism

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) The rationale for the 2 percent limit on the range of the zero-setting mechanism has been questioned. It seems

that the range is unnecessarily small. The OIML recommendation specifies a range of 4 percent. Since a persuasive argument to retain the 2 percent limit was not made, the Committee recommends that the limit be changed to agree with the International Recommendation. The Committee also believes that an alarm should

be activated when the limit is reached by the automatic or semi-automatic zero-setting mechanism.

It is recommended that S.3.1. be amended to read: SJ.l. DESIGN OF ZERO-SETTING MECHANISM. - The range of the zero-setting mechanism shall be not greater than 2 ± 2 percent of the rated capacity of the scale without breaking the security means. Automatic and semi-automatic zero-setting mechanisms shall be constructed so that the resetting operation is carried out only after a whole number of belt revolutions and the completion of the setting or the whole operation is indicated. An audio

161
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

or visual signal shall be given when the automatic and semi-automatic zero-setting mechanisms

reach the limit of adjustment of the zero-setting mechanism. * ^Nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1990)

321-5 VC N.3.1. Zero-Load Tests

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) The limits on the variation permitted during the zero-load test should be clarified to state that any reading between the start and finish of the zero test must be within tolerance, not just the final reading. The suggested language does not change the requirement. The Committee recommends that the second sentence of N.3.1. be amended to read: N3.1. ZERO LOAD TESTS. - If a belt-conveyor scale system has been idle for a period of 2 hours or more, the system shall be run for not less than 30 minutes when the temperature is above 41 °F (5 °C). When the temperature is below 41 °F, additional warmup time, depending upon conditions, is required before beginning the zero-load tests. The totalizer indication variation between the beginning and ending indication of the master weight totalizer shall not change be more than ± 1 scale division when the instrument is operated at no load for a

period of time equivalent to that required to deliver the minimum totalized load of 1000 scale

divisions. The zero-load test shall be conducted over a whole number of belt revolutions of not less than

three revolutions or 10 minutes' operation, whichever is greater. The totalizer shall not change more than th ree scale divisions During any portion of the zero-load test, the totalizer shall not change more than three scale divisions from its initial indication.

The second sentence of N.3.2. contains statements that are inconsistent. It requires that material weighed after

it has passed over the belt-conveyor scale must be weighed statically, but there is no such limitation if the material is weighed before it passes over the scale. The Committee recommends that this sentence be amended

so that it is consistent. The Committee was also requested to clarify the situation regarding the use of reference scales when conducting

the material tests on belt-conveyor scales (Item 321-8). There is the possibility of inferring from the present language that the reference scale is in some way different and separate from the scales covered by the Scales Code. In practice, hopper scales and railway track scales have typically been used as reference scales. The Committee recommends removing the term "reference scale" and its definition from the Belt-Conveyor

Scales Code and replacing it with specific language stating the accuracy with which the material is to be weighed.

If the term "reference scale" is eliminated, the current language of T.3. must also be changed. The change would

result in the statement of T.3. being a test note rather than a tolerance. The Committee recommends that N.3.2. and the definition of "material test" be amended to read:

N.3.2. MATERIAL TESTS. - Use bulk material, preferably that material for which the device

is normally used. Either pass a quantity of pre-weighed material that has been prc-wcighed on a certi fied reference scale over the belt-conveyor scale in a manner as similar as feasible to actual loading conditions, or statica l ly weigh on a certified reference scale all material that has passed over the belt-conveyor scale.

321-6 VC N.3.2. Material Tests

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.)

162
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The remainder of N.3.2. is not changed.

material test. The test of a belt-conveyor scale using material (preferably that for which the

device is normally used) as a refe rence standard, the actual weight of the mate rial being determined on a certified reference scale , that has been weighed to an accuracy of 0.1 percent. The Committee recommends that the current T.3. be deleted and a Note paragraph N.3.2.1. be added to read: N3.2.1. ACCURACY OF MATERIAL.- The quantity of material comprising the material test shall be weighed statically or on an uncoupled-in-motion railway track scale to an accuracy

of at least 0.1 percent. Verifying this accuracy is the responsibility of the certifying authority. Typical scales used for this purpose include class II, III, and III L scales, or a scale with the tolerance as described in T.U. or T.l.ll. of Handbook 44 Section 220.

It is recommended that the definition of "certified reference scale" be deleted.

321-7 VC N.3.3. Simulated Load Tests

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) The Committee discussed whether or not simulated load tests, other than the chain and known weight tests, may

be used. In particular, electronic simulated load tests appear to be in use. The Committee believes that the scale manufacturer is responsible for recommending a method of simulated

load test that will best monitor the accuracy of the scale over a period of time. The Committee recommends

that the first sentence of N.3.3. be amended as indicated below, delete the remainder of N.3.3., and delete subparagraphs (a) and (b). NJ3. SIMULATED LOAD TESTS. - As required by the certifying authority, simulated load

tests as recommended by the manufacturer are to be conducted between material tests to monitor the system's operational performance, but shall not be used for official certification.

321-8 W T.3. Reference Standards

(This item was withdrawn.)

This item has been included with 321-6, and consequently has been withdrawn.

321-9 VC T.4.1. Temperature

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Some portions of a belt-conveyor scale, such as the master weight totalizer and printer, might be installed in a reasonably controlled environment and, as a practical matter, should not be required to operate over the temperature range of 14 °F to 104 °F(-10 to 40 °C). Provision should be made to permit the manufacturer to declare a smaller operating temperature range if some portion of the belt-conveyor system is installed in a

controlled environment and preclude the need to overdesign. The Committee recommends that a new

paragraph T.4.1.2. be added to read:

T.4.1.2. TEMPERATURE LIMITS. - If temperature limits other than 14 °F to 104 °F (-10 to 40 X?) are specified for the device, the range shall be at least 54 °F (30 °C). [Nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1990]

163
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

321-10 I UR.2.2.1. For Scales Not Installed by the Manufacturer

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) The proposal was to delete the word "short" from this paragraph. The fact that the term "short conveyor" is not defined in the Handbook has been brought to the attention of the Committee. Deleting the word "short" would exempt the scale manufacturer from the installation requirements of UR.2.2.1. for any length belt-conveyor if the conveyor is installed by the manufacturer or built to the scale manufacturer's specifications. The Committee

believes that the guidelines given in UR.2.2.1. are good recommendations for any installation of a belt-conveyor

scale. More justification for this change must be provided before the Committee is willing to consider the exemption from the installation requirements for other than short conveyors. Comments on how to clarify the term "short conveyor" are requested.

330 Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

330- 1A V Multi-Tier Pricing

(This item was adopted. The discussion of the item is organized as follows: Introduction, Committee Proposal, and Explanation of the Issue (p. 165)). Introduction

Multi-tier pricing is a widespread practice, especially for cash/credit pricing of retail motor fuel, however, many

dispensers can compute at only one unit price. In most cases, the single-unit-price computing dispensers are set

at the higher unit price (that is, the credit price); the total price at a lower unit price is obtained either by recomputation at the service station console or by determining a discount for cash. The 1988 NCWM changed the Conference policy that originally recommended an "interim practice" of setting the single-unit-price computing dispensers to the higher unit price to a policy that "the use of the single-unit- price computing dispenser for sale of motor fuel at multiple unit prices is inappropriate, facilitates fraud, and

should be eliminated." The S&T Committee agreed with this position and stated that single-unit-price- computing dispensers used for multi-tier pricing are unsuitable for the application and do not comply with the General Code requirement G-UR.1.1. Suitability of Equipment. Committee Proposal The implementation date for the specifications and the user requirements listed below have been discussed

extensively, particularly with respect to implementation in manufacturing and in consideration of the regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency for underground storage tanks. The Committee decided to establish January 1, 1991, as the effective date for the specifications to permit equipment manufacturers adequate time to incorporate changes into production. The Committee established an effective date of January 1, 1990, for part (a) of UR.3.3. to require devices placed

into service in multi-tier pricing applications to compute at the prices at which the product is offered for sale or be dedicated to the transaction for which the sales price can be computed. The objective is to prevent an

increase in the number of stations using single-unit-price-computing dispensers in multi-tier pricing applications. The Committee agreed to a final date of January 1, 1999, by which all devices used in multi-tier pricing applications must be able to compute and display the sales price for the transaction. This date corresponds with

the EPA deadline regarding underground storage tanks and permits station owners to plan dispenser replacement with their EPA considerations. The Committee hopes that the large-volume stations will convert

to multi-tier pricing equipment long before the date of January 1, 1999.

[Tliis last paragraph relates to UR.3.3. which was removedfrom Item 330-1A to be a separate voting item. See Item 330-1A (1).J This item is explained in considerable detail in an effort to provide an understanding of the position of the Committee and the significance of the recommendations that it is making. The Committee's recommended

changes to the Liquid-Measuring Devices Code are given below followed by the explanation of the issue.

164
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The Committee recommends that S. 1.6.5. be amended and that a new paragraph S. 1.6. 5.4. be added as follows:

S.l.6.5. MONEY-VALUE COMPUTATIONS.

(a) A computing device shall compute the total sales price at any single-purchase tmk-priee

(Le., excludingfleet sales and other contract sales) for which the product being measured

is offered for sale at any delivery possible within either the measurement range of the device or the range of the computing elements, whichever is less. (Effective and nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1. 1991)

(b) The analog sales price indicated for any delivery quantity shall not differ from a mathematically computed price (quantity x unit price = total sales price) by an amount greater than the value in Table 1.

S. 1.6.5.4. SELECTION OF UNIT PRICE - When a product or grade is offered for sale at more

than one unit price through a computing device, the selection ofthe unitprice shall be made using

controls on the device or other user-activated controls. (Effective and nonretroactive as of January 1. 1991) The Committee recommends that a new User Requirement UR.3.3. be added to UR.3. to read: UR3. USE OF DEVICE

UR.3.3. COMPUTING DEVICE

(a) Any computing device placed into service after January 1. 1990. in an

a pplication where a product or grade is offered for sale at more than one unit

price shall be used only for sales for which the device computes and displays

the sales price for the transaction. Individual single unit-price computing

devices installed to replace existing devices or to add to station capacity are exempt from this requirement.

[Part (b) of UR.3.3. was removed from this item and voted upon as a separate item. See Item 330- 1A (1).J Renumber the remaining User Requirements accordingly. The recommended change to S.l.6.5. (a) is proposed as a nonretroactive requirement because the new language

is more restrictive and definitive than the previous language. Equipment already in service or that will be

installed before the effective date of the new language must comply with the current language. Explanation of the Issue During the Interim Meeting, representatives of Amoco, Chevron, Exxon, and Mobil presented information on

the number of dispensers that have been replaced with dispensers with multi-tier pricing capability in both company-owned stations and those that are owned by jobbers and customer accounts since the advent of the

"discount for cash" programs in 1982. The volume of product sold through these dispensers as a percentage of

the total product sold by these companies was also reported. Equipment has been replaced in conjunction with

the companies' modernization programs and the replacement of leaking underground storage tanks mandated

by the Environmental Protection Agency. In many cases, the dispensers have been replaced with equipment

that is capable of multi-tier pricing. The table below provides a summary of the equipment situation for these

four companies regarding multi-tier pricing capability. The term "customer-owned" is used to refer to equipment or stations that are owned primarily by jobbers, but includes station operators who are contract accounts of the four oil companies identified above.

165
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

DISCOUNT FOR CASH (DFC)

TRANSITION STATUS5 COMPANY-OWNED EQUIPMENT6 %

% Total % Total of Participation Dispenser Type Locations Volume Sold in DFC

Single Tier 54 42 92

95

Multi-Tier 46 58 98 CUSTOMER-OWNED EQUIPMENT

Single Tier 93 83 39

43

Multi-Tier 7 17 93 Approximately 30 percent of the stations marketing under the names of Amoco, Chevron, Exxon, and Mobil are company-owned stations. The volume of gasoline sold by these stations is split approximately equally among the company-owned and customer-owned stations. The companies emphasized that the replacement of equipment has been much higher in company-owned stations than in customer-owned stations. The company representatives cited the high cost of replacing two or three dispensers on one island with one multi-product dispenser as the primary limitation on the rate of equipment

replacement in both company-owned and customer-owned stations. This cost is estimated at over $20,000 per

island (which includes installation of new piping and wiring). The cost of a multi-product dispenser is approximately $10,000 to $12,000 and installation is $8,000 to $10,000. The replacement of equipment in the customer-owned stations often represents a greater financial burden for the station owner than it does for the major oil companies. The oil companies are not in a position to mandate equipment replacement in customer- owned stations, so it is not possible for them to project when the customer-owned stations would replace single- unit-price dispensers with those having multi-tier pricing capability. The company representatives stressed the impracticality of dedicating islands, dispensers, or hoses to a particular type of service and method of sale, e.g., full service cash, full service credit, self service cash, and self service

credit, due to the limited number of dispensers in a station, the resulting inefficiency in servicing consumers, the inherent traffic patterns through stations, and consumer confusion that would result from products being

available from only selected dispensers or islands. The companies reported on the education and training efforts that have been undertaken to impress upon their dealers and employees to give the cash discount to consumers

without consumers requesting the discount. The companies are in the process of implementing the posting of

signs to increase consumer awareness of the "discount for cash" program and the consumer's right to get the

discount. The Committee appreciates the dealer education and training programs on the "discount for cash" programs, the

effort to increase consumer awareness of the discount to which they are entitled, and progress that has been

5Estimated year-end 1988 for Amoco, Chevron, Exxon, and Mobil. 'The numbers at the far right in the fourth column are the weighted average of the percent of stations participating in the "discount for cash" program based upon the total number of locations of company-owned and customer-owned equipment.

166
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

made to install dispensers with multi-tier pricing capability. However, the Committee believes that the suitability of equipment dictates that when gasoline is sold to the public through a computing dispenser, the dispenser must

be able to compute at the price at which the product is offered for sale. Weights and measures officials stated that they are continuing to receive complaints from consumers claiming

that they are not receiving their cash discounts. Representatives from two states that have conducted surveys on the discount practice reported the frequency of consumers failing to get a discount, getting an incorrect

discount, or consumers being required to take the discount in additional product to be 16 percent in one state and 37 percent in the other. Other officials reported that they have not had any complaints regarding the

"discount for cash" program. The oil companies have reported that they have received very few complaints and

that the complaints reported by many weights and measures officials are not being reported to them. The oil companies request that weights and measures officials report these complaints to them so they can take action,

if necessary, to correct the problem. The Committee reviewed the following information provided by representatives of the oil companies: L the percent of equipment in company and customer-owned stations that have multi-tier pricing

capability;

2. the percent of product sold through these dispensers;

3. the number of customer-owned stations that are participating in the discount for cash program;

4. the replacement of dispensers as a result of the EPA mandate to replace underground storage tanks; and

5. the rate of installation of equipment with multi-tier pricing capability in the modernization programs for

stations. The Committee believes that the entire issue can be resolved if all computing dispensers used in multi-tier pricing applications are able to compute at the prices at which product is offered for sale through the dispenser.

Suitability of equipment requires that the total price on a dispenser presented to the customer must correctly

state the price that the consumer is required to pay. To achieve this goal, the Committee believes that it is necessary to establish a deadline by which all dispensers must either compute at the price at which the product

is sold through the dispenser or the dispensers shall be dedicated to the sales for which they can compute the

total price. Equipment replacement over the last 6 years has resulted in more than 50 percent of the product sold through

the "discount for cash" programs to be sold through dispensers with multi-tier pricing capability. The Committee

considered the possibility of giving an exemption to small stations that participate in the "discount for cash" program based upon the number of gallons sold by the station. The Committee decided against an exemption

for the following reasons: L The information provided by the oil companies shows that a large number of customer-owned stations, (believed to be small-volume locations) do not participate in the "discount for cash" program,

consequently, an exemption is not necessary.

2. The small stations still have the option to designate islands, hoses, or dispensers to the method of

service and payment for which the product is offered for sale. The small stations do not have the volume of business that would create some of the problems identified by industry regarding this alternative. Unless a station has local competition in the "discount for cash" program, which is believed

to be limited where small stations are involved, there is no pressing motive to implement the "discount

for cash" program, as evidenced by the lack of participation in the program by customer-owned stations.

If the program is believed to be essential to the station's business, then the station owner must make

a business decision as to whether or not the merchandising method is worth the expense of purchasing equipment that is suitable for the application.

167
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

3. An exemption on the basis of gallons sold per month would be difficult to enforce. Weights and measures officials do not have access to the sales records, and the fluctuation in sales volume from month to month and year to year would complicate the process of granting the exemption. The Committee wants to ensure continuing progress in replacing single-unit-price dispensers used in multi-tier pricing applications with equipment that is capable of computing at the unit prices at which product is sold through the dispenser. To ensure that consumers are aware of the price at which the product is being sold and

to reduce the potential for fraud, the Committee recommends that dispensers manufactured after January 1, 1990, be equipped with controls on the dispenser that require the consumer to select the unit price for the

transaction rather than allowing the unit price to be selected only from the service station control console. In prepay transactions, it is anticipated that the authorization and selection of the unit price will have two steps:

1. the service station attendant will authorize a specific unit price for a delivery to ensure that the consumer does not fraudulently select the incorrect unit price; and

2. the consumer will select the corresponding unit price at the dispenser, as authorized by the station attendant, to eliminate the possibility that the attendant could fraudulently change the unit price without

the consumer's knowledge. The dispenser will not operate if the attendant and the consumer fail to select the same unit price. Based upon the information provided to the Committee, the Committee recommends amendments to S.l.6.5. to require that dispensers installed after January 1, 1990, be able to compute at the unit prices for which product

is sold through the device and to require that the controls to select the unit price be on the dispenser. The

phrase "through the device" is important because many stations offer a product at four different prices (full serve

cash, full serve credit, self serve cash, and self serve credit), but most dispensers are able to compute at only two

unit prices for each product offered through a multi-product dispenser. In these instances, the dispensers are designated as either full service or self service and the dispenser is able to compute at either the cash or credit price for the method of service for which the dispenser is used. It is not necessary (although desirable) for each

dispenser to compute at all of the unit prices at which the product is sold in the station; a dispenser would have

to compute at only those units prices at which product is sold through that dispenser. The Conference position on the suitability of single-unit-price dispensers for use in multi-tier pricing applications has been challenged by some oil company representatives. The determination of the suitability of equipment for multi-tier applications requires approval of at least three parties: the device owner (usually the seller of the product), the device user (often the purchaser of the measured product), and the weights and measures

jurisdiction that has regulatory authority over the device. The fact that weights and measures officials have permitted single-unit-price dispensers to be used in multi-tier applications does not establish these devices as

j suitable for multi-tier applications in view of the problems reported by weights and measures officials. The

Conference clearly stated its opinion in 1988 on the suitability of using single-unit-price dispensers in multi-tier pricing applications. The Committee emphasizes to the oil industry representatives that they are responsible for ensuring that suitable equipment is installed and used appropriately before any additional pricing levels are introduced into marketing. The Committee recognizes that some time will be required to replace existing equipment with dispensers that have multi-tier pricing capability. In the meantime, the Committee does not want any additional single-unit- price dispensers to be used in multi-tier applications. Consequently, the Committee recommends the adoption

of a new User Requirement that has two parts. The first part would require that any dispensers (new, used, or already in service as a single-unit-price dispenser) placed into use in a multi-tier application after January 1, 1990, shall either:

(a) be able to compute at the unit prices for which product is sold through the dispenser, or

(b) the use of the dispenser shall be dedicated to only those sales for which it can compute the total price i of the transaction. This would permit any station (not company) that is already using single-unit-price dispensers in a multi-tier j pricing application and still using them in that application on December 31, 1989, to continue such use in multitier pricing applications (until January 1, 1995, when the second part of the User Requirement would become

168

I
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

effective). If a station owner implements multi-tier pricing after January 1, 1990, then the dispensers would

either have to be equipped with multi-tier pricing capability or be dedicated to those sales for which the dispensers can compute the total sales price. The same conditions would apply if a station that has been selling product at a single unit price were to be purchased by an oil company that initiates multi-tier pricing after January 1, 1990. For practical reasons, an exemption to part (a) of the User Requirement is given to those dispensers that are

installed to replace an individual dispenser. The replacement may be the result of damage during use or as a maintenance decision. When modernizing a station, single-unit-price computing dispensers will normally be

replaced with multi-product dispensers that have multi-tier pricing capability. The piping layout for a multi- product dispenser is substantially different from a single product mechanical unit. The piping changes typically require building permits and some State underground-tank regulations or the local authority may require replacement of all product lines, and perhaps tanks, when any of the piping is changed. Additionally, mechanical

dispensers and electronic dispensers are controlled and operated by substantially different generations of console equipment. Mixing equipment could result in two control consoles at a single location. The Committee does

not want the replacement of a single damaged dispenser to be the cause of major station renovation.

Similarly, if a station is currently using single-unit-price computing dispensers in a multi-tier pricing application,

it is the intent of the Committee to permit the station to add additional single-unit-price computing dispensers

to expand its service. The Committee believes that few stations would fall into this category, so a specific exemption was not written into the requirement. This consideration can be handled effectively through enforcement practices and has very limited effect on enforcement; however, it may have considerable impact on

the operation of a small station. In any case, these stations would still have to comply with the date by which

all dispensers must be able to compute at the prices at which product is offered for sale through the dispenser. The second part of the User Requirement establishes a deadline of January 1, 1995, after which aU dispensers used in multi-tier pricing applications must either have multi-tier pricing capability or be dedicated to those sales

for which the dispenser can compute. The Committee has received a position paper from the American Petroleum Industry (API) on the S&T

recommendations. The API has requested that the Committee revise its position to permit any stations that wish

to utilize multi-tier pricing after January 1, 1990, to do so under the same conditions as those stations that are

using multi-tier pricing prior to January 1, 1990. The basis of this request is that companies, jobbers, and

individual-account stations should not be subject to more stringent requirements than current program

participants. The User Requirement would place those companies and stations that initiate multi-tier pricing

after January 1, 1990, under a significant economic burden to have equipment capable of multi-tier pricing in place before they implement multi-tier pricing while their competitors continue to operate using single-unit- price computing dispensers. This places the companies and stations implementing multi-tier pricing after January

1, 1990, at a competitive disadvantage. The Committee has discussed this request and has decided to present UR.3.3. to the Conference as it was

originally stated. The Committee does not want the number of stations using multi-tier pricing with single-unit- price dispensers to increase after January 1, 1990. The API proposal raises the possibility that a major oil company could choose to implement multi-tier pricing with single-unit-price computing dispensers after January

1, 1990. The Committee wants to eliminate this possibility of a substantial number of new stations using multitier pricing without having the proper equipment or dedicating dispensers to the method of sale for which the dispensers can compute the total sale price. The API recommends that the January 1, 1995, date be changed to January 1, 1999. The 1999 date would

coincide with the date established by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)regarding the replacement of underground tanks. The long-term planning of businesses requires that major expenses be scheduled to minimize the cost of station renovations. Many dispensers would normally be replaced in the process of

replacing underground tanks and the concurrent renovation of the station. Unless the deadline dates for weights and measures and the EPA coincide, a station may be required to replace its dispensers prior to the replacement

of the underground tanks. In this situation, the station would have the additional expense of replacing the piping

a second time when the underground tanks are replaced. The costs of replacing tanks and dispensers are major

expenses for these businesses, so it is logical to address both situations on the same time schedule.

169
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

330- 1A (1) V UR.3. Use of Device; UR.3.3. (b) Computing Device

(This item failed.) This item was removed from Item 330- 1A for a separate vote at the request of the voting members. The

discussion addressed the proposed effective date for the application of this requirement to all single-unit-price devices used in multi-tier pricing applications. Different views existed as to the final date. The Committee recommended that a new User Requirement UR.3.3. (b) be added to UR.3. to read: URJ. USE OF DEVICE VR33. COMPUTING DEVICE

(b) A computing device shall be used only for sales for which the device computes

and displays the sales price for the transaction. (Effective and retroactive as of January 1. 1999^) [A motion was made to amend the recommendation by changing the date of January 1, 1999 to January 1, 1995. The proposed amendment failed by a vote of 22 to 24 in the House of State Representatives and a vote of 48 to 17

in the House of Delegates. Tlie item as proposed by the Committee failed. Consequently, there is no specific requirement with an effective date for full conformance with multi-tier pricing computing capability. The General Code requirement G-UR.1.1. applies.]

330-1B V S.l.6.4. Display of Unit Price and Product Identity

(This item was adopted.) The Committee has been advised to consider the possibility that the oil industry may offer retail motor fuels at more unit prices than currently being offered. The additional unit prices will create significant hardware problems to equipment manufacturers if all available unit prices must be displayed simultaneously. To reduce

the demands on hardware and still permit the consumer to have access to all of the unit prices for which

products are sold through a dispenser, the Committee recommends that S.l.6.4. be amended. The amendment

would require that all of the unit prices at which products are offered for sale shall be available to the consumer

and displayed on the dispenser. The unit prices for each product may be:

1. displayed simultaneously for all products;

2. displayed simultaneously for each product separately; or

3. displayed individually in a unit-price display only if controls permit the customer to sequence the display through the unit prices for each and every product. Whichever method is used, it is imperative that the method of payment and the product corresponding to the

unit price be clearly identified with the displayed unit price. If each dispenser in a station is equipped with a card-reader and a video display terminal and the unit prices can be shown on the video display, then the dispenser is considered to comply with the recommended language for S. 1.6.4.1. A single card-reader and video

display terminal for an entire station or an island consisting of multiple dispensers is not considered to comply

with the requirement to display the unit prices on the dispenser. In any case, part (a) of S. 1.6.4.1. still requires

that the unit price at which the dispenser is computing must be displayed on the face of the dispenser. A sentence is included in the proposed S. 1.6.4.1. (b) to clearly indicate that the simultaneous display of all unit prices for all products is not required. For example, suppose that five products are available from one dispenser and that each product is offered for sale at four unit prices. The amendment to S.l.6.4. permits displaying a

single unit price at a time; however, the dispenser must have controls that permit the customer to display the four unit prices in sequence for each grade, then switch to a different grade and display the four unit prices for

170
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

that grade. This process can be repeated indefinitely for all products until one unit price is selected by the customer. This approach permits numerous options for presenting the unit price information. A similar change should be made to User Requirement UR.3.2. to reflect the flexibility permitted in S.l.6.4.1. The User Requirement, as currently applied, requires that all unit prices at which the product is sold be posted on the dispenser. Some States regulations require the posting of all unit prices on a street sign or in the station.

If a dispenser displays the unit prices in the manner described in the proposed S. 1.6.4.1. (b), then it should not be necessary to simultaneously post all of the unit prices at which product is offered for sale. Consequently, the Committee recommends that UR.3.2. be amended to clearly state that the posting of all unit prices is not required provided that the dispenser complies with S.l.6.4.1. The Committee was informed that a number of older dispensers are able to compute at two unit prices, but the dispensers cannot display both unit prices. In these cases, the unit prices are posted on the dispenser. To

permit these dispensers to continue to be used, the Committee recommends that the amendment be

nonretroactive. The Committee believes that the consumer would be better served if the dispenser itself displayed the unit prices at which the product is available for sale through the dispenser. This would also eliminate the possibility that the posted prices do not agree with the actual sale prices. Consequently, the Committee recommends that

S.l.6.4.1. and UR.3.2. be amended to read:

S.l.6.4. DISPLAY OF UNIT PRICE AND PRODUCT IDENTITY.

S.l.6.4.1. UNIT PRICE.

(a) A computing or money-operated device shall be able to display on each face the unit price at which that device is set to compute or to dispense.

(b) If a grade, brand, blend, or mixture is offeredfor sale from a device at more than one unit price, then all of the unit prices at which that product is offered for sale

shall be displayed or shall be capable of being displayed on the dispenser using

controls available to the customer prior to the delivery of the product It is not

necessary that all of the unit prices for all grades, brands, blends, or mixtures be

simultaneously displayed prior to the delivery of the product

(Effective and nonretroactive as of January 1, 1991.) VR32. UNIT PRICE AND PRODUCT IDENTITY.

(a) The following information shall be conspicuously displayed or posted on the face of a retail dispenser used in direct sale:

(1) the unit price at which the product is offered for sale; and

(2) in the case of a computing type or money-operated type, the unit price at which a computing type or money- operated the dispenser is set to compute and deliver.

It is not necessary to simultaneously display or post all the unit prices for all grades, brands, blends, or mixtures provided the dispenser complies with S.l.6.4.1.

(b) The following information shall be conspicuously displayed or posted on each side of a retail dispenser used in direct sale:

(1) the identity of the product in descriptive commercial terms, and

(2) in the case of a dispense r de s i gne d to dispense more than one grade, brand,

ble n d, or mixtu re of product, the identity of the grade, brand, blend, or mixture that a multi-product dispenser is set to compute and deliver.

171
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

330-2 I Meters Used for the Measurement of Hot Oil

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) The meters used in batch plants to meter oil at approximately 300 °F into a mixer for making asphalt can not meet the tolerances specified in the LMD Code. They are considered commercial devices in some jurisdictions because the contracts for road construction projects provide for payment depending on the quantity of hot oil used. Such contracts with batch plants are the only known commercial application of this type of meter. Experience by one State that has tested these meters for 6 years indicates that a tolerance of 0.5 percent is appropriate. The Committee needs more information to understand the application and requests additional comments on this item.

330-3 I N.4.1.1. Wholesale Devices Equipped With Automatic TemperatureCompensating Systems

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) A proposal has been made to make optional the test of a meter with the temperature-compensating system

deactivated. The justification is that the uncompensated volume test is a diagnostic test which should be performed by a repairman, not a weights and measures official. The Committee does not agree, believing that the test provides valuable information on the performance of the meter and indicates whether or not there are offsetting errors in the meter adjustment and the adjustment of the temperature-compensating system. Due to the increasing use of electronic systems, fewer separate tests are required to properly test a meter with an automatic temperature-compensating system. Consequently, no

change is recommended.

330-4 V UR.3.5.1. Use of Automatic Temperature Compensators

(This item was adopted.) Two different interpretations of this paragraph have been applied to metering systems utilizing electronic methods of automatic temperature compensation. The interpretation varies from State to State. The two

interpretations are summarized below.

1. If a loading-rack metering system is equipped with an automatic temperature-compensating system, then the system may be used for some customers and not others depending upon the method of measurement specified in the contract.

2. If a loading-rack metering system is equipped with an automatic temperature-compensating system, then the system must be used for all customers. The first interpretation is the correct interpretation. This paragraph was originally written to address meters with mechanical automatic temperature-compensating

systems that indicated only the temperature-compensated quantity. The objective is to require a temperature- compensating system not be changed during a 12-month period or the duration of a contract for a customer. This paragraph does not establish the method of sale for products, but addresses the use and operation of the

device. A mechanical temperature-compensating system must be in use at all times unless written approval of

the weights and measures authority is obtained to deactivate the system. This requirement does not preclude

the sale of both compensated and uncompensated product from a mechanical meter if the meter is equipped

with both the compensated (net) indication and the uncompensated (gross) indication. The method of sale is

172
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

established by State regulation, if one exists, or by contract if State regulations do not specify the method of

sale. Wholesale loading-rack meters usually have electronic temperature-compensating systems. These systems often provide both the compensated and uncompensated quantities for a transaction through indications or the printed

ticket. Either the compensated or the uncompensated quantity obtained from the measurement process may be

used for billing purposes, based upon the State regulation or contract, provided that the method of billing for a particular customer. To clearly state that UR.3.5.1. does not establish a method of sale and to clarify when an automatic-temperature compensating-system shall be used, the Committee recommends that UR.3.5.1. be amended to read: UR3J. TEMPERATURE COMPENSATION, WHOLESALE.

UR3.5.1. AUTOMATIC.

UR3.5.1.1. WHEN TO BE USED. - If a device is equipped with an a mechanical automatic temperature compensator, it shall be connected,

operable, and in use at all times. T-he An electronic or mechanical automatic

temperature- compen sator 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.l

330-5 I Definitions of Retail and Wholesale Devices

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) The Committee was asked to review the definitions for retail and wholesale devices. The main problem

concerns the ambiguity in determining the appropriate value of the graduations applied to vehicle-tank meters

since the same meter may be used both as a retail and a wholesale device. This was item 330-5 in 1988. The Committee reviewed the proposed definitions, but is not recommending a change at this time. The review

has revealed that the problem is not specifically the definition, but rather the minimum delivery that may be made when using a wholesale meter. A device must have a quantity division that provides adequate resolution

for the range of deliveries for the meter. This value of the scale division is related to whether the device is a large-capacity or small-capacity device. The terms "wholesale" and "retail" are only a part of the problem. A retail device may be used for wholesale deliveries, but a wholesale meter may not always be appropriate for

retail deliveries. The adoption of the proposed definitions would change the scope of paragraphs that contain

the words "wholesale" and "retail." The Committee believes the terminology to distinguish between retail and

wholesale devices should be changed, that a minimum delivery should be established for wholesale devices so

that the value of the quantity division is appropriate for the application, and that the other paragraphs in the Code must be reviewed to assure that the change in terminology will not adversely change the scope of the requirements. The Committee believes that the resolution of this issue is to specify the accuracy required for specific commodities and the resolution required for the size of the deliveries. The Committee requests that the

regional weights and measures associations study this issue to develop proposals to resolve it. The Committee

hopes that any change recommended to the Conference on this item will be comprehensive and thoroughly reviewed so that corrective action will not be necessary in the near future.

173
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

331 Vehicle-Tank Meters Code

331-1 V S.l.1.2. Units; Miik Meters

(This item was adopted. See item 331-3 for the final wording adopted for S.l.1.2.) The Committee recommends that S.l.1.2. be amended to permit milk meters to indicate and record the measured quantity in pounds using the conversion factor of 8.6 lb per gallon, the standard factor when using a calibration chart for a milk tank. It is believed that this change would reduce confusion when a milk meter measures milk for custody transfer. Although the quantity in a milk tank is measured volumetrically, it is usually recorded in pounds based upon the 8.6 lb per gallon conversion factor. If milk meters were permitted

to indicate in pounds, then the unit of measure for bulk milk would be the same whether the milk were weighed

in a milk tank or through a milk meter.

In general, it is the position of the Committee that when a commodity is measured by volume, then its quantity

indication should be in volume units. The Committee realizes that the dairy industry has been using the conversion factor of 8.6 lb per gallon as a marketing standard for many years. Because it is a well established and understood marketing practice, and because milk is already measured in milk tanks on this basis, there does

not appear to be a significant problem in permitting a vehicle-tank meter to indicate the quantity for milk in pounds on the basis of the recognized standard of 8.6 lb per gallon. However, the Committee does not believe

it is appropriate to extend to other commodities the concept of measuring in volume and indicating in weight

units. Consequently, the Committee has proposed language that specifically limits this practice to the measurement of milk. The meters must be tested using milk as the test medium; there is a significant difference in the performance

of positive displacement meters when they are measuring milk as compared to water. Similarly, it is believed

that there is a significant difference in the meter adjustment or calibration factor when whole raw milk is measured as compared to skim milk. The Committee is concerned about the availability of provers to test the milk meters volumetrically. The field standard provers used to test milk meters must be sanitary lest the milk be contaminated. Very few provers are

available for this purpose, and the cost of each State purchasing an appropriate standard to test these meters would be high considering the limited use. This problem of a lack of appropriate field standards for this purpose will be aggravated as the number of milk meters in commercial use increases. The USDA/AMS Dairy

Division has commented that ."..until such time that the equipment and methodology needed to properly check and maintain the accuracy of vehicle-mounted meters are in place, we should oppose such use for payment

purposes." The Committee does not have a solution to this problem; however, milk meters are already recognized as commercial measuring devices. The Committee recommends changing S.l.1.2. by deleting the last sentence and making the last sentence a new

paragraph S.5.5. It is necessary to amend S. 1.1.3. to specify the maximum division value in pounds. The

Committee recommends that Note N.l. be amended to specify that milk meters must be tested with the type of milk that the meter will measure. The recommended changes are:

S.l.1.2. UNITS.

(a) A meter shall indicate, and record if the meter is equipped to record, its deliveries in terms of gallons [except as noted in S.1.12.(b)1 . Fractional parts of the gallon shall be in terms of either decimal or binary subdivisions.

(b) When it is an industry practice to purchase and sell milk by weight based upon

8.6.pounds per gallon, the primary indicating element may indicate in pounds and

decimal pounds. The weight value division shall be a decimal multiple or submultiple

of 1. 2. or 5. (See S.5.5.) S.1.1J. VALUE OF SMALLEST UNIT. - The value of the smallest unit of indicated delivery, and recorded delivery if the meter is equipped to record, shall not exceed the equivalent of:

174
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(a) 1 pint or 1 pound on milk-metering systems and on meters used for retail deliveries of liquid fuel for domestic use, or

(b) 1 gallon or 10 pounds on other meters.

S.5.5. CONVERSION FACTOR • When the conversion factor of 8.6 pounds per gallon is used

to convert the volume of milk to weight, the conversion factor shall be clearly marked on the primary indicating element and recorded on the delivery ticket. NX TEST LIQUID.

(a) A measuring system shall be tested with the liquid to be commercially measured or

with a liquid of the same general physical characteristics. A seal or tag should be attached by the weights and measures official following a satisfactory examination

indicating the product used during the test.

(b) A milk measuring system shall be tested with the type of milk to be measured when

the accuracy of the system is affected by the characteristics of milk (e.g.. positive displacement meters).

Several methods are currently used to measure milk. These include bulk milk tanks, vehicle scales, and milk

meters. Another item on the agenda (Item 335-1) is a recommendation to recognize mass flow meters for measuring milk. These methods of measurement raise the possibility of establishing three different bases for measuring milk. The first method is volume measurement and a factor of 8.6 lb per gallon to convert to weight

units; the second uses a vehicle scale that provides weight values based upon apparent mass versus 8.0 g/cm3

; and, third, mass flow meters can measure milk based upon true mass. Additionally, mass flow meters can measure the density of the milk as it is passing through the meter and convert it to a weight based upon 8.6 lb per gallon. These three methods of measurement could result in three different measured quantities for the same volume

of milk. The existence of more than one basis for measurement violates a basic principle of weights and measures that the payment for a commodity or service should be the same regardless of the method used to determine the quantity. However, the first two methods of measurement are already in use and it seems

inappropriate to delay the recognition of mass flow meters for the measurement of milk due to this conflict. Until the industry and regulatory agencies address this situation and agree upon a single basis of measurement,

multiple methods of payment will continue to exist. The same changes will be made to the Milk-Meters Code (Section 335) with the additional provision that the quantity division for measuring quantities in excess of 1,000 gallons (8,600 lb) shall not exceed 1 gallon or

10 lb.

331-2 W S.l.1.3. Value of Smallest Unit

(This item was withdrawn.)

This issue is similar to Item 330-5 in that it seeks an effort to clarify the size of the quantity division in certain

applications. Part of the concern is to assure that relatively small deliveries are measured with sufficient resolution to reduce the rounding error of the indication. The proposal was to amend S.l.1.3. to require

quantity divisions of not greater than 1 pint on metering systems with a designed maximum flow rate of 150

gallons per minute or less. The idea behind the proposal is that meter flow rate is related to the size of the average delivery. This item is withdrawn based upon the discussion contained in 330-5.

175
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

331-3 V Code Changes to Permit Mass Flow Meters

(This item was adopted.) A proposal has been made to amend the Vehicle-Tank Meters Code to permit mass flow meters to be used in

all applications covered by this code, particularly for measuring milk. The suggested changes to the VTM code

to recognize mass flow meters are similar to those adopted in 1987 for the LPG and NH3 Code.

This subject was discussed in item 331-1. Those issues apply to this item as well. To be consistent with the requirements adopted in 1987 in the LPG and Anhydrous Ammonia Liquid-Measuring

Devices Code, the mass of milk when measured through a mass flow meter should be expressed as apparent mass versus 8.0 g/cm3

. The test procedures recommended in the 1987, Item 330-2, are applicable to mass flow meters used to measure

milk. The USDA/AMS Dairy Division has commented that ."..until such time that the equipment and methodology needed to properly check and maintain the accuracy of vehicle-mounted meters are in place, we

should oppose such use for payment purposes." The Committee has been advised that portable sanitary holding

tanks are commonly available at dairy plants. These tanks can be placed on a floor scale and used to catch the milk that has passed through a mass flow meter. The scale can be tested and used as a transfer standard. The

meter indication can then be compared to the scale indication to determine the accuracy of the mass flow meter. This item is a voting item containing recommended changes to the Vehicle Tank Meters Code. If additional information becomes available on the issues presented above or on new issues related to the measurement of

milk, the Committee is prepared to change this to an information item to give additional time to address the

issues. The Committee recommends the following changes to recognize the use of mass flow meters on vehicles to measure milk and other products.

S.l.1.2. UNITS. - A meter shall indicate, and record if the meter is equipped to record, its deliveries in terms of gallons or pounds. Fractional parts of the gallon shall be in terms of

either decimal or binary subdivisions. Fractional parts of the pound shall be in decimal

subdivisions. The mass shall be expressed as apparent mass versus a density of 8.0 g/cm3

[Editors Note: As a result of the adoption of the recommendations in this item and item 331-3, S. 1.1.2. will read as follows in the 1990 edition of Handbook 44:

S.l.1.2. Units. -

(a) A meter shall indicate, and record if the meter is equipped to record, its deliveries in terms

of gallons or pounds. Fractional parts of the gallon shall be in terms of either decimal or binary subdivisions. Fractional parts of the pound shall be in decimal subdivisions.

(b) When it is an industry practice to purchase and sell milk by weight based upon 8.6 pounds per

gallon, the primary indicating element may indicate in pounds and decimal pounds. The weight

value division shall be a decimal multiple or submultiple of 1, 2, or 5. (See S.5.5.)

(c) The mass of milk measured through a mass flow meter shall be expressed as apparent mass

versus a density of 8.0 g/cm3

.]

S.1.1J. VALUE OF SMALLEST UNIT. - The value of the smallest unit of indicated delivery, and recorded delivery if the meter is equipped to record, shall not exceed the equivalent of:

(a) 1 pint or 1 pound on milk-metering systems and on meters used for retail deliveries of liquid fuel for domestic use, or

176
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(b) 1 gallon or 10 pounds on other meters.

5.1.42. PRINTED TICKET. - Any A printed ticket issued by a device of the computing-type

device on which is printed the total computed price shall have printed clearly thereon: atett

(a) the total volume quantity of the delivery in terms of gallons or pounds and the appropriate fraction of the gtttfon quantity: and

(b) the price per gattott unit. 5.1.43. MONEY-VALUE COMPUTATIONS. - Money-value computations shall be of the full-computing type in which the money value at a single unit price, or at each of a series of

unit prices, shall be computed for every delivery within either the range of measurement of the

device or the range of the computing elements, whichever is less. Value graduations shall be supplied and shall be accurately positioned. The value of each graduated interval shall be 1 cent. On electronic devices with digital indications, the total price may be computed on the

basis of the quantity indicated when the value of the smallest division indicated is equal to or

less than 0.1 gallon or 1 pound. Add a new paragraph S.2.4. to address meters that may be affected by changes in product density. S2.4. MASS FLOW METERS ONLY. - An automatic means to determine and correct for changes in product density shall be incorporated in any mass flow metering system that is affected by changes in the density of the product being measured. NJ. TEST DRAFTS. - Test drafts should be equal to at least the amount delivered by the

device in 1 minute at its maximum discharge rate, and shall in no case be less than 50 gallons or 500 pounds. T3. TOLERANCE VALUES ON METERS USED FOR THE MEASUREMENT OF AGRI- CHEMICAL LIQUIDS. - The maintenance tolerance on normal and special tests shall be 1 percent of the indicated vomme quantity. The acceptance tolerance on a normal test shall be

0.5 percent of the indicated volume quantity and on special tests, 1 percent of the indicated whnne quantity.

177
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Add Tables la and 2a to establish equivalent tolerances in pounds. Table la. TOLERANCES FOR VEHICLE-TANK MASS FLOW METERS EXCEPT FOR MEASURING MILK AND AGRI-CHEMICALS

On normal tests On special tests

Indication Maintenance Acceptance

tolerance tolerance

Maintenance and

acceptance

tolerance (Pounds) (Pounds) (Pounds) (Pounds)

500 2 1 2 over 500 Add 0.0022 pound per Add 0.0011 pound per

indicated pound over 500 indicated pound over 500

Add 0.0043 pound per

indicated pound over 500

Table 2a. TOLERANCES FOR MASS FLOW METERS MEASURING MILK

Maintenance

Indication tolerance Acceptancetolerance (Pounds) (Pounds) (Pounds)

1,000 5 2.000 7 3,000 9

4,000 11 5,000 13

34

56

7 Over 5,000 Add 0.002 pound per Add 0.001 pound per

indicated pound over 5,000 indicated pound over 5,000

Add the following two definitions from the LPG Code: apparent mass versus 8.0 g/cm3

. The apparent mass of an object versus 8.0 g/cm3 is the mass

of material of density 8.0 g/cm3 that produces exactly the same balance reading as the object when the comparison is made in air with a density of 12 g/cm3 at 20 °C. mass flow meter. A device that measures the mass of a product flowing through the system. The mass measurement may be determined directly from the effects of mass on the sensing

unit or may be inferred by measuring the properties of the product, such as the volume,

density, temperature, or pressure, and displaying the quantity in mass units.

331-4 W S.2.1. Vapor Elimination

(This item was withdrawn.) This item has been withdrawn. More information is needed from the regional associations before further action can be considered. Aircraft refueling systems usually have special filters and separators for impurities and

moisture. Liquid should not flow back through these filters because the back-flow would put impurities back into

178
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

the liquid. Additionally, the Committee was advised that commercial aircraft are fueled based upon weight. Information is needed on the fueling of small aircraft. It seems reasonable that some effective means of vapor

elimination is still required.

331-5 W T2. Tolerance Values, Split-Compartment Tests

(This item was withdrawn.)

This item has been withdrawn. Data has been collected, but not yet analyzed. Action may be considered next

year.

332 Liquefied Petroleum Gas and Anhydrous Ammonia

Liquid-Measuring Devices Code

332- 1 W S.3.1. Diversion of Measured Liquid

(This item was withdrawn.) Paragraph S.3.1. currently prohibits the simultaneous flow of liquid from two outlets. A proposal was made to permit the simultaneous flow of product when a top-filled truck and trailer are loaded at a wholesale terminal

or the product is measured through one meter and purchased by one party. This would permit the truck and

the trailer to be filled simultaneously. More justification is needed before action is considered on a national basis. Consequently, this item was

withdrawn.

332-2 W Changes to Recognize On-Board Weighing Systems

(This item was withdrawn.)

This item has been renumbered to place it in the Scales Code listing, consequently, item 332-2 has been

withdrawn.

332-3 W T.2. Tolerance Values

(This item was withdrawn.)

Test data has been received showing that LPG liquid meters can meet smaller tolerances than those currently

specified in Handbook 44. The test results for 586 meters analyzed to the proposed tolerances indicate that over 72 percent of the meters would pass the proposed tolerances. Using the current tolerances, over 85 percent of

the meters would pass the normal test and 75 percent would pass the special tests. The Committee is not convinced that the reduced tolerance would increase the overall accuracy of meters. The

compliance rate on LPG meters is still relatively low. It is thought that the reduced tolerance would only

increase the rejection rate of meters because the inherent accuracy of the meters to measure LPG liquid is believed to be limited to what is observed today. Consequently, the Committee has withdrawn this item.

179
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

332-4 W UR.2.3. Vapor-Return Line

(This item was withdrawn.) A proposal suggested that the vapor return line is no longer needed when filling modern LPG tanks using the current methods of fill. The proposal stated that a significant amount of product was returned to the supply tank through the vapor return line, resulting in a loss to the customer. Comments have been received indicating that the vapor-return line is still needed on some equipment and under some temperature conditions. Prohibiting the use of the vapor return line appears to be premature. Consequently, the Committee has withdrawn this item.

333 Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor-Measuring Devices Code

333-1 VC S.3.2. Shutoff Valves

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) The S.3.2. requirement for a shutoff valve should be a user requirement instead of a specification. Additionally,

it is recommended that provisions should be made at the time of installation for testing the meters and to determine the pressure at the meter. The accuracy of a vapor meter measurement system depends on

maintaining a constant pressure at the meter. There are tolerances on the permitted pressures that exist at a meter without applying a pressure correction. The only way the operating meter pressure can be verified is to measure the pressure at the meter. Provision for this measurement is contained in a new nonretroactive User Requirement UR.2.4. The Committee recommends that S.3.2. be deleted and a paragraph UR.2.4. be added to read: UR.2.4. VALVES AND TEST TEE.-AU gas meter installations shall be provided with a shut-off valve located adjacent to and on the inlet side of the meter. In the case of a single meter

installation utilizing a liquefied petroleum gas tank, the tank service valve may be used in lieu of

the shut-off valve. All gas meter installations shall be provided with a test tee located adjacent to and on the outlet side of the meter. (Nonretroactive as ofJanuary 1, 1990)

333-2 I Use of Heat to Vaporize the Liquid LPG

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) A gas-fired heater is sometimes used to vaporize LPG prior to metering the vapor. A vaporizer may be used

to generate a higher pressure to overcome the use of undersized piping in the vapor distribution system when

the system is unable to supply adequate product to meet the demand. The vapor discharged from the vaporizers can be very warm (70 °F to 90 °F). It is suggested that a customer purchasing gas through a gas-fired vaporizer/metering system would pay for more gas than if the product were metered at ambient temperature. The National Propane Gas Association (NPGA) has responded to this proposal stating that LPG tanks are located at least 50 feet from the nearest building or property line for safety and operational reasons. Thus, by

the time the propane gas reaches the first gas meter, the gas temperature will be the same as if the gas were

from a tank using natural vaporization. Consequently, the Association believes there is no justification to require temperature-compensating meters.

If the use of a vaporizer results in the vapor being measured at a higher temperature than would ordinarily exist for a system, then a temperature-compensating meter appears justified. However, the response from the NPGA

indicates that a difference in product temperature may not exist. After the NPGA response, the Committee has

received additional information showing installations that heat LPG vapor immediately before measurement

180
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

through an LP gas vapor meter. The Committee believes that these installations must be studied and recommendations made to correct what appear to be inappropriate installations.

333-3 W Recognize Mass Flow Meters

(This item was withdrawn.) A proposal was made to modify several paragraphs of the Hydrocarbon Gas Vapor-Measuring Devices Code to permit the use of mass flow meters to measure hydrocarbon gas vapor. The Committee is concerned with the number of codes that are being changed to accommodate the use of mass flow meters. The Committee does

not believe that each code should be changed to recognize mass flow meters; rather, consideration should be

given to establishing a separate code for mass flow meters. To this end, the draft OIML requirements should be considered as a possible foundation for such a code. Since there is no immediate need to recognize mass flow meters in this application, the Committee has withdrawn this item.

335 Milk Meters Code

335-1 V Mass Flow Meters

(This item was adopted.) The use of mass flow meters to measure milk has been discussed in items 331-1 and 331-3. The Committee

requests that the Liaison Committee contact the Federal Milk Marketing Administration to determine if there

is a marketing problem whether using a positive displacement meter indicating in pounds based upon an

8.6 lb/gal conversion factor, a mass flow meter indicating the same weight as would be obtained on a vehicle

scale, or a mass flow meter that would indicate based upon the conversion of 8.6 lb/gal. The Committee would

like to see this issue resolved before the issue is brought to a vote in July. The Committee recommends that the following changes be made to the Milk Meters Code.

S.l.1.2. UNITS. - A meter shall indicate and record, if the meter is equipped to record, its measurements in terms of gallons or pounds. Fractional parts of the se units the gallon shall be in terms of decimal or binary subdivisions. Fractional parts of the pound shall be in decimal subdivisions. The mass shall be expressed as apparent mass versus a density of

8.0 g/cm3.

S.1.1 3. VALUE OF SMALLEST UNIT. - The value of the smallest unit of indicated volume

quantity and recorded volume quantity, if the meter is equipped to record, shall not exceed 0.1 gallon, 1 pint, or 1 pound.

[Editors Note: As a result of the adoption of the recommendations in this item and items 331-1 and 331-3,

S.l.1.2. and S.l.1.3. will read as follows in the 1990 edition of Handbook 44:

S.l.1.2. Units. -

(a) A meter shall indicate, and record if the meter is equipped to record, its deliveries in terms

of gallons or pounds. Fractional parts of the gallon shall be in terms of either decimal or binary subdivisions. Fractional parts of the pound shall be in decimal subdivisions.

(b) When it is an industry practice to purchase and sell milk by weight based upon 8.6 pounds per

gallon, the primary indicating element may indicate in pounds and decimal pounds. The weight

value division shall be a decimal multiple or submultiple of 1, 2, or 5. (See S.5.5.)

181
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

(c) The mass of milk measured through a mass flow meter shall be expressed as apparent mass

versus a density of 8.0 g/cm3

.

S.l.1.3. Value of Smallest Unit. - The value of the smallest unit of indicated quantity and recorded

quantity, if the meter is equipped to record, shall not exceed the equivalent of:

(a) 1 pint or 1 pound when measuring quantities less than or equal to 1,000 gallons (8,600 lb), or

(b) 1 gallon or 10 pounds when measuring quantities in excess of 1,000 gallons (8,600 lb).]

S.l.4.2. PRINTED TICKET. - Any printed ticket issued by a device of the computing type on

which there is printed the total computed price shall have printed clearly thereon also the

total vohtme quantity of the delivery in terms of gallons and, the appropriate fraction of the gallon quantity, and the price per gaHott unit of quantity. Add a new paragraph S.2.5. to address meters that may be affected by changes in product density. S2.5. MASS FLOW METERS ONLY. - An automatic means to determine and correct for changes in product density shall be incorporated in any mass flow metering system that is affected by changes in the density of the product being measured. N3. TEST DRAFTS. - Test drafts should be equal to at least the amount delivered by the

device in 1 minute at its maximum discharge rate, and shall in no case be less than 100

gallons or 1.000 pounds.

T.2. TOLERANCE VALUES. - Maintenance and acceptance tolerances shall be as shown

in Tables 1 and 2.

Table 2 TOLERANCES FOR MASS FLOW METERS FOR MEASURING MILK

Maintenance Acceptance

Indication tolerance tolerance (Pounds) (Pounds) (Pounds)

1,000 5 3

2,000 7 4

3,000 9 5

4,000 11 6

5,000 13 7 Over 5,000 Add 0.002 pound per Add 0.001 pound per

indicated pound over 5,000 indicated pound over 5,000

UR.2.2. PRINTED TICKET. - Any printed ticket issued by a device of the computing type on which there is printed the total computed price, the total volume quantity, or the price per

gallon unit of quantity, shall also show the other two values (either printed or in clear script). Add the following two definitions from the LPG Code: apparent mass versus 8.0 g/cm3

. The apparent mass of an object versus 8.0 g/cm3 is the mass

of material of density 8.0 g/cm3 that produces exactly the same balance reading as the object when the comparison is made in air with a density of 12 g/cm3 at 20 °C.

182
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

mass flow meter. A device that measures the mass of a product flowing through the system. The mass measurement may be determined directly from the effects of mass on the sensing

unit or may be inferred by measuring the properties of the product, such as the volume,

density, temperature, or pressure, and displaying the quantity in mass units.

342 Lubricating-Oil Bottles Code

342-1 VC Delete the Entire Code

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) A proposal was received to delete this code since the use of lubricating-oil bottles is rare. Since there have been no comments suggesting a need to retain this code, the Committee recommends that the Lubricating-Oil Bottles Code be deleted.

347 Berry Baskets and Boxes Code

347-1 I Test Procedures For Berry Baskets and Boxes

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) The specific test procedures used by the NIST Office of Weights and Measures have not been published and may

not be known to some manufacturers of berry baskets and boxes or to many weights and measures officials. This

item was not on the Interim Meeting agenda but the Committee has been requested to include the procedure

in its report. Because the item was not on the agenda, the Committee is presenting it as an information item.

If comments indicate that the test procedures should be included in Handbook 44, the Committee will address

the issue again in 1990. Test Procedures and Guidelines

1. Many plastic berry baskets have ridges in the sides of the boxes to give them strength. These ridges are too narrow to provide any usable space in terms of containing any berries or small fruits. Consequently,

the ridges are taped over with thin transparent tape so that the rape seed does not occupy the ridges when the berry baskets are tested for capacity during type evaluation.

2. In most cases, the ridges have been formed into the walls of the basket such that they extend outward beyond the inside edge of the walls of the basket. This is considered appropriate. Ridges that are formed to the inside of the basket are not acceptable because they reduce the capacity of the basket. Ridges to the inside of the basket prevent the berries and fruit from reaching the walls of the basket in the vicinity of the ridges.

3. A funnel placed above the berry basket is filled with rape seed. The rape seed is then allowed to flow

into the berry basket and overflow so that all corners of the basket are filled.

4. The rape seed is struck off using a three-stroke "sawing" motion as is done for a grain-test measure.

5. The rape seed remaining in the berry basket is poured into graduated flasks and cylinders to determine

the volume of rape seed that was held in the basket.

6. As prescribed in paragraph T.2., 10 measures are selected from a lot of 25 or more berry baskets for the test.

7. Water is not to be used as a test medium. A limited number of tests comparing the capacity of a basket

using water and rape seed have indicated that water results in a systematically higher capacity value than

183
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

does rape seed. This difference is attributed the fact that water fills the space along the walls of the basket that is left open by the rape seed, and more bulging of the basket due to the greater density of

the water than for rape seed.

351 Wire- and Cordage-Measuring Devices Code

351-1 VC S.l. Units

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) Paragraph S.l. limits the units to feet or feet and inches. It is appropriate to permit wire or cordage meters to measure in yards and meters as well as feet. The Committee recommends that S.l. be amended to read:

S.l. UNITS. - A wire- or cordage-measuring device shall indicate lengths in terms of feet, feet and inches, yards, or meters or combinations of units of the same measurement system, and

shall have minimum increments with values that do not exceed the equivalent of 0.1 yard, or.

if metric. 0.1 meter.

354 Taximeters Code

354-1 VC S.7. Long Term Power Interruption, Electronic Taximeters

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) When the revision to the Taximeters Code was adopted in 1988, it contained this paragraph for a new

requirement. The nonretroactive and retroactive dates were based on the original date when the revision was

drafted and were not revised when the requirement was adopted.

It has been brought to the attention to the Committee that none of the current models of taximeters can meet

this requirement, therefore, the taximeter manufacturers need additional time to incorporate this feature into the taximeters. The Committee still believes the requirement is needed, but to provide the manufacturers

additional time to modify their taximeters to meet this requirement, the Committee recommends that the nonretroactive and retroactive dates be changed as shown below:

S.7. LONG TERM POWER INTERRUPTION, ELECTRONIC TAXIMETERS. After a power

interruption exceeding 10 seconds, the fare and extras indications shall return to the previously displayed indications and shall not be susceptible of advancement until the taximeter is cleared.

[ Effective and nonretroactive as of January 1, 1989 1994. Retroactive after January 1, 1994

1999.1

355 Timing Devices Code

355-1 I Parking Meters; Dropping of Remaining Time

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) Some parking meters cancel the remaining portion of time on a meter when a coin in inserted and the mechanism is activated. This can happen on electronic meters depending upon the programming, but it is believed to be fairly common on the more prevalent mechanical meters. This operation is considered

inappropriate because the meters do not comply with the tolerances when tested for accuracy.

184
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

Dropping of additional time on a meter may be desired by a municipality to prevent one person from taking advantage of time purchased by another. However, the issue then arises as to whether a new customer is entitled to the time purchased by a previous customer, or if purchased time may be used by any customer after

it has once been purchased. This argument is irrelevant if the same customer returns to purchase additional

time: the customer should not have to pay twice for some of the same parking time. The Committee agrees that time should be additive. There are limitations on the accuracy of mechanical

parking meters. There are probably a large number of meters already in service that drop any time that remains on the meter. Weights and measures officials are requested to investigate this issue and provide information to the Committee or the regional weights and measures associations so that the issue can be thoroughly reviewed

before a recommendation is presented to the Conference.

355-2 W Computerized Parking Meters

(This item was withdrawn.)

Several types of computerized parking meter systems are installed in parking lots. One system can service many

parking spaces. The Committee was requested to determine if additional requirements are needed to address

these systems. No comments were received on this item and little information was provided with the initial proposal. Consequently, the Committee has withdrawn this item.

356 Grain Moisture Meters Code

356-1 VC N.l.l. Transfer Standards

(This item was adopted as part of the consent calendar.) The USDA Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) uses a single type of grain moisture meter in its official grain inspection. They use a meter-to-meter intercomparison method to test the accuracy of their meters. The USDA/FGIS has compared this test method with the method specified in N.l.l. The results have shown that the meters were within the tolerances specified in Handbook 44. Under these special conditions, the procedures used by the FGIS maintain accuracy with the official air-oven method and may continue to be used. However, because of the stringent controls applied by FGIS under the

limitation of using only one type of meter, this method of testing is not considered appropriate for any other

agency. The Committee recommends that a footnote be added to N.l.l. and N.1.2. as follows:

N.l.l. TRANSFER STANDARDS*

N.1.2. MINIMUM TEST*

•The U.S. Department of Agriculture, Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS) uses a single brand and model of moisture meter for official inspection of moisture content in grains and

other commodities. The calibrations for the model are based on the official air-oven method

and are developed and monitored on an established schedule using a broad range (with respect to geographical source, kind, class, moisture content, maturity, etc.) of grain samples

at its central laboratory. The FGIS uses a hierarchical series of meter-to-meter intercomparisons to determine whether its field meters are operating within acceptable

tolerances (±02% with respect to standard meters). It has been shown that field meters checked by FGIS procedures perform within H-44 maintenance tolerances (T2.) when tested

(N.l.) using official grain samples. Agencies lacking a sample capability representing the

entire nation and traceable to the official laboratory reference method shall not use meter- to-meter field testing.

185
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

356-2 I N.1.3. Temperature-Measuring Equipment

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) The accuracy requirements for field standard thermometers are very stringent. The thermometers that meet

these requirements cost from $50 to $120 each. The potential for breakage of glass thermometers used for this purpose is high. The Committee was requested to review the required accuracy of thermometers to determine

if the application would permit less stringent requirements for the reference thermometers. The justification for the specified accuracy is that 1 °F represents 0.05 percent in moisture which can have a

significant effect on the grading of grain, hence on the price paid to the farmer. The Committee does not have sufficient information to evaluate this issue and requests additional information

to justify the current accuracy requirement.

360 Other Items

360-1 I Electric Watthour Meter Code

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) This was item 360-1 in 1988. The Committee received comments from the Electricity Metering Committee of

the American National Standards Institute (ANSI) advising against the adoption of this code for technical reasons. The primary concern was that the ANSI standards were much more extensive than the draft code and

the establishment of different standards would not promote uniformity in standards. The Committee agrees with the ANSI comments. The ANSI standards are much more extensive than the draft code and address many topics related to the safety and installation of electric watthour meters that are not covered in the draft. Additionally, ANSI is in the process of developing a standard for electronic watthour

meters. The Committee does not believe it has the expertise to adequately review and propose standards on

these meters. The Committee recommends that any State that needs standards and test procedures for electric watthour meters should consider adopting the ANSI standards.

360-2 I Carbon Dioxide Liquid Meter Code

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) The draft carbon dioxide liquid meter code was information item 360-2 in 1988. The Committee has received

specific suggestions to modify this code to make it more general. The changes suggested for the code appear to be appropriate, but the Committee did not have sufficient time

to review the proposed changes. Several States have reported an increase in the delivery of liquid carbon dioxide measured through a liquid meter and support the adoption of this code. Consequently, the Committee recommends that the Draft Carbon Dioxide Liquid Meter Code continue to be studied for further consideration

in 1990.

360-3 W Compressed Natural Gas

(This item was withdrawn.) Compressed natural gas is used as a motor fuel for some highway vehicles. Mass flow meters are one type of meter used to measure the compressed natural gas. Handbook 44 does not provide specific tolerances for this type of application. Specific requirements must be developed, if necessary, and the proper tolerance must be

determined. A decision must be made if these systems should meet the accuracy required of retail motor-fuel

186
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

dispensers which are used to measure liquid fuels for the same type of application, or if tolerances for the hydrocarbon gas vapor-measuring devices should be used. The latter tolerances are quite large. This issue, along with Item 332-2, raises a philosophical question of how the various codes and tolerances of Handbook 44 should be applied to devices. Should a device be classified into a code based upon its application or the technology of its design? Should a mass flow meter have different tolerances based upon the product

being measured? Canada has a set of requirements for these devices; however, the Committee did not have sufficient time to review the requirements to determine if they could be adopted into Handbook 44. The Canadian standard

specifies a tolerance of 1 percent when the devices are tested under the reference conditions for temperature and

pressure, a tolerance of 2 percent when the tests are at other than the reference temperature, and a tolerance

of 1.5 percent when tested at other than the reference pressure. Additional study is required before action can be recommended. Consequently, the Committee has withdrawn

this item. 360-4 I OIML Report

(This is an information item and was adopted when the report as a whole was ratified.) The following information was provided by Mr. O. K. Warnlof, Office of Standards Management, NIST. PS7 WEIGHING INSTRUMENTS (responsibility U.S.A.) The activities of Pilot Secretariat (PS) 7 have been rather extensive over the past years and will continue to be

so in the coming years. The following is an overview of past and future activities of each Reporting Secretariat (RS) of PS7 "Weighing Instruments." RS2 ELECTRONICS (responsibility U.S.A.) The U.S. National Working Group (USNWG), comprised primarily of SMA members, worked diligently over

the past 5 years, through many meetings of both the IWG and USNWG and many pre-draft documents in the development of Draft IR74. This document was accepted by the rWG's of RS2 and PS7 in Copenhagen, in June

1985, and then in April 1986 by CIML. Two durability tests were included in the document, with the proviso

that they be considered provisional until it could be determined that they are appropriate by justifying data. A

humidity test was to be conducted for 10 days at an RH of 93 percent and a temperature of 40 °C. A high heat temperature test was also to be conducted for 10 days, at 50 percent RH and at a temperature of either 55 °C

or 70 °C. It was the responsibility of the member nations to obtain valid data to justify the appropriateness of

these or any other durability tests to be included in the document. It was their responsibility to conduct these

tests and report the results to the RS (the U.S.) so that a final decision could be made prior to submitting the document to the 8th International Conference held in October 1988.

In January 1987, a memo was sent to all the collaborating nations requesting their response to certain questions on these tests as well as the performance tests that were included in the document. In response to the question "Do you currently perform the durability tests?," oniy one (Hungary) of the 15 responding nations answered

affirmatively. In response to the question "What are your comments regarding the suitability of the durability

tests?", all but one responded that they were not useful. In response to the question "Do you intend to conduct

these tests within the next 2 years?", two responded "maybe" and two responded "only if required by EEC

regulations." On the basis of these responses, the U.S. sent a memo to all the collaborating nations, recommending certain

revisions to the performance tests, requesting their vote on maintaining or deleting the durability tests from the

draft IR74 and replacing them with the following: This annex is intended to specify the durability tests for electronic weighing instruments. At the time

of the adoption of the IR it was not yet possible to include the appropriate durability tests.

187
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

The memo also announced that a meeting of the IWG was to be held in May 1988 in Copenhagen to fully resolve these issues. Of the 19 participating members, 15 responded. There were 12 votes for deletion of the

durability tests from the document, and 3 for maintaining them. Of the eight observer nations, four responded, recommending deletion. The three nations voting to maintain were FRG, France, and the U.K. FRG and

France, in their responses, clearly indicated that, regardless of the results of the vote, they were going to maintain the two durability tests in the combined draft IR. They stated further that "at this critical moment...it's

essential for OIML to establish cooperation and compatibility with EEC regulations." In addition, Bernard Athane (cannot vote) of BIML also sent a response in which he clearly agreed with the responses of FRG and

France. Nonetheless, a clear majority for deletion was obvious and, on January 14, 1988, the U.S. circulated the results of the vote to the member nations, stating further that these two tests were to be deleted from the document and

that no reference should be made to durability tests in any PS7 document since this was a vertical decision impacting on all PS7/RS work. Meeting of OIML PS7/RS2 "Electronics" The meeting was held in Copenhagen in May 1986 in conjunction with PS2/RS6. The meeting was attended by

31 persons, essentially the same as those in attendance at the meeting of PS/RS6 (referenced in report of PS2/RS6 meeting). The meeting was called mainly to finalize the issue of durability tests and to complete any

other revisions to the draft IR74 "Electronic Weighing Instruments" before submission to the International Conference. The durability tests were deleted from the document and the recommended alternative statement was accepted. The other changes agreed upon were mostly editorial, some so that the terminology was consistent with IEC

documents. The only subjects voted on were issues on A.3.7. Electromagnetic Susceptibility Test. One issue was

the field strength at which the tests were to be conducted, 3 V/m or 10 V/m. 3 V/m prevailed 10 -1. Another was to change the field strength from 1 V/m to 3 V/m at a frequency range of 500 - 1000 MHz. 1 V/m

prevailed by a vote of 6 - 4 with 1 abstention. Another was to eliminate tests at the first range of from 0.1 to 27 MHz. Maintaining this level prevailed by a vote of 10 - 1. Future Work of PS7/RS2

IR74 was adopted by the 8th International Conference. The combined document with the two durability tests was also adopted. However, a caveat was included that work towards a revision should begin immediately, and

that any future decision made by PS7/RS2 that modifies IR74 should be reflected in modifications to the combined document. A meeting of the USNWG was held February 21, 1989, at NIST. It was decided to eliminate the durability tests and to amend 3.1.3. so that all digital electronic devices must be equipped with durability protection features. Several other amendments, mostly editorial in nature, were agreed upon. These decisions will be circulated to the IWG for their review and comment and a meeting of the IWG will be scheduled for the spring of 1990 where, it is hoped, a consensus can be achieved on the amendments to R74. Support from the U.S. private sector is essential. Meeting of OIML PS2/RS6 "Electronic Measuring Instruments" The meeting was attended by 33 persons representing 11 participating Nations, (6 members of the European Economic Community - (EEC), 1 observer Nation and 4 Liaison International Institutions). This meeting was

called by the Netherlands to discuss revisions to ID11 "Electronic Measuring Instruments," and, as all other meetings of this IWG, was scheduled together with PS7/RS2. The major revisions agreed upon are as follows: There were several revisions in the terminology section, primarily made so that the terms were consistent with

the ISO and CENELEC vocabularies. The remaining revisions were made to the annex which is the part of the document specifying the tests to be conducted. The major changes are as follows:

188
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

- In all of the tests, the references to IEC standards were updated and the method used to reference these standards was changed.

- A.2.6.2. D.C. Power Supply Test will be added. Sweden will provide the secretariat with the appropriate IEC

test method.

- A.2.8.1. Spikes Test was deleted.

- The recommended tests for harmonics and magnetic fields were not included, but the titles are to remain

with the notation that they are still under consideration. The major points raised during the discussion on durability tests are: A lengthy discussion was held concerning the five durability tests that were recommended by Denmark. The

tests recommended were High Heat (55 °C - 10 days), Humidity (93 percent, 40 °C - 10 days), Corrosion, Random Vibration, and Sinusoidal Vibration. On a vote of eight to three it was decided that they not be

included, but that the reference to durability tests should remain in the document with the notation that appropriate durability tests were not yet available. PS7/RS4 "NON-AUTOMATIC WEIGHING INSTRUMENTS" (Responsibility FRG and France) The combined document was adopted by the 8th International Conference as R76-1 and R76-2 (pattern evaluation test report form). The U.S., Austria, and Italy voted against the document; India and the Netherlands

abstained. The proviso that was included as a part of the durability tests is as follows:

During the discussions on IR74 as regards durability tests, it was decided that it was not possible at present to prescribe durability tests applicable to all weighing instruments; however, work will continue by PS7/RS2 to define such tests. In the interim, a reporting secretariat responsible for a given category

of weighing instruments may develop durability tests for that category of weighing instruments to the

extent possible, but such tests will have to be harmonized with any future requirements of IR74. The RS has called a meeting of the IWG to be held May 21 - 23, 1990, in Braunschweig. Recommendations for revision to R76 are requested and a meeting of the USNWG will be held in February or March 1990 to prepare

for the meeting of the IWG. Once again, strong participation by the U.S. is essential and, of course, our work

on R74 must precede any effort on their part if we are going to eliminate the undue influence of FRG, France, and Denmark. PS7/RS5 "AUTOMATIC WEIGHING INSTRUMENTS" (responsibility U.K.) A meeting of the IWG was held in April 1988 in Teddington. The Fourth Pre-Drafts on Automatic Bulk Weighing Systems and Dynamic Railway Track Scale were discussed. Some progress was made; however neither document was accepted. Fifth Pre-Drafts were received from the RS in late December 1988 and circulated to the USNWG for review. A meeting of the USNWG was held on Wednesday and Thursday, February 22 and

23, 1989, at NIST to discuss these documents and to prepare a U.S. position for the meeting of the IWG to be

held at NWML in Teddington, April 10 -14, 1989. At the meeting of the rWG, the two Fifth Pre-Drafts were accepted with some modifications. They will be

circulated in July or August, 1989 for vote by the RS and the PS. At the April 1988 meeting of the IWG, a short day's discussion was held on a Draft Revision of IR50 "Belt Weighers." A few decisions were reached that were consistent with U.S. views. A Second Draft Revision was

received from the RS in January, 1989, and distributed to the USNWG for review and a meeting to formulate

a U.S. position was held Friday, February 24, at NIST. At the meeting of the IWG in April, 1989, after 2 1/2

days discussion, some progress was made on the document with many U.S. points being accepted. The RS will circulate a Third Draft revision before the end of 1989 and a meeting of the IWG will be held in the spring of

1990.

189
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

PS7/RS8 "LOAD CELLS" (responsibility U.SA.)

A revision of IR60 was completed at the last meeting of the IWG, held in Teddington, in April 1988. This has been forwarded to BIML for circulation to CIML for final approval. This revision is, for the most part, consistent with the views of U.S. industry. Its success is an indication of what

can be achieved by the active role played by the U.S., and especially SMA participation. SYMBOLS (responsibility BIML) BIML has assumed responsibility for this work. The U.S. comments on the Third Preliminary Draft were mainly

that the use of italics and subscripts in symbols were difficult to reproduce. We are awaiting a Fourth PreDraft. PS5D "DYNAMIC MEASUREMENT OF QUANTITIES OF LIQUID"

PS5D/RS10 "DIRECT MASS FLOW MEASUREMENT OF QUANTITIES OF LIQUIDS"

At the September 1987 meeting of the CIML, it was decided that a new Reporting Secretariat should be

established to deal with mass flow measuring instruments. This new secretariat is PS5D/RS10 "Direct Mass

Flow Measurement of Quantities of Liquids" with the United States as the responsible member nation. A First Pre-Draft IR "Direct Mass Flow Instruments for Measuring Quantities of Liquids" was developed by the U.S. National Working Group. In October 1988, this First Pre-Draft was circulated to the IWG for comment

by February 17, 1989. A meeting of the USNWG was held Tuesday, February 28, 1989, at NIST, to review the comments received and

to develop a U.S. position in preparation for the meeting of the IWG. A meeting of the International Working Group was held Wednesday and Thursday, April 5 and 6, 1989, at the National Weights and Measures Laboratory, Teddington, England, to discuss this document and the comments

received. Considerable progress was made with most of the U.S. philosophy being accepted. A meeting of the USNWG was held June 1, 1989, at NIST during which a Second Pre-Draft was developed. It will be circulated to the USNWG for review and comment in August, and a meeting will be held in the fall of 1989 to finalize it. It will then be circulated to the IWG for review and comment and a meeting of the IWG will be scheduled for the spring of 1990. This pre-draft is intended to be a "stand-alone" document to include all requirements applicable to direct mass

flow measuring instruments. It incorporates what the U.S. considers to be all of the applicable requirements from IR's 5, 27, 57. It will also include specific requirements applicable to electronic instruments from the Draft IR "Electronic Devices Applied to the Measurement of Volumes of Liquids" just accepted by the IWG for PS5D/RS6 at it's meeting held in April, 1989 in Paris. PS5D/RSS6 "ELECTRONIC DEVICES APPLIED TO THE MEASUREMENT OF VOLUME OF LIQUIDS"

A meeting of the IWG was held in November 1987, in which the U.S. did not participate, to discuss the Second

Pre-Draft. A Third Pre-Draft was received in February, 1989 and a meeting of the USNWG was held March

6, 1989 at NIST. A U.S. position was developed and presented at the meeting of the IWG held April 17 - 18, 1989 in Paris. During that meeting, after some amendments, the 3rd Pre-draft was accepted. It has now been

circulated as a Draft IR to the USNWG for vote. PS5D/RS1 "METERS AND MEASURING SYSTEMS FOR LIQUIDS OTHER THAN WATER WITH MEASURING CHAMBERS OR WITH TURBINES" A meeting of the IWG was held April 19 - 21, 1989 in Paris. The document under discussion was 1st Pre-draft "Measuring Assemblies For Liquids Other Than Water," a compilation with some revisions of existing R's 5, 27,

57, 67, 77, and the applicable requirements from the electronics document. A lengthy discussion (2 days) was

held on maximum permissible errors (mpe)and as a result, an ad-hoc committee was established to deal with

190
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

this issue. The pre-draft has been circulated to the USNWG for review and comment and a meeting will be held

in November/December, 1989 to finalize U.S. comments. A meeting of the IWG has been scheduled for April 1990 in Paris for further work on this document and the mpe issue. PS5D/RS7 "METHODS AND DEVICES FOR VERIFICATION OF MEASURING INSTRUMENTS FOR

LIQUIDS"

A First Pre-Draft IR "Testing Procedures for Pattern Examination of Fuel Dispensers for Motor Vehicles" has been circulated for comment. Only a few comments were received. We are awaiting further action by the RS. Future Work

Over the next year there will be several meetings held and documents to be reviewed to establish U.S. positions. They are listed here according to the particular Pilot and Reporting Secretariat for your convenience. PS5D "Dynamic Liquid Measurement" RSI "Meters And Measuring Systems" 2nd Pre-draft (PD) "Combined Document" to be circulated by January 15, 1990. Meeting of U.S. National Working Group (NWG) in February or March 1990, NIST. Comments on 2nd PD by March 1990. Meeting of International Working Group (rWG) in April 1990, Paris. RS7/9 "Methods And Devices For Verification"/"Vortex Meters" 2nd PD "Test Procedures and Standards Used for Dispensers." 2nd PD "Pipe Provers."

1st PD "Vortex Meters." Meeting of IWG to be held November 6-10, 1989, Japan. RS10 "Mass Flow" Meeting of NWG "Mass Flow" October 23-24, 1989, NIST.

2nd PD "Mass Flow Meters" circulated for comment in December 1989. Meeting of rWG "Mass Flow," April 1990, Paris. PS7 "Weighing Instruments" RS4 "Non-automatic Weighing Instruments"

1st PD Revision "R76" (combined requirements), to be circulated in February 1990 Meeting of NWG in March 1990, NIST. Meeting of IWG in May 1990, FRG.

RS5 "Automatic Weighing Instruments"

1st D IR "Hoppers" circulated to PS and USNWG for vote by November 1, 1989.

Due from RS

for comment

before meeting.

191
Specifications and Tolerances Committee

1st D IR "Dynamic RR Track Scales" (same as above). 3rd D Revision "Belt Weighers" due from RS in September 1989.

1st D Revision "Checkweighers" due from RS in September 1989. Meeting of NWG "Belt Weighers and Checkweighers" in March 1990, NIST. Meeting of IWG (Belt and Checkweighers) in April 1990, England. RS2 "Electronic Weighing Instruments" Meeting of NWG in March 1990 to discuss comments for revision to R74. Meeting of IWG in May, 1990 in Europe to discuss revisions to R74.

R. Andersen, New York, Chairman

C. Carroll, Massachusetts

R. Helmick, Arizona

J. Truex, Ohio

D. Watson, Texas

H. Oppermann, NIST, Technical Advisor

Committee on Specifications and Tolerances

192
Education Committee

Report of the Committee on

Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs

Charles H. Greene, Chairman

Director, General Services

State of New Mexico REFERENCE

KEY NO. 400 Introduction

This is the Final Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs for the 74th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. The Report consists of the Interim Report offered in the Conference "Program and Committee Reports" as amended by the Addendum Sheets

issued during the Annual Meeting. Table A identifies all of the items contained in the Report by Reference Key Number, Item Title, and Page Number. Item 402-5 (identified in the table by boldface print and by the suffix "V") was the Committee's only

voting item. It was adopted by a separate vote of the membership as follows: House of State Representatives - 46 yea, 0 nay ; House of Delegates - 78 yea, 0 nay. All other items, which are marked with an "I" after the Reference Key No., were informational and required no formal action by the membership. The membership

adopted the report in its entirety as follows: House of State Representatives - 45 yea, 0 nay; House of Delegates

- 77 yea, 0 nay.

Table A

Reference Key Items and Index

Reference Title of Item Page Key No.

401 I REGIONAL WEIGHTS AND MEASURES ACTIVITIES 194 402 NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM (NTP) 196

402-1 I NTP Status Report 196

402-2 I Certification Program Implementation 198

402-3 I Registry Summary 198

193
Education Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Key Items and Index

Reference Title of Item Page Key No.

402-4 Module Revisions 198

402-5 V Training Program Implementation 198 402-6 Development of Train-the-Trainer Materials 199 402-7 Review of Field Test Draft of Module 24 200

402-8 NCWM Award for Training Achievements 200 403 REVIEW OF TASK FORCE ON FRAUD RECOMMENDATIONS 200 404 SAFETY 201 405 REVIEW OF NTP PRODUCTION SCHEDULE/PLANNING 201

In addition, the Report contains three appendices that are related to specific Reference Key Numbers as follows:

Table B

Appendices

App. Title Reference Key No. Page

A. NTP Certification Summary 402-2 203

B. NTP Registry Summary of Activity 402-3 207

C. Training the Trainer 402-6 213 D. NCWM Award for Training Achievements 402-8 214

Details of All Items

(in order of Reference Key Number) 401 I Regional Weights and Measures Activities The Committee reviewed and discussed the following reports:

1. The final report of the Education and Consumer Affairs Committee to the 31st Annual Technical Conference of the Western Weights and Measures Association (September 1988).

2. The final report of the Education Committee to the 43rd Annual Conference of the Southern Weights and Measures Association (October 1988).

3. The Final Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs to the 16th Annual Conference of the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (May 1988) (carried over from the 73rd NCWM).

4. NEWMA Proposal to the NCWM Education Committee from William Wilson, Clinton County, NY,

dated October 27, 1988.

194
Education Committee

5. A letter from Steven A. Malone concerning comments on the Education Committee's Interim Report made at the Central Weights and Measures Association's meeting in April 1989.

6. The Final Report of the Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs to the 17th Annual Conference of the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (May 1989). The reports of the Western and Southern Weights and Measures Associations contained recommendations

concerning the use of the $10,000 allocated by the NCWM Executive Committee for the development of Train- the-Trainer materials, which were considered in the Education Committee's discussions on this topic (see Item

402-6). The Committee discussed several items proposed by the Education Committee of the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association (NEWMA). The Committee's positions on the various proposals are as follows:

a. Development of a basic weights and measures module - NEWMA states that a course of the type it proposes is currently available from the Institute of Weights and Measures. Because

a course of the type requested already exists, the Committee feels it can make better use of the grant funds it has received from NIST by developing new courses in other higher priority areas.

b. Development of a plan for combining Module 1. Retail Computing Scales - Mechanical, and Module 2. Retail Computing Scales - Electronic, into a single training program - At the current

time, the Committee believes that there are enough differences between the devices covered

in Modules 1 and 2 to justify separate modules; however, the Committee will reexamine its position if the NCWM significantly simplifies the tolerance structure for the types of devices covered in Modules 1 and 2 in response to proposals currently being considered by the S&T

Committee.

c. Elimination of specific Continuing Education Unit (CEU) amounts for each module and award

of variable amounts of credit based on the amount of time a state has to spend on a module - The number of CEU's to be awarded for each module is determined on the basis of recommendations from training experts and comments from participants in module field tests. (One CEU is equivalent to 10 hours of classroom instruction.) It is the Committee's feeling, therefore, that the hours specified by a module should be considered a minimum time for adequate presentation of the course. In addition, the Committee feels the proposed change would be in conflict with one of the NTP's primary objectives: to promote uniformity in the

training of weights and measures officials. Consequently, no changes are planned in the method

of assigning CEUs.

d. A change in policy to permit experienced officials who can pass module final examinations to be eligible for NCWM certification without taking classroom training - The NCWM's National Training Program was designed to combine classroom and field training for the uniform

instruction of new weights and measures officials. The module examinations were, therefore, not intended to be an independent measure of knowledge in a particular area and should not be used for that purpose. Furthermore, the NTP is first and foremost a training program rather than a certification program -- the certification component of the program is simply the recognition given to participants for completing training and demonstrating the results of that training in the field. Consequently, waiving classroom training to facilitate the certification of experienced officials would be counter to the main purpose of the NTP. The Committee feels

it has already made a significant concession by permitting a jurisdiction to waive the field training portion of a module in the case of experienced officials; to also waive the classroom

portion of the module would make certification an almost meaningless gesture.

e. Reduction of the 100% correct criterion for tolerance tables in the scales modules to 80%

correct - The Committee had received several recommendations, in addition to NEWMA's,

to make changes in the requirements for the tolerance work sheets in the final exams of the various scale modules. At the Interim Meeting, Tina Butcher of the NIST Office of Weights and Measures presented a specific proposal for scoring the work sheets in the exams for Module

4, Medium-Capacity Scales, and changing the 100 percent correct criterion for the work sheets on the exams to 80 percent or better. Her proposal was adopted by the Committee. In

195
Education Committee

addition, the Committee decided to take some other steps to simplify the completion of the Module 4 work sheets, including allowing students to consult NIST Handbook 44 and the Examination Procedure Outlines when completing the work sheets and not requiring the completion of the "acceptable range of scale indication" portion of the work sheets during the exam. It was felt that these changes were necessary because of the complexity and number of work sheets in Module 4. Similar problems exist in Module 5, Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales, and Module 7, Livestock and Animal Scales; consequently, the same changes will be made to the exams in these modules. The Committee is considering making similar changes to Modules

1 and 2 on retail computing scales as these modules are revised. Materials explaining the changes to the exam work sheets in Modules 4, 5, and 7 have been sent to each State and to

all purchasers of the modules. The changes are nonretroactive as of the date of the transmittal

letter. The Committee appreciates the detailed input on education issues that it has been receiving from the Regional Weights and Measures Associations.

402 National Training Program (NTP)

402-1 I NTP Status Report

The status of grant funds received from the National Institute of Standards and Technology as of June 30, 1989, was as follows: Grant 1 - NB83NAHA4003

Net outlays to date: $446,026.70 Total unliquidated obligations: 4,000.00 (money committed to contractors) Total outlays & unliquidated obligations: 450,026.70 Total grant funds authorized: 515,189.00 Unobligated balance of funds: 65,162.30 (money available for future module

development)

Grant 2 - 70NANB8H0869

Net outlays to date: $ 25,000.00 Total unliquidated obligations: 6,000.00 (money committed to contractors) Total outlays & unliquidated obligations: 31,000.00 Total grant funds authorized: 120,000.00 Unobligated balance of funds: 89,000.00 (money available for future module

development)

The status of all training modules published or under development as of June 30, 1989, is given in Table C.

196
Education Committee

Table C

Training Module Status Report

(As of 6/30/89)

Module No. Subject Status

1 Mechanical Computing Scales Project completed. 2 Electronic Computing Scales Project completed.

4 Medium-Capacity Scales Project completed.

5 Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales Project completed. 6 Monorail Scales Project completed. 7 Livestock and Animal Scales Project completed.

8 Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers Project completed.

10 Package Checking Project completed.

13 Hnnnpr ^ralpc "Flip 1 llv u/orVinQ WUI Milt rrrnun UUU ic13 Hf*vp1r»nin<y ULVV^lUUlUg aO. npu/ ll^/W rlraft Ul Ull r\f KJl trip ItlW module.

19 Loading-Rack Meters The first Contractor's draft of this module was

reviewed by the Committee. The Contractor is now

working on the field test draft of the module.

20 Vehicle-Tank Meters Project completed.

21 LPG Liquid Meters Project completed. 22 Commodity Regulations Because of the extensive changes recommended as a result of the field test of this module, a second field test draft was prepared by the Contractor. The final version of the module is expected to be issued by late summer 1989. 23 Weights and Measures Admin. Work on this module has been halted temporarily. 24 Introduction to Handbook 44 Project completed.

27 Electronic Weighing and

Measuring Systems

Project completed.

197
Education Committee

402-2 I Certification Program Implementation

As of June 30, 1989, the following 48 jurisdictions had signed Letters of Agreement with the NCWM and had been accepted as participants in the NTP Certification Program: Alabama Louisiana Oklahoma

Alaska Maine Oregon

Arizona Maryland Pennsylvania Arkansas Massachusetts Puerto Rico

California Michigan South Carolina Colorado Minnesota South Dakota

Connecticut Missouri Tennessee

District of Columbia Montana Texas

Florida Nebraska Utah

Georgia New Hampshire Vermont

Hawaii New Jersey Virginia Idaho New Mexico Virgin Islands

Illinois New York Washington

Indiana North Carolina West Virginia Iowa North Dakota Wisconsin Kansas Ohio Wyoming

Information summarizing participation in the NTP Certification Program is provided in Appendix A.

402-3 I Registry Summary

A summary of information in the NTP Registry as of June 30, 1989, is found in Appendix B. The Registry

serves as a permanent record of NCWM courses successfully completed and Continuing Education Units (CEUs)

earned under the NTP.

402-4 I Module Revisions A revision of Module 2, Retail-Computing Scales - Electronic, was completed by the Education Committee;

however, the Committee decided not to distribute copies of the revision because of the significant changes to the Scales Code that were being considered by the Conference. After the NCWM's 1989 Annual Meeting, the Committee will reevaluate the status of the Module 2 revision. Module 10, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods, will be the next module to be revised followed by Module 8, Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers and

Consoles.

402-5 V Training Program Implementation

(This item was adopted) The Committee discussed problems and training program modifications that have occurred as states implement

the NTP. An evaluation was made of the appropriateness of continuing to issue Continuing Education Units (CEU's) to states that have not signed Letters of Agreement with the NCWM. It was decided that CEU's

should not be issued unless the Conference has some assurance that a specific module course was conducted in accordance with all of the requirements of the module. Consequently, the Committee recommended that the Conference adopt the following policy with regard to the awarding of CEU's:

198
Education Committee

Continuing Education Units will be awarded only to participants in NCWM module training

classes that are given by or sponsored by States that have signed Letters of Agreement with

the Conference to participate in the National Training Program Certification Program and

thus have formally agreed to provide training in accordance with the instructor's manual in each individual training module. Acceptance of this policy will mean that individuals in a State that has not signed a Letter of Agreement with

the NCWM will no longer receive CEU's for module training given by that State but could receive CEU's for participating in module training given by another State that has signed a Letter of Agreement. If a State office of weights and measures has signed a Letter of Agreement with the Conference, officials in any jurisdiction within that State are eligible to receive CEU's unless they participate in a module course given by a State that has not signed a Letter of Agreement. Individuals who participate in NCWM module training courses given by

independent training groups, Federal agencies, industry groups, or other groups that are not eligible to participate in the NTP Certification Program may receive CEU's if the training is sponsored by a State that is a participant in the Certification Program. Another area of discussion was possible enhancements to the NTP. One suggestion adopted by the Committee

was to propose the establishment of an NCWM award to recognize groups or individuals for their accomplishments in the area of training. (See Item 402-8 for details on this award.) The Committee also plans

to develop a list of qualified individuals who are willing to assist State and local weights and measures

jurisdictions by conducting training on NCWM modules. This list might consist of State or local trainers who

had developed expertise in presenting a specific module or modules, independent training groups, retired weights and measures officials, or Federal Agency employees who are willing to provide module training. A mailing was sent to all NCWM members asking for volunteers to be included on the trainers list. The mailing

included a form requesting information from each volunteer on: background and qualifications relevant to the

training program, names and numbers of the modules they are qualified and willing to teach, fees or expenses

to be paid by the jurisdiction sponsoring the training, and any special restrictions on their services or requirements that must be met in order for them to teach a module. All individuals on the list will have to

sign an agreement with the NCWM to present all NCWM module classes in accordance with the requirements

in the modules.

402-6 I Development of Train-the-Trainer Materials

Various proposals for using the $10,000 allocated by the NCWM Executive Committee for development of train- the-trainer materials for weights and measures officials were discussed and evaluated. These proposals fell into two major categories: video tape presentations and live presentations. It was the consensus of the Committee

that the most effective type of train-the-trainer course would consist of a live presentation by an instructor on

effective training techniques followed by presentations by class members that simulate an actual training session. Consequently, the Committee considered sponsoring a series of one-time seminars in each of the four regions

(as defined by the various weights and measures associations) that would follow the preferred format. However,

it was determined that this approach would result in one-time training for a very small number of individuals because of funding limitations. In addition, some States indicated that it would be difficult for them to send any

of their officials to an out-of-State training seminar. Both the Western and the Southern Weights and Measures Associations recommended the use of video tapes

to present train-the-trainer information. This would allow States to present in-house classes as often as desired

to train new officials. The Committee therefore decided that the long term needs of the Conference would best be served by using the funds allocated by the NCWM Executive Committee to purchase a video-taped train- the-trainer course. This decision was endorsed by members of the Executive Committee during a joint meeting

with the Education Committee.

199
Education Committee

Following the NCWM Interim Meeting, the Education Committee reviewed a videotape train-the-trainer course developed by the Industrial Training Corporation (ITC), a professional training organization that has helped the Conference write a number of its training modules. The course consists of 14 half-hour tapes on a number of

training topics (see Appendix C for a complete list). Each tape comes with a Student Workbook and an

Instructor Guide. The Committee concluded that the ITC course was a professionally done, comprehensive

training program that had the flexibility to meet the varying needs of Conference members (for example, the course could be presented by an instructor or, if necessary, could be used as a self-study course). Consequently,

the Committee purchased one set of the tapes and a supply of additional workbooks. It plans to loan the tapes

to any jurisdiction upon request. Free copies of workbooks for the course will be supplied to course sponsors

(subject to certain limitations). The Committee plans to distribute detailed information on the course and how

to make arrangements to borrow it. As noted above, the Education Committee believes that the most effective type of training would consist of a live presentation by an instructor and direct involvement by the students. Jurisdictions are encouraged to take advantage of this type of training whenever possible. Committee members were told that many State departments currently have train-the-trainer or similar types of training. For example, the Ohio Department of Agriculture sponsors a class on effective presentations that addresses topics of interest to trainers. Train-thetrainer courses are also offered by the U. S. Department of Agriculture Graduate School. USDA will send an

instructor to your site and tailor a 1-, 2-, or 3-day train-the-trainer course to your needs for a reasonable fee. Independent training groups also offer a variety of courses for trainers. For more information about these

courses, contact the Education Committee's Technical Advisor.

402-7 I Review of Field Test Draft of Module 24

The Committee reviewed the field test draft of Module 24, Introduction to NIST Handbook 44, and comments

received from field tests in Maryland, California, Nebraska, North Carolina, and West Virginia. Changes were

sent to the Contractor and a final version of the module was prepared. Copies of the module have been mailed

to state weights and measures offices. Additional copies may now be purchased from the NCWM for $35 ($20

for the Inspector's Manual, $15 for the Course Administrator's Guide).

402-8 I NCWM Award for Training Achievements

The Education Committee's Interim Report proposed that the NCWM establish an Excellence in Training Award to recognize individuals or groups for outstanding achievements in implementing the NCWM National Training Program and enhancing the professional status of individuals in the weights and measures field. Several comments were received on the proposal; consequently, the Committee revised its description of the award as shown in Appendix D to reflect these comments. The Committee has received feedback from the Central and

Northeastern Weights and Measures Associations on the award and would like to get additional feedback from

the Western and Southern Weights and Measures Associations; therefore, it is withdrawing this item as a voting item and is requesting comments on the revised proposal.

403 I Review of Task Force on Fraud Recommendations

Recommendations of the NCWM Task Force on Fraud that were directed to the Education Committee were

discussed. These recommendations included the following: Develop a uniform definition of fraudulent activities, Develop a uniform method of classifying types of fraudulent activities, and

Establish a mechanism by which information on fraudulent activities could be collected and made available at the national level.

200
Education Committee

The Committee plans to address the various recommendations as time and other priorities permit. In the meantime, the Committee urges weights and measures directors to read the Task Force's report. Copies of the report (NCWM Publication 17) are available from the NIST Office of Weights and Measures.

404 I Safety (Joint Meeting with Liaison Committee)

Results of the Northeastern Weights and Measures Association's safety survey were reviewed and discussed. The preliminary data gathered by NEWMA provided some excellent information on ways to increase the safety of weights and measures officials. Consequently, the Committee believes the work of the NEWMA Safety Sub- Committee should be continued at the national level. The Education Committee joins the Liaison Committee

in recommending that the NCWM Chairman appoint a task force to study safety awareness, training, and

problems and make recommendations to the Conference on ways to enhance the safety of individuals in the weights and measures field.

405 I Review of NTP Production Schedule/Planning

The Committee reviewed the list of high priority modules that was compiled as a result of the NCWM's

Education Survey in 1987 and decided to pursue the development of the following modules:

Weights and Measures Administration Communications

Test Equipment (calibration and use) Hopper Scales. Anyone who would like to contribute to the development of these modules should contact the Committee's

Technical Advisor.

C. Greene, New Mexico, Chairman

G. W. Diggs, Virginia M. Gray, Florida R. Kalentkowski, Connecticut

S. Malone, Nebraska

J. Koenig, NIST, Technical Advisor Committee on Education, Administration, and

Consumer Affairs

201

Education Committee

APPENDIX A

203
204
Education Committee

Certification Summary

(Certificates Issued by Module by State) As of 6/30/89

Total A UlCLi NnI ~ VJ. Total Nn

State nf CWtif nf Pponlp 1 2 4 5 7 8s 10 20 21 AL 16 13 12 4 AK 10 10 10 AZ 28 28 28 AR 118 35 20 20 8 4 34 12 17 3 CT 55 21 15 18 2 15 3 2 DC 3 3 3 FL 16 12 6 3 7 GA 8 8 8 ID 9 9 9 KS 18 9 7 7 4 LA 1 1 1 MI 42 14 9 12 14 7 MN 15 15 15 MO 21 20 2 19 NE 24 12 2 12 10 NH 30 8 6 5 5 6 8 NM 6 6 1 5 ND 3 3 3 OH 39 37 4 34 1 OR 47 16 16 15 10 6 PR 65 47 32 33 SD 27 12 7 12 7 1 UT 54 16 15 15 11 12 VA 2 2 2 WA 21 16 5 16 WI 4 4 4 26" 690 377 70" 148 42 47 76 214" 84 42 18

205
206
Education Committee

APPENDIX B

207
Education Committee

National Training Program Registry

Summary of Activity

(As of June 30, 1989)

Courses Listed in Registry: Module 1, Retail Computing Scales - Mechanical Module 2, Retail Computing Scales - Electronic Module 4, Medium-Capacity Scales Module 5, Vehicle and Axle-Load Scales Module 6, Meat Beams and Monorail Scales Module 7, Livestock and Animal Scales Module 8, Retail Motor-Fuel Dispensers and Consoles Module 10, Checking the Net Contents of Packaged Goods

Module 20, Vehicle-Tank Meters Module 21, LPG Liquid-Measuring Devices Module 24, Introduction to NIST Handbook 44 Module 27, Introduction to Electronic Weighing and Measuring Systems

Individuals Trained - By Module

Module

State 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 20 21 24 27 Totals AL 15 12 4 14 25 70 AK 10 8 18 AZ 27 6 17 25 75 AR 20 20 8 4 34 12 17 3 118 CA 1 CO 1 1 CT 21 20 2 16 18 6 2 85 DC 4 4 3 11 FL 13 22 14 13 24 19 8 41 154 GA 11 8 7 26 HI 14 4 18 ID 9 10 10 8 37

IL 1 7 2 10 IN 43 46 56 48 193 IA 4 4 KS 9 10 14 5 3 25 2 8 76 KY 1 19 20 LA 1 1 ME 3 1 8 2 4 18 MD 6 6 MA 15 4 5 14 3 31 1 12 85 MI 50 13 19 2 29 22 12 53 200 MS 2 3 3 8 MO 13 28 26 22 89 MT 5 6 1 8 20 NE 3 4 13 15 10 20 65 NH 6 5 7 6 8 6 38 NJ 12 13 134 159
Education Committee

Individuals Trained - By Module (Continued) Module

State 1 2 4 5 6 7 8 10 20 21 24 27 Tota NM 12 13 13 25 2 65 NY 74 8 9 91 NC 19 19 ND 3 12 15 OH 40 13 4 4 42 14 58 175 OK 2 22 2 26 OR 18 17 12 16 16 16 95 P&S 1 14 3 18 PA 34 69 56 39 1 82 281 PR 32 33 15 80 RI 1 1 1 3 SC 25 2 28 55 SD 7 12 7 10 10 46 TN 6 6 32 5 49 TX 4 4 UT 16 15 12 13 1 16 73 VT 5 3 7 1 5 21 VA 9 1 38 4 41 93 WA 13 8 16 1 16 54 WV 3 3 WI 56 53 13 28 26 5 63 244 WY 11 16 3 30

Totals 194 590 180 130 4 76 596 405 134 99 6 732 3146

209
210
211
Education Committee

Continuing Education Units (CEUs) Awarded

By the National Conference on Weights and Measures

(As of 6/30/89)

Module CEUs*

No. of

Partic. 1985Total 1986Total 1987Total 1988Total 1989Totals GrandTotals

1 3.1 194 - 306.9 77.5 117.8 99.2 601.4 2 3.1** 590 - 65.1 857.9 759.5 65.1 1747.6 4 3.1 180 502.2 55.8 613.8

5 3.1 130 96.1 133.3 173.6 403.0 6 3.1 4 12.4 12.4 7 3.1 76 12.4 223.2 235.6 8 2.8 596 288.4 856.8 260.4 263.2 1668.S 10 2.8 405 75.6 372.4 302.4 128.8 254.8 1134.0 20 2.8 134 156.8 109.2 109.2 375.2 21 3.5 99 105.0 129.5 112.0 346.5 24 1.5 6 9.0 9.0 27 1.1 732 155.1 402.6 165.0 66.0 16.5 805.2 Totais 3146 230J 1435.4 2642.3 2206.7 1381.6 7953.2

*One CEU is equivalent to 10 contact hours of participation in an organized continuing education experience under responsible sponsorship, capable direction, and qualified

instruction. **One Module 2 class with 74 participants was given only 2.0 CEU's per participant.

212
Education Committee

APPENDIX C

"Training the Trainer"

A Videotape/Text Training Program

Produced By

Industrial Training Corporation

Each segment of the program comes with:

- Color Videotape (approx. 30 min.)

- Participant's Manuals

- Facilitator's Guide

- Overhead Transparencies

Segment Topics: The Elements of Effective Training Planning for Effective Training Developing and Writing Training Objectives Learning: How it Occurs

Instructing to Facilitate Learning Methods for Teaching Skills Methods for Teaching Information

Principles of Visual Training Using Visual Aids Effectively Measuring Instructional Effectiveness Developing and Using Lesson Plans On-the-Job-Training Teaching Your First Class Administering the Training Program

213
Education Committee

APPENDIX D

NCWM Award For

Training Achievements

Purpose: To recognize individuals or groups for outstanding achievements in implementing the NCWM

National Training Program and enhancing the professional status of individuals in the W&M

field. Examples of accomplishments that might be recognized include:

- Extensive restructuring of a State or industry training program to incorporate

the teaching of NCWM modules,

- Special efforts made to train instructors to teach NCWM modules,

- Achievement of higher salaries for W&M officials through implementation of module training programs,

- Development of videotape programs to enhance module presentation,

- Construction of training facilities designed specifically to enhance the presentation of NCWM modules.

- Development of incentive programs to encourage participation in module

training sessions,

- Presentation by a jurisdiction of module training programs for industry or

service people. The award would not be based on the number of modules presented or the number of

individuals trained. It would recognize significant improvements and innovations in training based on NCWM training modules.

Type of Recognition: A certificate signed by the NCWM Chairman citing the specific accomplishment would be

given to the winner. A detailed description of the award winner's accomplishments would

be included in the Annual Report of the NCWM Committee on Education, Administration, and Consumer Affairs. Frequency

of Award: The award would be presented annually, if merited.

Eligibility: Any NCWM member or associate member would be eligible to receive the award.

Administrative

Details: Nominations, along with supporting information, would be sent to the Education Committee

prior to the NCWM Interim Meeting each year. Nominations could come from any group

or individual (for example, an organization could nominate itself or it could be nominated by

a regional W&M association) . The Committee would review the nominations at the Interim Meeting and, if the award was merited, propose the names of up to two potential winners to the Executive Committee for approval . The winner or winners would be announced at the Annual Meeting in July. *Changes made to the original proposal are underlined.

214
Liaison Committee

Final Report of the

Committee on Liaison

Peggy H. Adams, Chairman

Chief Sealer, Bucks County

Pennsylvania Department of Consumer Protection Reference Key No. 500 Introduction

This is the final report of The Committee on Liaison for the 74th Annual Meeting of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. This report results from the Interim Report (NCWM Publication 16), the Addendum

Sheets issued at the meeting, and the actions taken by the membership at the meeting. Reference Key Numbers, Item Titles, and Page Numbers are identified in Table A. Voting items are identified

in boldface print, as well as by the suffix "V." Information items are identified by the suffix "I." Withdrawn items

are identified by the suffix "W."

(This report was adopted in its entirety by a hand vote of the membership.)

Table A

Reference Key Items and Index

Reference Key No. Title of Item Page

501 FEDERAL AGENCY ACTIVITIES

501-1 I Federal Grain Inspection Service 216

501-2 I Aerosol Net Weight Labeling 217

501-3 I Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act 217

501-4 I Credit Card Surcharge 218

501-5 I Federal Role in Net Content Compliance 218

501-6 I Interaction with Federal Agencies 218

501-7 I Labeling of Turkey with Gravy 218

215
Liaison Committee

Table A (Continued)

Reference Key Items and Index

Reference Key No. Title of Item Pace

502 i PUBLIC LIAISON 219

502-1 I Coding System for Milk Products 220 503 OIML ACTIVITIES 220 504 OWM STATUS REPORT 220

505 i RAILROAD FREIGHT CAR STENCILED

TARE WEIGHTS

220

506 I THE 75th ANNIVERSARY MEETING OF THE NCWM 221 507 1 LIAISON WITH REGIONAL ASSOCIATIONS 221 508 w PROMOTION OF NATIONAL TRAINING PROGRAM (NTP) 221 509 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES WEEK 222 510 WEIGHTS AND MEASURES LEGAL CASES 222

511 T COMPUTER INFORMATION SYSTEMS 222 512 w ADOPTION AND USE OF NCWM PUBLICATIONS 222 513 BARK MULCH INDUSTRY COORDINATION 222

514 LIAISON WITH OTHER NCWM ORGANIZATIONS INCLUDING

THE RETIREE GROUP AND THE ASSOCIATE MEMBERSHIP

COMMITTEE

223

515 SAFETY OF WEIGHTS AND MEASURES OFFICIALS 223

Details of all Items

501-1 I Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS)

Mr. James Decker, Industrial Specialist, Federal Grain Inspection Service (FGIS), U.S. Department of

Agriculture, appeared for Mr. Richard R. Pforr, Chief, Weighing and Equipment Branch, Field Management

Division, FGIS, and reported the following activities for 1988:

1. During the year, 13 master railroad track scales were tested by the two test cars operated by FGIS and approved by the State Weights and Measures jurisdictions in which they were located. The master scales

at Chattanooga, Tennessee, and Martinsburg, West Virginia, were removed from service. The

216
Liaison Committee

Martinsburg scale will be reinstalled at Barboursville, West Virginia, in the latter part of 1989. The

master scale in Chattanooga will be used for replacement parts. The master scale at Centralia, Illinois,

is out of service at this time. This scale has not been tested since January, 1987, and FGIS recommends

that it not be used to calibrate test cars.

2. Eighty-six scale tests were conducted on scales used for official weighing of grain. Fifteen plus one

uncoupled-in-motion railroad-owned scales, and ten railroad track scales owned by other industries were

tested while on approved itineraries. The schedule also included the field calibration of 25 monitor and

test cars and the calibration of 29 railroad-owned test cars at the FGIS master scale depot in Clearing,

Illinois.

3. Thirty-two 1,000-pound test weights, twenty 2,500-pound test weights, and four 10,000-pound test weights were tolerance-tested and adjusted at the request of local scale companies. In addition to normal

building maintenance of the depot, the bridge and lever systems of the master scale were sand blasted and painted.

4. The master standards that are kept at the Clearing facility and used to calibrate the field standards in the test cars were returned to NIST for recertification. These standards are returned approximately

every 5 years.

5. The program is currently operating at maximum capacity. Requests for service have been received but cannot be provided without additional test cars and personnel.

6. The weight reverification program using the electronic mass comparator is working very well. Problems

are still being found with fabricated weights, but cast iron weights are repeating within tolerance.

501-2 I Aerosol Net Weight Labeling

The NCWM petitioned the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to require labeling of aerosol packages by

net weight only rather than by net volume. Mr. James Taylor of the U.S. Food and Drug Center for Food Safety and Applied Nutrition suggested that we consider changing the wording in our petition requesting changes in the regulation and interpretations pertaining to the quantity of contents declaration on aerosol packaged products. A new request is being drafted that will restrict the request to cover only aerosol packaged food and cosmetic

products.

501-3 I Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act

Mr. Alan Rogers, Director, Weights and Measures, State of Virginia, appeared before the Committee to discuss

a problem that arose when the Virginia Department of Agriculture, Marketing Section, wanted to test scales for use in the arbitration of disputes regarding labeled or contracted weights. The Virginia Weights and Measures

personnel discovered that the Virginia Department of Agriculture, Marketing Section, operates under the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA)'s Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act. This Act allows individual containers to weigh as much as 4 percent less than the labeled or contracted weight. The Committee has received a copy of the USDA's Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) General Market Instructions. A preliminary review of the instructions reveals several potential conflicts with statistically valid accepted sampling procedures. The Committee will contact PACA administrators in an effort to reduce

potential conflict between regulations and to clarify the role of weights and measures officials in net weight and

device accuracy issues. The Committee learned that an inspection is voluntary for the purpose of settling a dispute between the buyer and seller. A shipment approved under the voluntary inspection could still be short weight when checked by

inspectors under Weights and Measures net weight regulations.

217
Liaison Committee

The Committee feels that this information should be given to any buyers and sellers involved in voluntary

inspection under the Act.

501-4 I Credit Card Surcharge

The Liaison Committee continues to monitor legislation concerning the ban on surcharges for credit cards. The

status of states that have passed this legislation has not changed. At present, 12 states ban surcharges and 19

states have legislation prohibiting surcharges at the gasoline pump.

501-5 I Federal Role in Net Content Compliance: USDA

USDA is processing a proposal for regulatory change in net weight. The draft proposal, developed with close NCWM cooperation and support, seeks to adopt NIST Handbooks 133 and 44 in order to provide mandatory

procedures for Federal inspectors in net content compliance determinations. The adoption of these handbooks

should enable the Federal, State, and local weights and measures officials to strengthen enforcement and

compliance. The USDA proposal comment period ended in May, 1989. Forty-five comments were received. Copies of these comments are available from USDA for any interested parties. Contact John McCutcheon at USDA, telephone number (202) 447-3697 for copies of the comments. The USDA will analyze the comments and act on the proposal as soon as possible. Action on the proposal could include adoption as proposed, adoption as amended

in response to the comments, or withdrawal if indicated by the concerns expressed in the comments.

501-6 I Federal Agency Interaction: USPS, FDA, FTC

Mr. Theodore H. Yaffe, U.S. Postal Service (USPS), Program Manager, Postal Service Engineering Division, reported that the USPS is actively replacing scales that service customers and is adopting Handbook 44 for these new devices. They have ordered 30,000 units. Some of the old devices do not comply with Handbook 44. USPS

feels that Handbook 44 may need to be amended to treat postal scales as a separate category of devices because

they may be operated as weight classifiers. He discussed some of the unique specifications for postal devices, including the new self-service options being implemented in some areas. Discussions will be held with Mr. James Taylor of the FDA concerning the agency guidelines for metric labeling. The rounding of digits and capital versus small letters used when stating milliliters are the two issues of concern. The recent signing of the Omnibus Trade and Competitiveness Act mandates metric in Federal Government

procurement and makes this item very relevant. Mr. Brett Smart, of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), 11000 Wilshire Boulevard, Los Angeles, California 90024 (Phone (213) 209-7890) has requested Weights and Measures officials, as well as industry, to contact him

with any Federal Fair Packaging and Labeling concerns.

501-7 I Labeling of Turkey with Gravy

At the July, 1988, Annual Meeting of the NCWM, the Conference voted to petition the USDA to require that poultry and meat products containing gravy or sauce packets be labeled with both total net weight for the entire product and the net weight of the gravy or sauce packet. The NCWM petition submitted to the USDA has been

accepted as a comment on its net weight proposal discussed as Item 501-5. The USDA response to the petition

will be included in the analysis of comments when it publishes its final action on the net weight proposal.

218
Liaison Committee

502 I Public Liaison

The Committee discussed the recommendations of the NCWM Task Force on Prevention of Fraud and decided

to contact the national district attorneys' organization and other related consumer protection enforcement

agencies, including the organization of attorneys general and national consumer agencies. The Committee chair

will send a letter to initiate an exchange of information and ideas with these organizations that will facilitate the enforcement of weights and measures regulations. The NCWM Task Force on Energy Allocation requested the Liaison Committee to contact the Public Utilities or Public Service Commissions, trade and other professional organizations and provide them with the final guidelines and report of the Task Force. The Committee discussed how this might be accomplished and is prepared to act when the Task Force recommendations are adopted by the Conference. The Committee will work with the United States Metric Association (USMA), the American National Metric

Council, and the U.S. Metric Office of the U.S. Department of Commerce to increase awareness by weights and

measures officials of the 1988 amendment to the Metric Conversion Act. Mr. Louis Sokol, representing the United States Metric Association, and Mr. Ted Wright, representing the American National Metric Council, gave remarks and distributed metric literature. The National Metric Conference, sponsored by these organizations and the U.S. Department of Commence, will be held at the Sheraton Hotel in Arlington, VA on October 2-3, 1989. The Department of Commerce (DOC) Metric Program Office's role in the metric transition was discussed. In keeping with the intent of the Metric Conversion Act of 1975, as amended by the 1988 Trade Act, the Commerce

Metric Program focuses on creating a favorable environment for the change. The mission includes elements

which: coordinate Federal metric transition to promote consistency in agency plans, policies, and

practices. This is done through formal and comprehensive inter-agency committees;

identify and help remove barriers that inhibit or block metric transition in Federal, State or

local rules, standards and codes, or regulations; bring together representatives from public and private sectors to resolve problems and share

information; help U.S. businesses to identify metric requirements in overseas markets;

provide technical and general information about the metric system and its use to businesses, educators, the news media, and the general public; and

assist the states and local governments in their efforts to facilitate the metric transition. The DOC Metric Program Office asks the weights and measures community, and the NCWM in particular, to take an active role in supporting the metric transition process and make their offices and staff resources available

to assist public and private sector organizations and individuals in their State. The DOC Metric Program Office asks NCWM members to maintain close contact with other State agencies and

with their Governors' representatives on the National Council on State Metrication (NCSM).

The DOC Metric Program Office invites the NCWM members to refer questions about Federal metric usage

directly to the Federal agency involved, to its metric coordinator, or to the Metric Programs staff of the U.S. Department of Commerce, Technology Administration, as appropriate. Copies of the letters sent to Federal agencies, a Brief History of the Measurement System Office of Metric Programs Fact Sheet, and the Metric Conversion Act of 1975 and the 1988 Amendment were distributed. The

information and a handbook of Federal officials can be obtained from the Department of Commerce Metric Program Office, Washington, DC, telephone (202) 377-3036.

219
Liaison Committee

The Office of the NIST Associate Director for Industry and Standards requested that the Committee review the European Community Directives and Amendments of 1974-1988 mandating certain metric sizes for wine, beer,

distilled spirits, juices, edible oils, vinegar and sparkling waters. The Committee contacted various industry trade

associations: Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (BATF), DOC's Office of European Affairs, Department of Defense, and NCWM's Industry Committee on Packaging and Labeling. The Committee recommends that the Executive Committee approve the formation of an educational forum

concerning the European Community activities and how these activities can affect the interest of the NCWM and

its industry members who import and export products. Mr. Daryl Tonini reported to the Committee on the Scale Manufacturers Association. He discussed its method

of organization, how its technical committee operates and formulates positions on NCWM issues. Mr. Robert Ross expressed the American Petroleum Institute's interest in working with the Liaison Committee

concerning its activities with the Conference.

502-1 I Coding System for Milk Processing Plants

Mr. Louis E. Straub, State of Maryland, appeared before the Committee with a milk carton that did not have

the name and address of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor on the label, but did have the milk plant code

according to a system recommended by the National Conference on Interstate Milk Statements. Mr. Robert E. Garfield, Director, Technical Services, Milk Industry Foundation, stated that this label was not recommended by the Foundation and was in violation of the Code of Federal Regulations (21 CFR 101.5.). This

section requires that the name, address, city, State, and zip code of the manufacturer, packer, or distributor be

displayed on the label with certain exemptions for the street address part. The Committee feels that the CFR

covers the situation and that Maryland should discuss the problem with the dairy.

503 I OIML Activities Mr. Sam Chappell (NIST) described the OIML activities of interest to the NCWM. See the report of the Executive Committee for details.

504 I OWM Status Report

Mr. Albert Tholen, Chief, Office of Weights and Measures (OWM), reported on the status of the OWM in terms of staffing and program changes. See the Report of the Executive Committee for details.

505 I Railroad Freight Car Stenciled Tare Weights

Mr. John J. Robinson, Senior Assistant Vice President and Secretary, Association of American Railroads (AAR), reported the following to the Committee: Due to improved business conditions, the number of freight cars out of service awaiting repairs or held on hand

as surplus has been reduced. Almost 14,000 more freight cars were retired than were installed new during 1988. Thus, the overall size of the national freight car fleet continues to decrease.

In line with the positive economic situation, however, a substantial number of railroad cars were weighed and

restenciled during 1988. A total of 72,496 nonexempt cars (e.g., not subject to the basic 60-month reweighing

rule) or about 11 percent of the serviceable fleet of general service freight cars, were restenciled. In addition, 69,316 so-called "exempt" cars were reweighed, or about 7.7 percent of the serviceable specially equipped freight car fleet, including 29,736 covered hoppers. This increased restenciling activity of 20,826 cars is a 17 percent

220
Liaison Committee

increase over the prior year and represents a continuing effort on the part of the rail carriers to maintain the accuracy of stenciled tare weights. The AAR's Mechanical Division has approved changes to Interchange Rule 70 (the Interchange Rules are rules made up by all the railroads and govern the interchange of railroad cars) that will provide for the gradual

elimination of tare weights from the sides of the railroad cars. The revised tare weights will continue to be

reported to the AAR UMLER (computerized equipment register) file, which is updated twice daily. This information is available via EDI (Electronic Data Interchange) for all shippers in need of the information.

In approximately one year, the AAR hopes to begin an 8-year phaseout of stenciled tare weights. The "Load

Limit" data, which is the maximum permissible weight of lading that can be placed in any freight car, will continue to be stenciled on the side of each freight car. Mr. John Robinson stated at the Committee hearing that there was considerable resistance from some of the major railroads and industries to the prospect of a phase-out of stenciled tare weights. Consequently, railroad

cars will continue to have stenciled tare weights for the near future. Present regulations permit information to be stated in both U.S. Standard and Metric weights.

506 I The 75th Anniversary Meeting of the NCWM

The Committee has presented several suggestions to the Executive Committee that focus on the 75th Annual

Meeting of the NCWM. In 1904, an invitation was sent to the governor of each State by the director of the National Bureau of Standards requesting a representative from each State to attend a meeting. The proposal was to effect a "close cooperation" between the State weights and measures inspectors and the National Bureau

of Standards. The first conference was held in Washington, D.C., January 16 and 17, 1905. This was the first National Conference on Weights and Measures. Because of the special significance of the 75th Annual Meeting and the Conference's relationship with the National Institute of Standards and Technology (formerly the National Bureau of Standards), Washington, D.C., has been selected as the site of the 1990 meeting.

507 I Liaison with Regional Associations

The Committee heard a report on the activities of each regional organization from Mr. Richard Smith, Regional

Association Coordinator, OWM. He reported that the regionals now deal more with national issues and more

industry representatives attend the regional meetings. This has been a positive influence on how the regional organizations have reacted to issues. The Committee recommends that the computer users group at the Western Regional meeting serve as a pilot to demonstrate computer programs available to various interested groups (i.e., metrologists, administrators, etc.). Meeting dates for the regional meetings have been posted on the WAMIS bulletin board; the names and

addresses of the regional chairs and regional secretaries were recommended as contacts.

Briefings on the upcoming regional association meetings were received by all the regional associations.

508 W Promotion of National Training Program (NTP)

The Committee is withdrawing this item. The recommendations printed in the Report of the 73rd National Conference represent the conclusions of the Committee on this item.

221
Liaison Committee

509 I Weights and Measures Week

The Weights and Measures Week Guide and All Year Public Relations. NCWM Publication #7, has been

published and mailed to all conference members. The 1989 Weights and Measures Week theme, logo, press release, radio public service announcement, editorial, and other resources were mailed to all State, county, and city jurisdictions. The theme was "National Uniformity

Benefits Everyone." Weights and Measures officials are requested to send all press releases, ideas, unusual

slides, brochures, and metric information for exhibit at the Annual Meeting and future Weights and Measures Week mailings to Ms. Peggy Adams, Bucks County Consumer Protection, Weights and Measures, 50 N. Main

Street, Doylestown, Pennsylvania 18901, Phone: (215) 348-7442.

510 I Weights and Measures Legal Cases

Discussions were held regarding the format for data on legal cases to be compiled and submitted for placement on the computer, to be most beneficial to interested parties.

It was noted that New York City has been putting its legal cases on computer and may, therefore, be of

assistance. The Committee will contact Mr. Gerry Hanson of San Bernadino, California, and Mr. Chip Kloos of Beatrice Foods regarding their efforts to generate a data base covering the western regional areas. Los Angeles County

Weights and Measures will also be contacted for information on their data base.

511 I Computer Information Systems

The Committee reviewed the operation of the NCWM "WAMIS" electronic bulletin board and endorsed its continued use and operation. The need for computer information users groups at the regional meetings was again affirmed. The Committee recommends that the users group at the Western Regional Conference be used as a pilot for the establishment of an effective users group. Specific programs developed by weights and measures organizations will be

demonstrated to the concerned groups (i.e., metrologists, administrators, device testing, etc.)

512 W Adoption and Use of NCWM Publications The Committee is dropping this item because the Executive Committee is conducting a survey concerning Handbook 44 and the NTEP program and the L & R Committee conducts surveys on Handbooks 130 and 133 on a regular basis. The Committee will continue to consider ways to help with the adoption and use of NCWM

publications.

513 I Bark Mulch Industry Coordination

Mr. Robert LaGasse, Executive Director of the National Bark and Soil Producers Association (NBSPA),

appeared before the Committee with a request for more uniform testing and enforcement on bark product

packages. Due to the rigorous handling of these packages during shipping and storage, he requested that inspection of the product be done at the packing sites. After extensive discussion covering the packing, handling, shipping and storage of this product, the Committee

agreed that it changes in nature during distribution. A check of the actual volume packed is most accurate when

done at the packing site according to Mr. LaGasse.

222
Liaison Committee

The Committee urges the cooperation of all States that have bark producers to inspect the packages at the packing sites when feasible, but not to avoid testing this product wherever it is found. See Item 2 of the L &

R Committee report.

514 I Liaison with other NCWM Organizations Including

the Retiree Group and the Associate Membership Committee

The Associate Membership Committee was asked to continue promoting Weights and Measures Week through

various types of advertisements. It was suggested that the Weights and Measures Week guide be provided to industry members as well as the regulatory members. It was pointed out that many industry members do promote NCWM during industry association meetings. Mr. Ray Wells and Mr. Sydney Andrews reported on the Retiree Group. The Western and Southern Regional Conferences have very active groups, the Central has a new chairman working to organize their group, and the Northeast has given verbal support for a retiree group. Comments were made that they were very appreciative of having the Conference waive the registration fees, but would generally be willing to pay a share of the social

activity fees. They are all willing to do what they can to help the Conference, but look to the meetings as more

of a social function to see old friends, etc. They are also concerned as to how effectively they can provide good

training on the modules. They suggest that efforts need to be concentrated on increasing the attendance of

local field inspectors at national and regional conference meetings.

515 I Safety of Weights and Measures Officials The Committee heard from Mr. Charles Gardner, Director of Weights and Measures for Suffolk County, New

York, on the results of the safety survey conducted by him and the Northeastern Weights and Measures

Association. The Committee feels there is a critical need for information that would assist State and local weights and measures officials in providing training and equipment in this area. The Committee recommends

the establishment of an NCWM Task Force to provide for the development of appropriate training and

educational materials and programs.

P. Adams, Bucks County, PA, Chairman

J. Akey, Kansas

R. Davis, James River Corp.

K. Thuner, San Diego County, CA

J. McCutcheon, USDA

K. Newell, NIST, Technical Advisor Committee on Liaison

223
I
Annual Committee Reports

225

Resolutions Committee

Report of the Resolutions Committee

Stephen H. Meloy, Chairman

Chief, Bureau of Weights & Measures

State of Montana

Reference Key No. 700 General

The resolutions committee wishes to express the appreciation of the members of the National Conference on

Weights and Measures to those who contributed their time and talents toward the arrangements for, the conduct

of, and the success of this 74th annual meeting. Special votes of thanks are extended:

(1) to Honorable Charles E. Royer, Mayor, Seattle, Washington for his gracious welcome to Seattle and his words complimenting the weights and measures community for its exemplary service to the country;

(2) to Raymond Kammer, Acting Director, National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST), for his attendance at the Annual Meeting, carrying on the NIST tradition of addressing the membership, for

his words of encouragement regarding confirmation of the NIST/NCWM partnership; for his highlighting of mutual achievements, notably the National Type Evaluation Program (NTEP), and the National Training Program (NTP) and for his advice for progress in the future;

(3) to Richard N. Smith for his tireless efforts over the past 35 years of dedicated service to NCWM, its goals and objectives, to his continued expertise and dedication to the training efforts of this body;

(4) to officers and appointed officials of the National Conference on Weights and Measures for their assistance and service toward progress on national issues;

(5) to committee members for their efforts throughout the past year preparing and presenting their reports,

to the subcommittees and task forces for their discerning and appropriate recommendations;

(6) to governing officials of state and local jurisdictions for the advice, interest, and support of weights and measures administration in the United States;

(7) to representatives of business and industry for their cooperation and assistance in committee and

Conference work, to the associate membership organization for its hosting functions;

(8) to the staff of the Westin Hotel for their assistance and courtesies, which contributed to the enjoyment and comfort of the delegates in their fine facilities;

(9) to the National Institute of Standards and Technology and the Office of Weights and Measures for their outstanding assistance in planning and conducting the work and program of the National Conference on Weights and Measures;

(10) to the Office of Weights and Measures staff: Ann Heffernan-Turner and Terry Grimes, for their expert and hospitable operation of the administrative operations of the meeting;

227
Resolutions Committee

(11) to the Washington Weights and Measures Division, Department of Agriculture for their essential support to the Conference, its committees, and our guests throughout the meeting week; and for their assistance in providing necessary equipment for the metrology workshops, and;

(12) to the City of Seattle, Weights and Measures Staff for their tireless support to the Conference, both in preparation for and during the conference meeting week.

S. Meloy, Montana, Chairman

O.R. Elliott, Oklahoma M. Gray, Florida D. Ely, Pennsylvania

S. McFarlane, Washington

S. McGuire, Illinois T. DeCheco, Ohio

R. Smith, NIST, Technical Advisor

228
Resolutions Committee

Report of the Nominating Committee

Darrell A. Guensler, Chairman

State of California

Reference Key No. 800

the Nominating Committee met during the Interim Meeting at the National Institute of Standards and

Technology, Gaithersburg, Maryland, and nominated the listed persons to be officers of the Conference. In the

selection of nominees from active membership, consideration was given to professional experience, qualifications of individuals, Conference attendance and participation, regional representation, and other factors considered

to be important. CHAIRMAN-ELECT: N. David Smith, North Carolina VICE-CHAIRMEN:

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE:

TREASURER:

Ross Anderson, New York

Lester Barrows, Missouri Carol Fulmer, South Carolina Aves Thompson, Alaska Lacy DeGrange, Maryland

Kendrick Simila, Oregon

Charles Gardner, Jr., Suffolk County, NY

Darrell Guensler, CA, Chairman

Peggy Adams, Bucks County,PA

Barbara Bloch, CA

Fred Clem, Columbus, OH

Sam Hindsman, AR

Eugene Keeley, DE

Thomas Kelly, NJ Nominating Committee

(On motion of Mr. Guensler, the Nominating Committee Report, Key Item 800, was adopted by the Conference)

229
Auditing Committee

Report of the Auditing Committee

Gerald Hanson

Director of Weights and Measures, San Bernardino County, CA

Reference Key No. 900

The Auditing Committee met on Tuesday afternoon, July 18, 1989, for the purpose of reviewing the financial reports of the Conference Treasurer, Charles A. Gardner, Jr. The Committee finds these records to be in accordance with Conference procedure and correct. G. Hanson, San Bernardino, CA, Chairman

S. Casto, WV

E. Murphy, Philadelphia, PA

R. Smith, NIST Technical Advisor Auditing Committee

(On motion of Mr. Hanson, the Report of the Auditing Committee, Reference Key Item 900, was adopted by

the Conference.)

230
Treasurer's Report July 20, 1989 Treasurer's Report

Fiscal Year 73 (1988-1989)

National Conference on Weights and Measures

CASH $76,045.31

(BUDGET) RECEIPTS:

($30,000) 1.1 Registrations 28.26^.00

( 45,500) 1.2 Memberships 73.650.00

( 6,500) 1.3 Training Modules 3.804.57

/ /% /~\/~\/~\\ ( 2,000) 1.4 Interest 4.505.55

( 1,000) 1.5 Promotional 361.00

( 5,000) 1.6 Special Events 7.696.50

( 200) 1.9 Miscellaneous 25.00

( 90,200) TOTAL RECEIPTS

1 KJ 1 AVL 11 N L^vJlVlt/ DISBURSEMENTS:

( 12,000) 2.0 Annual Meeting 13.626.77

( 4,000) 3.0 Interim Meeting 2.672.24

( 17,000) 4.0 Committee Operations 24.343.55

( 14,000) 5.0 Special Programs 14.632.51

( 6,000) 6.0 Chairman's Expense 13.851.72

( 6,000) 7.0 Membership Expense 9.321.08

( 4,000) 8.0 Printing & Publications 5.345.20

( 7,000) 9.0 Administration 4.555.29

( 5,000) 10.0 Special Events 9.793.00

( 1,200) 11.0 Promotions 1.151.29

( 14,000) 12.0 Training Modules 4.117.58

Date Submitted

' / CharLes A. Gardner

Date Audited: 7//)/$ '^^£^^JJ/Uj.

/ ' \ Auditing Committee Chairman

118.307.62

194.352.93

( 90,200) TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS 103.410.23 BALANCE 90.942.70 BANKS

European American (New York) 57.940.19

Signet (Maryland) 314.24

Certificate of Deposit #1 22.451.12

Certificate of Deposit #2 10.237.15 BALANCE 90.942.70

Staff Advisor 231
Treasurer's Report

FY 73 (1988 - 1989)

NATIONAL CONFERENCE ON WEIGHTS AND MEASURES

LISTING OF ACCOUNTS

July 20, 1989

INCOME

1.1 Registration Fees

1.2 Membership Fees

1.3 Training Modules and Field Manuals

1.4 Interest

1.5 Promotional Items

1.6 Special Events

1.9 Miscellaneous TOTAL RECEIPTS

$28,265.00

73,650.00

3,804.57

4,505.55 361.00

7,696.50 25.00

118,307.62 TOTAL INCOME 194,352.93 EXPENSES

2.0 Annual Meeting

2.1 Hotel/Food Services

2.3 Personnel

2.4 Printing

2.5 Photos

2.6 Flowers

2.7 150TH Favors

2.8 Travel

2.9 Miscellaneous

3.0 Interim Meeting

4.0 Committee Operations

4.1 Executive

4.2 Laws and Regulations

4.3 Specifications and Tolerances

4.4 Education

4.5 Liaison

4.6 Resolutions

4.7 Nominating

5.0 Special Programs

5.1 NTEP

5.3 TF on Commodity Requirements

5.7 TF on Energy Allocations

6.0 Chairman's Expenses

6.1 Chairman

6.2 Chairman-Elect

$11,284.89 417.00

170.18 83.74

178.18 322.15 200.00

970.63

2,672.24

7,405.59 3,361.30

4,753.34 6,112.47

2,100.60 298.00

312.25

8,074.42 716.79

5,841.30

8,230.35

5,621.37

13.626.77

2.672.24

24.343.55

14.632.51

13.851.72

7.0 Membership Programs

7.1 Computer Listings 290.84

7.2 Contract Work 6,674.40

7.3 Banners 1,062.09

7.4 Awards 1,293.75 9.321.

232
Treasurer's Report

8.0 Printing and Publications

8.1 Annual Meeting 3,494.40 83 Letterhead 90.00

8.4 Membership 1,053.35

8.5 Committees 444.95

8.7 W&M Week 262.50 5.345.20

9.0 Administration

9.1 Equipment 788.48

9.3 Mailing 46.35

9.4 Supplies 604.32

9.5 Bank Charges ((27.50))

9.6 P.O. Box Rental 104.00

9.7 Modules 2,253.74

9.8 Treasurer's Bond 268.00

9.9 Miscellaneous 517.90 4.555.29

10.0 Special Events 9,793.00 9.793.00

11.0 Promotional Items 1,151.29 1.151.29

12.0 Training Modules 4,117.58 4.117.58 TOTAL DISBURSEMENTS $103.410.23

233
Treasurer's Report

July 20, 1989 Treasurer's Report

Fiscal Year 73 (1988-1989)

National Conference on Weights and Measures

Grant Account

Grant #1 HA 4003

Start 11,258.64

Deposits 14,882.00

Interest 116.96 Bank Charge 9.75 Payments 23,258.96 Close 2.988.89

Grant #2 8H 0869

Start 0 Deposits 27,000.00

Interest 106.64 Bank Charge 6.00 Payments 25,006.64 Close 2.094.00

Final Balance S5.082.89

Charles A Gardner, Treasurer

Gerald Hanson,

Auditing Committee Chairman

Richard N. Smith,

Staff Advisor

234
New Chairman's Address

New Chairman's Message

Thursday, July 20, 1989 Fred A. Gerk

Director, Division of Standards & Consumer Services

State of New Mexico

I take this office with a lot of confidence:

L The Conference Chaplain resigned,

2. The Parliamentarian resigned,

3. I only got two tickets for both my wife and myself at last night's industry reception and

everyone else received three tickets each and, finally,

4. Oil companies cancelled my credit cards.

Actually, I am pleased to accept the honor and responsibility of the Chairmanship of the National Conference on Weights and Measures. I have had the opportunity of savoring and planning for this moment for the past 18 months. I have acquired considerable insight into the responsibility of this position during the past year while

serving as Chairman-Elect. Knowing what a Chairman-Elect did do, I know what a Chairman-Elect should do. I am extremely pleased with your selection of David Smith of North Carolina as your Chairman-Elect. David and I are personal friends, and

David is as enthusiastic and pleased with the honor as I am. We have discussed our responsibilities and plan

to serve the Conference accordingly. We have a lot to accomplish. David and I will work well together. When you assume a position such as Chairman of the National Conference on Weights and Measures, you get

lots of advice on what to do and what not to do. The only two things I am considering is my wife's advice, "keep your pants pulled up and don't talk with your mouth full," and Margaret Tholen's advice, "if all else fails - lower your standards."

I must advise you that I did not campaign for this office - thus I did not make any campaign promises. By law

it takes 24 hours for an impeachment or recall proceeding to take place, so I have at least that long as Chairman.

First, I'll address the "housekeeping" chores:

1. Official footwear for the year will be western boots. At the request of my New England colleagues, socks are optional.

2. Chili is the official food of the NCWM's Interim Meeting next January in Phoenix.

I would not have accepted this position under any circumstances if I did not think I had the entire support of everyone in the Conference. Because of this, I have chosen as a theme for next year's Conference, "PROGRESS THROUGH CONSENSUS AMONG CONSUMERS, REGULATORS AND INDUSTRY."

I feel that as Chairman of the National Conference on Weights and Measures I have the overwhelming support

of the staff of the Office of Weights and Measures, National Institute of Standards and Technology; the Gasoline Pump Manufacturers of America; the Scale Men's Association; Institute of Weights and Measures; the

International Society of Weighing and Measuring; U. S. Department of Agriculture, Federal Grain Inspection

Service; American Society of Testing and Materials, and on and on. With organizations like this and real people

like this, how can I go wrong.

235
New Chairman's Address

The one and only reason I took this position is to try to improve something I truly believe in - the NCWM! I plan to place emphasis on the following areas:

1. Implementing the National Training Program,

2. Developing an understanding of the New Scales Code and the implementation of NTEP,

3. Working with the NCWM committees and encouraging them to clean up their agendas and

reducing the number of items on their agendas,

4. Getting a closer rapport with the regional associations in order to address their concerns, not only the concerns of new attendees at the meetings, but also those of the inspector's in the

field who cannot attend the meetings. The Executive Committee has discussed and authorized the funding of attendance and

participation of the Chairman-Elect at all of the regional conferences. In addition, the Chairman-Elect and I will be hosting a breakfast at each regional meeting in the form of a

fact finding mission to try and ascertain the grassroots needs of all officials.

5. Last but not least, and probably the most important in the near term, is getting an NCWM

representative on the NIST Visiting Committee. In conversations with Mr. Ray Kammer, I get the impression we are in the running, and I intend to pursue it until the appointment is made. Not too many years ago, I was sitting where you are as a first-time attendee at the NCWM thinking, "this whole bunch doesn't know what the hell they are doing." The next thing I knew, they put me on a committee - and

here I am - supporting the very thing I came here to oppose. Enough of that.

I am now going to announce my committee appointments for the 75th NCWM. I did not take this privilege

lightly and probably made over 100 contacts in arriving at these appointments. Fortunately, the problem was too many qualified candidates and too few slots to fill as opposed to too many slots to fill with too few qualified candidates to chose from. I look forward to working with these individuals and all of you over the next year. Education Committee Charles H. Greene, New Mexico

5-year term Laws and Regulations Committee Barbara Bloch, California 5-year term

Louis Straub, Maryland

2-year term

Specifications & Tolerances Committee

Liaison Committee

Auditing Committee

Credentials Committee

Resolutions Committee

Jack Jeffries, Florida 5-year term John McCutcheon, USDA

5-year term

Stephen Casto, West Virginia 5-year term

Joseph Silvestro, Gloucester County, New Jersey

3-year term Aves Thompson, Alaska

3-year term

236
New Chairman's Address

Cathryn Pittman, Tennessee

3-year term Nominating Committee Darrell Guensler, California Eugene Keeley, Delaware

Charles Greene, New Mexico Thomas Kelly, New Jersey Fred Clem, City of Columbus, Ohio

Lacy DeGrange, Maryland

Budget Review Committee Raymond Wells, Sensitive Measurement, Inc. Darrell Guensler, California Chaplain Cordell Robinson, City of Columbus, Ohio

Assistant Treasurer Gerald Hanson, San Bernardino County, California Sergeants-at-Arms Robert Gunja, City of Kansas City, Kansas

Stanley Millay, Maine

Associate Membership Committee for 1989-1990

Secretary Treasurer

Chairman

Chairman-Elect

William Braun, Procter & Gamble Max Casanova, Ramsey Engineering Chip Kloos, Beatrice/Hunt Wesson Thomas Stabler, Toledo Scale Members: Dawn Brydon, Milk Industry Foundation/International Ice Cream Association James Schnitzler, Accurate Metering Systems, Inc. Richard Whipple, Gilbarco, Inc. Raymond Wells, Sensitive Measurement, Inc. Harvey Lodge, Dunbar Manufacturing, Inc.

J. Edward Thompson, Kraft, Inc. Tom Topalis, Quaker Oats

In closing I would simply say - "Words are but tokens," I hope to serve you well.

237
Registration List

74th Annual Meeting Registration List

2735 MBR NCWM

2414 MBR NCWM

12695 MBR NCWM

Peggy H. Adams

Chief Sealer Bucks County Consumer Protection Broad and Union Sts. Doylestown, PA 18901

215-348-7442 FAX # 215-348-6571 James H. Akey

State Metrologist Kansas Weights & Measures Lab

2016 SW 37th St Topeka, KS 66611-2570

913-267-0278 FAX # 913-296-7951 Frank J. Alexander Manager Quality Services Swift-Eckrich, Inc 1919 Swift Drive Oak Brook, IL 60522

312-572-4306 FAX # 312-572-3568

Frederick T. Allen Manager, Regulatory Affairs Pitney Bowes

Walter Wheeler Dr., LC27-00

Stamford, CT 06926

203-925-5044 John W. Allen

Inspector II Section of Weights & Measures

406 General Admin Bldg

Olympia, WA 98504

206-753-5042 Ross J. Andersen 2994

Metrologist MBR NCWM

NY State Bureau of Weights & Meas

Bldg 7A State Campus

Albany, NY 12235

518-869-7334 FAX # 518-457-8842

12094 MBR NCWM

8386 MBR NCWM

Kristie Anderson

Sealer of Weights & Measures

City of Everett 3200 Cedar St Everett, WA 98201

206-259-8810

8393 MBR NCWM

Martin (Pete) Anderson Chairman

Energy Monitoring Systems Inc 2909 Wayzata Boulevard

Minneapolis, MN 55405

612-374-4490 Sydney D. Andrews

Private Consultant 1133 Myers Park Dr

Tallahassee, FL 32301

904-878-3928

Kenneth C. Appell

Director-Quality Assurance

Colgate-Palmolive Co

300 Park Ave New York, NY 10022

212-310-2022

Lester H. Barrows

Director Div of Weights and Measures PO Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

314-751-4316 John J. Bartfai Director Bureau of Weights & Measures

1220 Washington Ave, Bldg 7A

Albany, NY 12235

518-457-3452 FAX # 518-457-8842 Martin Begley Grain Marketing Specialist USDA/Federal Grain Inspec Svc PO Box 96454, Rm 0623-S Washington, DC 20090-6454

202-382-0262

Irving Bell Sr Executive Staff Repr

Coca-Cola Company

PO Drawer 1734

Atlanta, GA 30301

404-676-2623 FAX # 404-676-6792

12063 MBR NCWM

41

MBR NCWM

7042 MBR NCWM

3926 MBR NCWM

23MBR NCWM

12808 MBR NCWM

4473 MBR NCWM

238
Registration List

Anthony F. Belmont 2547

Sealer of Weights & Measures MBR NCWM

Town of Greenwich Con Aff

101 Field Point Rd

Greenwich, CT 06830

203-622-7713

F. Michael Belue 691 Belue Associates MBR NCWM

PO Box 701, 2004 Liberty St Bonhara, TX 75418

214-583-9082

Celeste Bennett 9286

Inspector MBR NCWM

Michigan Dept of Agriculture 330 Webber

Battle Creek. MI 49015

616-428-2575 Gary A. Bernstein 10093 W & M Inspector I MBR NCWM

Div of Measurement Standards PO Box 111686 Anchorage, AK 99511

907-345-7846 FAX # 907-345-2641 Leonard G. Bies 2412

Metrologist MBR NCWM

SD Div/Commercial Insp & Reg

118 West Capital

Pierre, SD 57501

605-773-3697 Melvin Bigthumb 4248 Weights & Measures Inspec MBR NCWM

The Navajo Nation PO Box 663

St. Michaels, AZ 86515

602-871-6715

Paul Bjornsson 8394

Inspector Weights & Meas MBR NCWM

Dept of Licenses & Cons Aff

805 S Dearborn St

Seattle, WA 98134

206-386-1298

Barbara J. Bloch 7004

Assistant Chief MBR NCWM

CA Div of Measurement Standard

8500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento. CA 95826

916-366-5119 FAX # 916-366-5179 Roger B. Bognar 727 Manager Tissue Division MBR NCWM

American Paper Institute 260 Madison Ave New York, NY 10016

212-340-0618 FAX # 212-689-2628 Richard S. Bradley 3168

President MBR NCWM

Weigh-Tronix Inc 1000 Armstrong Dr PO Box 1000

Fairmont, MN 56031

507-238-4461 x200 FAX # 507-238-9363 Harold D. Bradshaw 2738

Inspector/Weights & Measures MBR NCWM

Dept of Weights & Measures

City County Bldg Room 314

JeffersonviUe, IN 47130

812-283-4451 x620 James L. Brady 12819 Corporate Sanitarian MBR NCWM

Winn Dixie Stores Inc 5050 Edgewood Ct

Jacksonville, FL 32205

904-783-5000 x5229

William D. Brasher 4417

Quality Control Specialist MBR NCWM

Southern Co Services PO Box 2625 Birmingham, AL 35202

205-877-7653 FAX # 205-877-7288 William H. Braun 2983

Packaging Section Head MBR NCWM

Procter & Gamble Co

5299 Spring Grove Avenue

Cincinnati, OH 45217

513-627-5476

239
Registration List

Carroll S. Brickenkamp Program Manager

Natl Institute of Stds & Tech A617 Admin

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301-975-4005 FAX # 301-926-0647

239 James H. Cammel

MBR NCWM Inspector III/Metrologist Section of Weights & Measures

406 General Admin Bldg

Olympia, WA 98504

206-753-5042 FAX # 206-586-6175

8385 MBR NCWM

Robert Bruce

Chief Weights & Measures

Canadian Cons. & Corp. Affairs 207 Queen St, Ottawa Canada K1A 0C9, 026

613-952-2625 Robert T. Brumbaugh

President Systems Associates Inc 1932 Industrial Drive

Libertyville, IL 60048

312-367-6650 FAX # 312-367-6960

3932 MBR NCWM

297 MBR NCWM

Robert S. Carles

Assistant Secretary Lance Inc. PO Box 32368

Charlotte, NC 28232

704-554-1421 FAX # 704-554-5586 G.Edward Carpenter

Metrologist Dept of Genl Svcs/Lab Div Room G28/2221 forster St Harrisburg, PA 17125

717-787-6426

1917 MBR NCWM

10638 MBR NCWM

Dawn M. Brydon

Director Industry Promotion

Milk Ind Fndn/Internatl IC Assn

888 16th St NW

Washington, DC 20006

202-296-4250 FAX # 202-331-7820

9099 MBR NCWMCharles H. Carroll Asst Director of Standards MA Division of Standards One Ashburton Place Boston, MA 02108

617-727-3480 FAX # 617-227-6094

4393 MBR NCWM

Gerald R. Burger

Coal Supply Coordinator Consumers Power Co

1945 W Parnall Rd

Jackson, MI 49201

517-788-2387 FAX # 517-788-2997

974 Charles D. Carter MBR NCWM Program Administrator W & M

Agricultural Products Division 2800 N Lincoln Blvd Oklahoma City, OK 73105-3861

405-521-3861 x294 FAX # 405-521-4912

9838 MBR NCWM

Charles Burns, Jr. Chief Inspector

City of Birmingham W & M

City Hall Room 207 Birmingham, AL 35203

205-254-2211 x2246 FAX # 205-254-2925

7575 MBR NCWMMax C. Casanova Manager Technical Services Ramsey Technology, Inc 1853 W County Rd C

Saint Paul, MN 55113

612-638-2264 x264 FAX # 612-631-7535

362 MBR NCWM

Richard Calkins Senior Metrologist & Manager

Rice Lake Weighing Systems

230 West Coleman St Rice Lake, WI 54868

715-234-9171 xll FAX # 715-234-6967

9100 Kate Catalano MBR NCWM Inspector Weights & Measures Dept of Licenses & Cons Aff

805 S Dearborn St

Seattle, WA 98134

206-386-1298

8399 MBR NCWM

240
Registration List

H. Penny Causgrove 3847

Retired/Sealer of Wts & Meas MBR NCWM

18 Davis St New Haven, CT 06515

203-387-4913 Samuel E. Chappell 10610

Standards Management MBR NCWM

Natl Institute of Stds & Tech

Bldg 101, Room 625

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301-975-4024 Richard H. Claussen 103

Director Rm 105 MBR NCWM

Porter County Weights & Meas

101 E. McKinley St Valparaiso, IN 46383

219-766-2323 Lavar Clegg 9406

Director of Engineering MBR NCWM

Transducers Inc 14030 Bolsa Lane

Cerritos, CA 90701

714-739-1991 Fred P. Clem 169 Weights & Measures Inspec MBR NCWM

City of Columbus

50 West Gay St Columbus, OH 43215

614-222-7397 xl

Billy J. Click 3428

President MBR NCWM

IWS Inc 2770 N Kiowa Ave

Lake Havasu City, AZ 86403

602-855-6300 FAX # 602-453-9440 James F. Clifford 2485

Metrologist Measmt Stds D MBR NCWM

Oregon Dept of Agriculture 635 Capitol St NE

Salem, OR 97310

503-378-3792 FAX # 503-373-7383

Sidney A. Colbrook 47 W & M Program Manager MBR NCWM

Illinois Dept of Agriculture PO Box 19281

Springfield, IL 62794-9281

217-785-8315 FAX # 217-524-5960

Carl P. Conrad, Jr. 2487

Chief Supervisor MBR NCWM

Office of Weights & Measures

1261 U.S. Rte 1 & 9 South

Avenel, NJ 07001

201-815-4840 FAX # 201-382-5298 Mark P. Coyne 220

City Sealer MBR NCWM

City of Brockton

City Hall Rm B12 45 School St. Brockton, MA 02401

617-580-7120

Stanley Curtis 12802 Systems Engineer MBR NCWM

Schlumberger Industries 3601 Koppens Way

Chesapeake, VA 23323

804-487-0077 A.R. Daniels 343

Director Industry Stds MBR NCWM

NCR Corp

1700 S Patterson Blvd WHQ-5

Dayton, OH 45479

513-445-1310 FAX # 513-445-1418 Richard L. Davis 3806

Administrator Regulations MBR NCWM

James River Corporation

1915 Marathon Ave

Neenah, WI 54956

414-729-8174 FAX # 414-729-8161

Stuart De Laney 3908

Chief MBR NCWM

Dept of Agr Weights & Measures

406 General Administration Bid

Olympia, WA 98504

206-753-5042 FAX # 206-586-6175

241
Registration List

Jeffrey W. Dean 12826 Metrology Engineer MBR NCWM

Boeing Aerospace PO Box 3999 M/S 2P-30

Seattle, WA 98124

206-544-5375 Lacy H. DeGrange 27 Weights & Measures Section MBR NCWM

MD Dept of Agriculture 50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

301-841-5790 FAX # 301-841-5914 Mike Deisley 4428 Agr Program Supervisor MBR NCWM

Nebraska Weights & Measures

301 Centennial Mall S.P/B94757

Lincoln, NE 68509

402-471-4292 FAX # 402-471-3252 John P. Denham 385

Retired Systems Engineer MBR NCWM

8912 NE 192nd Place

Bothell, WA 98011

206-483-2057

M. R. Dettler 9721

Editor MBR NCWM

WWMA Newsletter 16223 8th Avenue S

Seattle, WA 98148 G.W. Diggs 9034 Supv VA Weights & Measures MBR NCWM

VA Weights & Measures PO Box 1163 Room 402 Richmond, VA 23209

804-786-2476 FAX # 804-371-7793

Louis D. Draghetti 2673

Inspector of Wts & Meas MBR NCWM

Town of Agawam

36 Main St Town Hall Agawam, MA 01001

413-786-0400 x232

L.F. Eason 3886

Metrologist NC Dept of Ag MBR NCWM

Standards Division PO Box 27647/SD

Raleigh, NC 27611

919-733-4411 FAX # 919-733-0999

Steve K. Eckhardt 10643 Product/Market Manager MBR NCWM

Micro Motion Inc 196 South Brown Road

Long Lake, MN 55356-9407

612-475-0067 FAX # 612-854-3722 John J. Elengo, Jr. 440

Vice President MBR NCWM

Revere Corp

845 N Colony Rd PO Box 56

Wallingford, CT 06492

203-284-5102 FAX # 203-284-5136 O. Ray Elliott 9097

Director Agric Products MBR NCWM

OK Dept of Agriculture 2800 North Lincoln Blvd Oklahoma City, OK 73105

405-521-3861 x301 FAX # 405-521-4912 Dean F. Ely 9648

District Supervisor MBR NCWM

PA Dept of Agriculture 675 Rose St. Williamsport, PA 17701

717-327-3560

Joycelyn Encarnacion 12545 Div of Weights & Measures MBR NCWM

Dept of Licensing & Cons. Aff Golden Rock Shopping Center

Christiansted, St. Croix, VI 00820

809-773-2226 David C. English 2153

President MBR NCWM

Measurement Systems Interntl 12622 Interurban Ave S

Seattle, WA 98168

206-433-0199 FAX # 206-244-8470

242
Registration List

Alexander Eska

Superintendent

City of Linden Wts & Measures

301 N Wood Ave

Linden, NJ 07036

201-474-8403

3934 Arthur Fluharty MBR NCWM Inspector I Section of Weights & Measures

406 General Admin Bldg

Olympia, WA 98504

206-753-5042

10204 MBR NCWM

Carter Evans 12841 Regional Mgr Wts & Meas MBR NCWM

CANADA Pacific Region (BC)

1400 800 Burrard St Vancouver BC CANADA, V6Z 2H8

604-666-5038

Paul Everitt 11891

Inspector Weights & Measures MBR NCWM

Dept of Lie & Cons Aff

805 S. Dearborn St. Seattle, WA 98134

206-386-1998 Bruce Feagan 8395

Inspector Weights & Measures MBR NCWM

Dept of Licenses & Cons Aff

805 S Dearborn St

Seattle, WA 98134

206-386-1298 Sy Feinland 7048

Pitney Bowes MBR NCWM

Parrot Drive

Shelton, CT 06484

203-925-5211 FAX # 203-925-5333 James L. Feroe 12779

Scale Technician MBR NCWM

Washington State Patrol 4242 Martin Way

Olympia, WA 98504

206-753-6854 Timothy R. Fisher 12693

Senior Vice President MBR NCWM

Pelouze Scale Co

2120 Greenwood Street Evanston, IL 60201

312-328-8330 FAX # 312-328-5995

Robert L. Fonger

Senior Technician Bennett Pump Company

PO Box 597 Muskegon, MI 49445

616-733-1302 FAX # 616-739-8832 Ken Fraley Metrologist Laboratory Div Bu of Standards 2800 N Lincoln Blvd Oklahoma City, OK 73105

405-521-3864 x370 FAX # 405-521-4912 Roger L. Freischlag Chief Executive Officer Energy Billing Systems, Inc. 535 E Cimarron St Stuite. B

Colorado Springs, CO 80903

719-632-9100 Bob Fuehne

Ralston Purina Co

Checkerboard Square - 4RN

St Louis, MO 63188

314-982-2916 FAX # 314-982-4072

Carol P. Fulmer

Assistant Commissioner SC Dept of Agriculture PO Box 11280 Columbia, SC 29211

803-737-2080 FAX # 803-734-2192

Charles H. Gardner

President Seraphin Test Measure

30 Indel Ave

Rancocas, NJ 08073

609-267-0922 FAX # 609-261-2546

3919 MBR NCWM

4148 MBR NCWM

12029 MBR NCWM

10443 MBR NCWM

4463 MBR NCWM

9660 MBR NCWM

243
Registration List

Charles A. Gardner, Jr. Director Wts & Measures

Suffolk County Consumer Affair County Ctr/N Bldg 340 Hauppauge, NY 11788

516-360-4621 Tina Gaver-Butcher Weights & Measures Coordi

Natl Inst of Stds & Tech A617 Administration Building Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301-975-2196 FAX # 301-926-0647 Thomas F. Geiler

Sealer of Weights & Measures Town of Barnstable 367 Main St Hyannis, MA 02601

508-775-1120 x 154 FAX # 508-775-3344 William G. GeMeiner

Scales Engineer

Chicago & Northwestern Trans Co

165 N Canal St Chicago, IL 60606

312-599-6133 FAX # 312-559-6495

3438 MBRNCWM

8236 MBRNCWM

219 MBR NCWM

562 MBRNCWM

Joe Giannina 3905 Supr Bulk Materials Docks MBR NCWM

Port of Corpus Christi Auth PO Box 1541 Corpus Christi, TX 78403

512-883-1162 FAX # 512-882-7110 Ronald M. Gilman 7837

Agricultural Commissioner MBR NCWM

Director of Weights & Measures

263 Camino Del Remedio

Santa Barbara, CA 93110

805-681-5600 FAX # 805-681-5603 William V. Goodpaster 1607 Vice President MBR NCWM

Cardinal/Detecto

1610 N C St Sacramento, CA 95814

916-441-0178 FAX # 916-441-5606 Louis A. Gordon 12780

Scale Technician MBR NCWM

Washington State Patrol 4242 Martin Way

Olympia, WA 98504

206-753-6854

Victor Gerber

Metrologist Wyoming Dept of Agriculture 2219 Carey Avenue

Cheyenne, WY 82002

307-777-7324

2455 MBR NCWM

Maxwell H. Gray

Chief/Bureau of W & M

FL Dept of Agric & C S 3125 Conner Blvd

Tallahassee, FL 323991650

904-488-9140

7991 MBR NCWM

Walter F. Gerdom, Jr. Manager-Technical Service Tokheim Corporation

PO Box 360 1602 Wabash Ave.

Fort Wayne, IN 46801

219-423-2552 x2316 FAX # 219-482-2677

288 MBRNCWM

Richard D. Greek

Agri Commissioner/Sealer San Luis Obispo County

2156 Sierra Way Suite D

San Luis Obispo, CA 93401

805-549-5910 FAX # 805-549-5911

2875 MBR NCWM

Fred A. Gerk

Dir Div Stds & Consumer Serves NM Dept of Agriculture PO Box 30005, Dept. 3170 Las Cruces, NM 88003-0005

505-646-1616 FAX # 505-646-3303

63 Charles H. Greene MBR NCWM Director General Services NM Dept of Agriculture PO Box 30005, Dept. 3Gsd

Las Cruces, NM 88003-0005

505-646-5340 FAX # 505-646-2661

64MBR NCWM

244
Registration List

Michael F. Grenier 77

Metrologist MBR NCWM

New Hampshire Dept of Agric

Caller Box 2042/10 Ferry St Concord. NH 03301-2042

603-271-3700 FAX # 603-271-2361 Terry L. Grimes 6275

Secretary MBR NCWM

Natl Inst of Stds & Tech A617 Admin

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301-975-4027 FAX # 301-926-0647

Darrell A. Guensler 38

Chief MBR NCWM

Calif Div of Measurement Std 8500 Fruitridge Rd

Sacramento, CA 95826

916-366-5119 FAX # 916-366-5179 Robert Gunja 9956

Standards Inspector MBR NCWM

City of Kansas City 701 North 7th St Kansas City, KS 66101

913-573-5080

Paul Hadyka 9402

Industrial Specialist MBR NCWM

USDA / FGIS Room 0623-S PO Box 96454 1400 IN Ave. Washington, DC 20250-6454

202-382-0262 Leland A. Hale 11319 General Manager MBR NCWM

Poli-Twine Inc. Bldg. A16A Freeport PO Box 1255

Clearfield, UT 84016

801-773-8756 FAX # 801-773-8864 Wayne E. Handy 148

Inspector MBR NCWM

Weights & Measures

Johnson County Courthouse

Franklin, IN 46131

317-736-5000 x206

Edwin M. Hanish 109

Inspector Laporte County MBR NCWM

Indiana Weights & Measures

2700 Franklin St Michigan City, IN 46350

219-874-7197 Melvin C. Hankel 9094

Chief Design Engineer MBR NCWM

Liquid Controls Corp Wacker Park North Chicago, IL 60064-3599

312-689-2400 x254 FAX # 312-689-8090 Gerald W. Hanson 116

Director MBR NCWM

San Bernardino County Wts/Meas

777 E Rialto Ave

San Bernardino, CA 92415-0790

714-387-2140 M. R. Hardin 8387

Inspector II MBR NCWM

Section of Weights & Measures

406 General Admin Bldg

Olympia, WA 98504

206-753-5042 George C. Hare 9093

Product Manager MBR NCWM

Badger Meter Inc 4545 West Brown Deer Rd

Milwaukee, WI 53223

414-355-0400 X-629 FAX # 414-355-2544 James D. Harnett 7774

Sealer MBR NCWM

Dept of Weights & Measures

1010 S Harbor Blvd Anaheim, CA 92805-5597

714-447-7100 FAX # 714-774-2741 Jim Harrington 8984

Inspector, Weights & Meas MBR NCWM

Michigan Dept of Agriculture 8918 Dolphin Drive Kalamazoo, MI 49002

616-428-2575

245
Registration List

Reed W. Harris Manager Yard Management S

Burlington Northern Railroad 9401 Indian Creek Pkwy P029136

Overland Park, KS 66201-9136

913-661-4212 FAX # 913-661-4420

11699 MBR NCWM

Marilyn J. Herman

President Herman and Associates 2300 M St NW Suite 800

Washington, DC 20036

202-775-1630 FAX # 202-293-3083

9091 MBR NCWM

Jack Harshman

Manager Product Develop

Daniel Flow Products, Inc. 9720 Katy Rd

Houston, TX 77224

713-827-5131

4454 John R. Hermanson MBR NCWM Supervisor

City of Dallas Dept of W & M

320 East Jefferson Room 312

Dallas, TX 75203

214-948-4400 X4420

2597 MBR NCWM

Ronald G. Hayes

Petroleum Lab Supervisor MO Dept Of Agriculture PO Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

314-751-2922 David K. Heck

Chevron USA, Inc. 575 Market St, Room 966 San Francisco, CA 94105-2856

415-894-0910 FAX # 415-894-8468 Edward C. Heffron

Director, Food Division MI Dept of Agric

PO Box 30017

Lansing, MI 48909

517-373-1060 FAX # 517-335-0628

9061 MBR NCWM

11242 MBR NCWM

2452 MBR NCWM

T. L. Hillburn

Principal Engineer Turnbow Engineering

PO Box 1604

Bartlesville, OK 74005

918-333-8475 FAX # 918-333-8879 Sam F. Hindsman

Director Arkansas Bureau of Standards 4608 W 61st St

Little Rock, AR 72209

501-371-1750 Kenneth Hoberman

President GRH Electronics, Inc. 4520 South 36th St Omaha, NE 68107-1329

402-734-4900

12772 MBR NCWM

45MBR NCWM

11142 MBR NCWM

Sid Hejzlar 4201

V.P. Engineering MBR NCWM

John Chatillon & Sons Inc 83-30 Kew Gardens Road Kew Gardens, NY 11415

718-847-5000 FAX # 718-441-4365 Raymond H. Helmick 10130

Director MBR NCWM

State of AZ/Dept of W & M

1951 W North Lane

Phoenix, AZ 85021

602-255-5211 FAX # 602-255-1950

Herman R. Hochstetler

Inspector Elkhart County Weights & Meas

19085 Cr 18 Goshen, IN 46526

219-533-9996 Leonard T. Holtgreven

President Loadmaster Scale Mfg

420 East Lincoln Street Findlay, OH 45840

419-422-4779 FAX # 419-422-9036

5855 MBR NCWM

11177 MBR NCWM

246
Ron Hooker

Program Supervisor

Division of Weights & Measures PO Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

314-751-4278 Brian Hoover

Product Market Manager

Micro Motion Inc 7070 Winchester Circle Boulder, CO 80301

303-530-8534 FAX # 303-530-8596

2441 MBRNCWM

9397 MBR NCWM

W. Terry James

Vice Pres Engineering Services Cardinal/Detecto PO Box 151 Webb City, MO 64870

417-673-4203

Jack Y. Jeffries Supervisor

Division of Standards 3125 Conner Blvd, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1650

904-487-2634 Wayne Howell

Inspector I Section of Weights & Measures

406 General Admin Bldg

Olvmpia, WA 98504

206-753-5042

8389 Randy Jennings MBR NCWM Tenn Dept of Agriculture PO Box 40627, Melrose Station

Nashville, TN 37204

615-360-0109

Richard M. Huff 10608

Vice President Electronics MBR NCWM

Universal Epsco Inc 1494 Ellsworth Ind Dr/Bx 93544

Atlanta, GA 30318

Randall L. Hutton 11660

Associate Director/Comnty Affrs MBR NCWM

Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. 5050 Edgewood Ct

Jacksonville, FL 32205

904-783-5000 x 5408 FAX # 904-783-5294

Christopher Irving, Esq. 12809

Assistant General Counsel MBR NCWM

NY City Dept Consumer Affairs 80 Lafayette Street New York, NY 10013

212-566-4862

Jay Jackson 12823 Program Officer Merch. St MBR NCWM

CANADA Cons & Corp Affairs 50 Victoria St Hull, Quebec CANADA, K1A 0C9

819-987-1177 David James 9368

Scale Program Supervisor MBR NCWM

Missouri Dept of Agriculture PO Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

314-751-5639

Malcolm Jessup

Inspector Michigan Dept of Agriculture 2459 East Outer Drive

Detroit, MI 48234

313-443-0566 Glen H. Jex Chief Bureau of Weights & Measures

2216 Kellogg Lane

Boise, ID 83712

208-334-2345 FAX # 208-334-2170 Mark R. Joelson General Counsel Morgan, Lewis & Bockius

1800 "M" St NW

Washington, DC 20036

202-467-7240 FAX # 202-467-7176 Jean Johnson American Petroleum Institute 1220 L St. N.W.

Washington, DC 20005

202-682-8147 FAX # 202-682-8036

247
Registration List

Ted F. Johnson

Sensortronics Inc 677 Arrow Grand Circle Covina, CA 91722

818-331-0502 FAX # 818-332-3418

9899 Eugene Keeley MBR NCWM Supervisor Delaware Weights & Measures

2320 South Dupont Highway

Dover, DE 19901

302-736-4811 x37 FAX # 302-697-6287

22MBR NCWM

Galen Joly 10870 VP Sheeting Div MBR NCWM

Poly-Tech Inc 1401 W 94th St Minneapolis, MN 55431

612-884-7281 FAX # 612-884-6438 George E. Jones 10624

Director Fuel & Measures MBR NCWM

Georgia Dept of Agriculture Agric Bldg/Rm 327 Capitol Sq

Atlanta, GA 30334

404-656-3606

Michael J. Keilty 11672

Product Mgr-Custody Tran MBR NCWM

Micro Motion Inc 7070 Winchester Circle Boulder, CO 80301

303-530-8422 Thomas W. Kelly 5892

State Superintendent MBR NCWM

State Office of Weights & Meas

1261 US Route 1 & 9 South

Avenel, NJ 07001

201-815-4840 FAX # 201-382-5298

Vickie S. Jones Counsel Mobil Oil Corp

3225 Gallows Rd

Fairfax, VA 22037

703-849-7156

11690 MBR NCWM

Robert L. Kessler Exec Director - Gen Couns Westerm Coal Trans. Assn PO Box 176 Denver, CO 80206

303-694-6611

11693 MBR NCWM

Michael Juhasz

Inspector Michigan Dept of Agriculture 4222 Longtin

Lincoln Park, MI 48146

313-443-0566

10236 Elmer Kilian MBR NCWM Weights & Measures Inspec Trade & Consumer Protection 3333 N Mayfair Road

Milwaukee, WI 53222-3288

414-257-8957

6267 MBR NCWM

Raymond Kalentkowski 7243

Supervisor MBR NCWM

Weights & Measures Division

State Office Bldg/Cons Prot

Hartford, CT 06106

203-566-4778 FAX # 203-566-7630

Larry Kanouse 8390

Inspector II MBR NCWM

Section of Weights & Measures

406 General Admin Bldg

Olympia, WA 98504

206-753-5042

Chip Kloos Lab Manager-R & D

Beatrice/Hunt-Wesson

1645 W Valencia Dr

Fullerton, CA 92634

714-680-1098 xl098 Joan A. Koenig

Technical Coordinator

Natl Institute of Stds & Tech A617 Admin

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301-975-4007 FAX # 301-926-0647

3453 MBR NCWM

9036 MBR NCWM

248
Registration List

Walter E. Kupper 3930

Director Tech & Reg Affairs MBR NCWM

Mettler Instrument Corp Box 71 Hightstown, NJ 08520-0071

609-448-3000 Dan Kushnir 9902

Seraphin Test Measure MBR NCWM

30 Indel Ave

Rancocas, NJ 08073

609-267-0922 FAX # 609-261-2546 John T. Lacy 246

Chief Scales & Weighing Branch MBR NCWM

USDA Packers & Stockyards Adm

3414 S 14th & Independence Av

'Washington, DC 20250

202-447-3140 Anthony J. Ladd 203

Consultant MBR NCWM

The Pillsbury Co

255 N Portage Path Suite 213 Akron, OH 44303

216-836-4569 Terry Lambert 11701 Merchandising Mgr MBR NCWM

Amoco Oil Company

200 E. Randolph

Chicago, IL 60601

312-856-5379 Robert L. Land 187

Inspector of City Anderson MBR NCWM

Dept of Weights & Measures PO Box 2100 120 E 8th St Anderson, IN 46011

317-646-9839 FAX # 317-646-5668 Robert A. LeCaire, Jr. 9038

Director-Laboratory Service MBR NCWM

Presto Products Inc 670 N Perkins St. Appleton, WI 54914-3133

414-739-9471 FAX # 414-738-1458

Wolfgang Lemmc 6239 Manager Technical Service MBR NCWM

Mettler Instrument Corp

Princeton-Hightstown Road

Hightstown, NJ 08520-0071

609-448-3000 x221 FAX # 609-586-5451 John H. Lewis 56

Executive Secretary MBR NCWM

Western Weights & Measures

930 Trosper Road SW #16

Tumwater, WA 98502

206-943-1893 Harvey M. Lodge 355

President MBR NCWM

Dunbar Manufacturing Inc 307 Broadway

Swanton, OH 43558

419-825-2331 FAX # 419-826-8439

F. Joe Loyd, Jr. 9086

Engineer-Scales & Weighing MBR NCWM

CSX Transportation 500 Water St Jacksonville, FL 32202

904-359-1024 FAX # 904-359-7476 James F. Lyles 57

Retired Chief MBR NCWM

VA Weights & Measures Bur. 7804 Lycoming Rd. Richmond, VA 23229

804-285-0559 Melvin L. Lyons 8632

Assistant Director MBR NCWM

Weights & Measures Louisiana PO Box 44456 Capitol Station Baton Rouge, LA 70804

504-925-3780 John MacDonald 7542

Vice President, Engineering MBR NCWM

Howe Richardson

680 Van Houten Avenue

Clifton, NJ 07015

201-471-3400

249
Registration List

Steven A. Malone 554

Director MBR NCWM

Weights And Measures Division 301 Centennial Mall S Box 94757

Lincoln, NE 68509

402-471-4292 x208 FAX # 402-471-3252 Marilyn Manson 12684 Manager, Quality Systems MBR NCWM

The Pillsbury Company

211 Second Street, SE

Minneapolis, MN 55414

612-330-8890 FAX # 612-330-4354 Michael Mar 8396

Inspector Weights & Measures MBR NCWM

Dept of Licenses & Cons Aff

805 S Dearborn St

Seattle, WA 98134

206-386-1298

Vernon L. Massey 3634

Sealer MBR NCWM

Shelby County Government

814 Jefferson Memphis, TN 38105

901-576-7546

Allen W. Matthys 738

Director Regulatory Affairs MBR NCWM

National Food Processors Assn

1401 New York Ave NW

Washington, DC 20005

202-639-5960 FAX # 202-639-5932 George E. Mattimoe 2508

Administrator Measurement MBR NCWM

Dept of Agriculture 725 Halo St Honolulu, HI 96813

808-548-7152 FAX # 808-548-8524

Patrick Marino 9366

Technical Service Manager MBR NCWM

New Brunswick Internatl Inc 76 Veronica Ave

Somerset, NJ 08873

201-828-3633 FAX # 201-828-4884 Glen R. Marshall 10444

Shell Oil Co MBR NCWM

777 Walker/2 Shell Pl/Tspll30

Houston, TX 77002

713-241-1452 FAX # 713-241-2788

Lynda Maurer 32

Supervising Metrologist MBR NCWM

Dept. of Labor/Mercantile Div. 220 Elmwood Road

Providence, RI 02907

401-457-1867 Robert McCarty 11686 Systems Engineer-Industry MBR NCWM

NCR Corp

PO Box 728, 800 Cochran Ave

Cambridge, OH 43725

614-439-0579 FAX # 614-439-0249

Bruce Martell Sup Consumer Assurance Vermont Dept of Agriculture 116 State Street Montpelier, VT 05602

802-828-2429

John W. McCutcheon

10126 Assistant Administrator MBR NCWM US Dept of Agriculture FSIS Room 4860, South Agriculture Washington, DC 20250

202-447-3697 FAX # 202-447-6053

9079 MBR NCWM

John Martin

Inspector I Section of Weights & Measures

406 General Admin Bldg

Olympia, WA 98504

206-753-5042

8391 T. B. McDonald MBR NCWM Manager Resale Facilities Mobil Oil Corp. 3225 Gallows Road, Rm 2A-211

Fairfax, VA 22037

703-849-5320 FAX # 703-849-5074

12456 MBR NCWM

250
Registration List

Sterling McFarlane 8397

Supervisor Weights & Measures MBR NCWM

Dept of Licenses & Cons Aff Room 102 600 4th Ave

Seattle, WA 98104

206-386-1298 Stephen E. McGuire 4000

Metrologist MBR NCWM

Illinois Dept of Agriculture 801 E Sangamon Ave

Springfield, IL 62794-9281

217-785-8480 FAX # 217-524-5960

Charles W. Moore 2739 County Inspector MBR NCWM

Weights & Measures Madison County Govt Center Anderson, IN 46011

317-641-9523 FAX # 317-641-9486 James M. Moreillon 3458

Inspector MBR NCWM

New Albany-Floyd Co

1203 Westwood Lane New Albany, IN 47150

812-944-0470 John R. McPherson

Senior Staff Engineer Exxon Co USA

PO Box 4415 1200 Smith St Houston, TX 77210

713-656-7757 FAX # 713-656-7789

9392 MBR NCWM

Thomas L. Morrow

Manager

Tec America Inc 2150 W 190th St Torrance, CA 90504

213-320-8900 x301 FAX # 213-533-1046

3380 MBR NCWM

James Melgaard

Director Div Commercial Insp & Reg

118 West Capitol

Pierre, SD 57501

605-773-3697 FAX # 605-773-4117

39 Robert Mousseau 12766 MBR NCWM Depty Dir, Audits & Scales MBR NCWM

Canadian Grain Commission

800-303 Main St Winnipeg,Man,CANADA, R3C3G8

204-983-2798 FAX # 204-983-8363 Stephen H. Meloy 61 Administrator MBR NCWM

Bureau of Weights & Measures

1424 9th Ave

Helena, MT 59620

406-444-3164 FAX # 406-444-2903

Stanley K. Millay 74

Metrologist MBR NCWM

ME Dept Agriculture W & M

Div of Regulations Station 28

Augusta, ME 04333

207-289-2751 FAX # 207-289-7161 Joan Mindte 12500

Training Coordinator MBR NCWM

National Inst of Stds & Tech A609 Admin

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301-975-4003 FAX # 301-926-0647

Ronald D. Murdock 8366

Standards Division MBR NCWM

NC Dept of Agriculture PO Box 27647

Raleigh, NC 27611

919-733-3313 Emmett Murphy 6208

Chief MBR NCWM

Philadelphia Weights & Measures

1101 Mkt St, Rm 600 Ara Twrs

Philadelphia, PA 19107

215-592-6081 Larry Murray 5879

Chief Engineer MBR NCWM

Wayne Div-Dresser Industries 124 W College Ave PO Box 1859

Salisbury, MD 21801

301-546-6690 FAX # 301-546-6888

251
Registration List

Albert M. Mysogland 2756 County Sealer MBR NCWM

Weights & Measures

2293 N Main St Crown Point, IN 46307

219-755-3680 Joseph Nagy 2711

Sealer of Weights & Measures MBR NCWM

City of South Bend Indiana 701 W Sample St South Bend, IN 46621

219-284-9273 Thomas A. Neff 9977

Property Mgmt Commander MBR NCWM

Washington State Patrol 4242 Martin Way

Olympia, WA 98504

206-753-6854

Rafael Santi Negron 12694 Weights & Measures Official MBR NCWM

Department of Consumer Affairs PO Box 41059, Minillas Sta. Santurce, PR 00940

809-721-1930

Allan M. Nelson 2515

Director Weights & Measures MBR NCWM

Dept of Consumer Protection 165 Capitol Ave Room G17

Hartford, CT 06106

203-566-4778 FAX # 203-566-7630

James M. O'Connor 2454

Chief MBR NCWM

Weights & Measures Henry A Wallace Bldg E.9th,Gr. Des Moines, IA 50319

515-281-5716 FAX # 515-281-6236 Roxanne O'Gara 12765

Business Development Coord MBR NCWM

GRH Electronics 4520 South 36th St Omaha, NE 68107

402-734-4900 Robert W. Omlor 117 Chief Inspector MBR NCWM

Weights & Measures Montgomery

451 W Third St Dayton, OH 45422

513-225-4315 Henry V. Oppermann 3389 Gen Physical Scientist MBR NCWM

Natl Institute of Stds & Tech Wts & Meas/Admin 101 Rm A617

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301-975-4008 FAX # 301-926-0647 Claude R. Parent 610

Consultant MBR NCWM

7 Eastwood Dr

Orinda, CA 94563

415-376-5697

Karl Newell 9879

Office of Weights & Measures MBR NCWM

Natl Institute of Stds & Tech A617 Admin

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301-975-4013 FAX # 301-926-0647

Patrick E. Nichols 110

Sealer MBR NCWM

Dept of Weights & Measures

333 Fifth St Oakland, CA 94607-4107

415-268-7287

Bill B. Paull 10650

Standards Engineer MBR NCWM

Hobart Corp/PMI Food Equip. World Headquarters

Troy, OH 45374

513-332-2651 FAX # 513-332-2651

Bryant Pearson 197

Sealer of Weights & Measures MBR NCWM

City of New Britain Conn

City Hall 27 W Main St New Britain, CT 06051

203-224-2491 x230

252
Registration List

Lee Pennington

Property Management

Washington State Patrol 4242 Martin Way

Olympia, WA 98504

206-753-6854

Peter R. Perino

President Transducers Inc 14030 Bolsa Lane

Cerritos, CA 90701

714-739-1991 FAX # 714-522-0931 Stephen C. Perry Toledo Scale 350 W Wilson Bridge Road

Worthington, OH 43085

614-438-4600 FAX # 614-438-4646

Jim Peskey

Senior Retail Inspector Div Comrcial Inspection & Reg

118 W Capitol St Harrisburg, SD 57032

605-743-2236 Richard Phegley Exxon Co USA

P.O. Box 2180

Houston, TX 77252-2180

713-656-8510

DeVern H. Phillips State Sealer Kansas Div of Inspections 2016 SW 37th St Topeka, KS 66611-2570

913-267-4641 FAX # 913-296-7951

Michelle Phillips Deputy Inspector Dept of Weights & Measures

City County Bldg Room 1760

Indianapolis, IN 46227

317-236-4272

12778 MBR NCWM

C.Thomas Picton System Supervisor Scale I Conrail

6 Penn Center Room 1634

Philadelphia, PA 19104

215-977-1617

635 MBR NCWM

3894 MBR NCWM

A. M. Pinne Mobil Oil Corp

3225 Gallows Rd.

Fairfax, VA 22037

703-849-6160 FAX # 703-849-4669

11691 MBR NCWM

9911 MBR NCWM

Robert Pitcher General Manager PESA Scale Corp. 2130 S. Industrial Park Ave. Tempe, AZ 85282

602-967-3330 FAX # 602-921-0446

12449 MBR NCWM

4448 Cathryn F. Pittman MBR NCWM Metrologist Department of Agriculture PO Box 40627 Melrose Station

Nashville, TN 37204

615-360-0159

2403 MBR NCWM

11697 MBR NCWM

10619 MBR NCWM

9076 MBR NCWM

Wesley G. Poynter 12450

Oil Control Coordinator MBR NCWM

Chevron Pipe Line Co. 555 Market Street San Francisco, CA j94105 415-894-0518 FAX # 415-894-7391 Gale Prince 10651 Manager Regulatory Compli MBR NCWM

Kroger Co

1014 Vine St Cincinnati, OH 45201

513-762-4209 FAX # 513-762-4372

Patrick Quigg 11118 General Mills Inc MBR NCWM

Number One General Mills Blvd. Minneapolis, MN 55440-1113

612-540-2354 FAX # 612-540-7611

253
Registration List

David W. Quinn 11509 Product Manager MBR NCWM

Fairbanks Scales 69th Street Industrial Park

Meridian, MS 39305

601-483-4311 FAX # 601-483-4311 John B. Rabb 89 W & M Laboratory Supervis MBR NCWM

Div of Weights & Measures PO Box 3336 Montgomery, AL 36193

205-261-2652

Diane Rise 10214

Inspector I MBR NCWM

Section of Weights & Measures

406 General Admin Bldg

Olympia, WA 98504

206-753-5042

Curtis Roberts 11117

Director MBR NCWM

Weights & Measures Division

State Capitol Bismarck, ND 58505

701-224-2400 FAX # 701-224-3000 Robert A. Reinfried Technical Assistant Scale Manufacturers Assn

932 Hungerford Dr #36

Rockville, MD 20850

301-738-2448 FAX # 301-738-0076 Robert E. Reynolds Downstream Alternatives Inc. PO Box 190 Bremen, IN 46506

219-546-4204 FAX # 219-546-5845

Sharon Rhoades

Inspector

Division of Weights & Measures

1330 W Michigan St Rm 136N

Indianapolis, IN 46206

317-633-0350 Marsha Richardson

Inspector Gibson County Weights & Measur

800 S. Prince, Courthouse Anne

Princeton, IN 47670

812-385-2426

9388 MBR NCWM

10653 MBR NCWM

8157 MBR NCWM

11136 MBR NCWM

Dwight G. Robertson 9686

Senior Engineer-Perform an MBR NCWM

Southwestern Public Service Co

6th & Tyler Amarillo, TX 79170

806-378-2722

Cordell L. Robinson 184 Weights & Measures Inspec MBR NCWM

City of Columbus

50 West Gay St Columbus, OH 43215

614-645-7397 John J. Robinson 743

Sr Assistant Vice Preside MBR NCWM

Assn of American Railroads 50 F St NW

Washington, DC 20001

202-639-2204 FAX # 202-639-5546 JA. Rogers 9374

Chief MBR NCWM

Virginia Weights & Measures

1100 Bank St Richmond, VA 23209

804-786-2476 FAX # 804-371-7793 Richard L. Rightmyer

Senior Staff Engineer

VA Power PO Box 26666 Richmond, VA 23261

804-771-3862 FAX # 804-771-3166

11075 Ed Romano MBR NCWM Sealer Dept of Weights & Measures PO Box 351

Willows, CA 95988

916-934-4651 FAX # 916-934-2006

124 MBR NCWM

254
Registration List

Terry Rosfelder Sun Refining & Marketing Co

10 Penn Cntr/1801 Market St Philadelphia, PA 19103-1699

215-977-6502 FAX # 215-977-6191

9078 James Schnitzler MBR NCWM Accurate Metering Systems Inc 1651 Wilkening Court Schaumburg, IL 60173

312-882-0690 FAX # 312-882-2695

10871 MBR NCWM

Robert Ross 9642

Fluid Measurement Special MBR NCWM

Amerada Hess Corp

PO Box 2040 218 W. 6th St. Tulsa, OK 74102

918-599-4205 FAX # 918-599-4252 Joseph Rothleder 3495

Principal State Metrologi MBR NCWM

CA Div of Measurement Standard 8500 Fruitridge Road

Sacramento, CA 95826

916-366-5119 FAX # 9160366-5179

12825 MBR NCWM

10000 MBR NCWM

Ruben R. Salazar Metrology Aide

Boeing Aerospace PO Box 3999 M/S 2P-30

Seattle, WA 98124-2499

206-544-5364 Tom W. Schafer

Metrologist Weights & Measures

2216 Kellogg Lane

Boise, ID 83712

208-334-2345 FAX # 208-334-2170 Dennis Schaffer 3911

Scale Service Coordinator MBR NCWM

TEC America Inc 2150 W. 190th St. Torrance, CA 90504

213-320-8900 x396 FAX # 213-533-0218 George Schmidt 8392

Inspector I MBR NCWM

Section of Weights & Measures

406 General Admin Bldg

Olympia, WA 98504

206-753-5042

Randy Schoonover

National Inst of Stds & Tech

Physics B160

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301-921-3520

Russell Shields Vice President, Manufacturing

Southwest Pump Company

Drawer 280 Bonham, TX 75418

214-583-3134 FAX # 214-583-3138 M.Richard Shockley Program Manager

Maryland Dept of Agriculture 50 Harry S Truman Parkway

Annapolis, MD 21401

301-841-5790 Joseph Silvestro Superintendent Glou Co Wts & Meas Dept

49 Wood St Countv Bldg Woodbury, NJ 08096

609-853-3358 Kendrick J. Simila Administrator Measmt Stds Oregon Dept of Agriculture 635 Capitol St NE

Salem, OR 97310-0110

503-378-3792 FAX # 503-378-5529 Edward P. Skluzacek

Director Wts & Measures Division 2277 Highway 36

Roseville, MN 55113

612-341-7200

4166 MBR NCWM

12713 MBR NCWM

9057 MBR NCWM

2809 MBR NCWM

2510 MBR NCWM

43MBR NCWM

255
Registration List

John C. Skuce 10442 Manager Mechanical Engine MBR NCWM

Smith Meter Inc 1602 Wagner Ave-PO Box 10428

Erie, PA 16514

814-899-0661 x405 FAX # 814-899-8927 Douglas C. Smith 262 Customer & Technical Serv MBR NCWM

William M Wilsons Sons Inc 8 St & Valley Forge Rds

Lansdale, PA 19446

215-855-4631-37 FAX # 215-855-0341

N. David Smith 2391

Director Standards Dv MBR NCWM

NC Dept of Agriculture PO Box 27647 Dept Sd

Raleigh, NC 27611

919-733-3313 FAX # 919-733-0999 Richard N. Smith 237

Technical Coordinator MBR NCWM

Natl Institute of Std & Tech A617 Admin

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301-975-4014 FAX # 301-926-0647 Robert B. Smith 10656

Vice President MBR NCWM

Rex Plastics PO Box 948

Thomasville, NC 27360

919-475-2176 FAX # 919-476-7133 Robert A. Smoot 10657 Chief Weights & Measures MBR NCWM

Utah Dept of Agric

350 North Redwood Rd

Salt Lake City, UT 84116

801-538-7158 Donald J. Soberg 3478

Administrator Trade Divis MBR NCWM

Wisconsin Dept of Agriculture 801 W Badger Rd PO Box 8911 Madison, WI 53708

608-266-7220 FAX # 608-266-1300

Louis F. Sokol 1021

President Emeritus & Ed MBR NCWM

US Metric Association 255 Mountain Meadows Rd

Boulder, CO 80302-9256

303-443-9729

E. Leon Spaugy 11143 Ag Comsnr, Wts & Measures MBR NCWM

Los Angeles County

3400 La Madera Avenue

El Monte, CA 91732

818 575-5451 James H. Spires 9625 Weights & Measures Inspec MBR NCWM

City of Dallas Consumer Serv

1509 Wilshire Blvd

Arlington, TX 76012

214-948-4400 X4424 Thomas M. Stabler 3119 Manager-Weights & Meas MBR NCWM

Toledo Scale PO Box 1705 Columbus, OH 43216

614-438-4548 William V. Stansky 4038 Q A Inspection Manager MBR NCWM

Mennen Company

Hanover Ave

Morristown, NJ 07960

201-631-9095 FAX # 201-631-9048

Charles R. Stockman 4136 Weights & Measures Section MBR NCWM

Dept of Agriculture 50 Harry S Truman Pky

Annapolis, MD 21401

301-454-5117 Bunjob Suktat 12822 Engineer MBR NCWM

Thai Airways Intl Ltd Bangkok Airport

Thailand, William C. Sullivan 196 Retired Secretary Treasur MBR NCWM

Western Weights & Meas Assn

18104 33rd Ave NE

Seattle, WA 98155

206-364-7326

256
Registration List

Chester Szyndrowski 10302

Inspector Weights & Meas MBR NCWM

City of East Chicago, Indiana 1102 W 151 St East Chicago, IN 46312

219-397-3409 David R. Taylor 12831

Director of Engineering MBR NCWM

Measurement Systems Int'l 12622 Interurban Ave S

Seattle, WA 98168

206-433-0199

Albert D. Tholen 232

Chief Off of Weights & Meas MBR NCWM

Natl Institute of Stds & Tech A617 Admin

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301-975-4009 FAX # 301-926-0647 Aves D. Thompson 10201 Chief MBR NCWM

Div. of Measurement Standards 12050 Ind Wy Bl 0 - PO 111686 Anchorage, AK 99511

907-345-7750 FAX # 907-345-2641 11827 MBR NCWM

5869 MBR NCWM

Jeffrey Thuner

Supervising Spec Investig CA Dept of Food & Agriculture 169 East Liberty Avenue

Anaheim, CA 92801 714-680-78%

Kathleen A. Thuner

Agric Comm Sealer Wgts &

Dept of Agric, Wts & Meas

5555 Overland Avenue Bldg 3 San Diego, CA 92123-1292

619-694-2742 FAX # 619-565-7046 John M. Tillson 10945

Director Consumer Prot. MBR NCWM

MS Dept. of Agriculture PO Box 1609

Jackson, MS 39215-1609

601-354-7063

Walter Tkachuk 7543

Shell Oil Co MBR NCWM

17919 Fireside Drive

Spring, TX 77379

713-241-0502 Guy J. Tommasi 214

Sealer of Weights & Meas MBR NCWM

City of Middletown

City Hall-245 Dekoven Drive Middletown, CT 06457

203-344-3492 x492

Daryl E. Tonini 1336

Technical Director MBR NCWM

Scale Manufacturers Assn

1420 Spring Hill Rd, Suite 300 McLean, VA 22102

703-821-0622

Jose A. Torres-Ferrer 11193 Laboratory Techinician MBR NCWM

Weights & Measures PO Box 743

Caguas, PR 00626

809-724-5153 Jonas E. Townsend, Jr. 6068

Asst Supt MBR NCWM

Cumberland County

788 E Commerce St Bridgeton, NJ 08302

609-453-2203 x 2205 FAX # 609-451-0967 James C. Truex 2178 Weights & Measures Insp M MBR NCWM

Ohio Dept of Agriculture 8995 E Main St Reynoldsburg, OH 43068

614-866-6361 FAX # 614-866-4174 Richard Tucker 9070 Manager Customer Service MBR NCWM

Tokheim Corporation PO Box 360 /1600 Wabash Ave.

Ft Wayne, IN 46801

219-483-6762 FAX # 219-482-2677

257
Registration List

Barbara S. Umbenhauer

Scale Approvals Coordinat

Pennsylvania Scale Co

21 Graybill Rd.

Leola, PA 17540

717-656-2653 x42 FAX # 717-656-3216

718 MBR NCWM

Otto K. Warnlof

Manager-Technical Service Natl Inst of Stand & Tech Admin Bldg A-625

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301-975-4026 FAX # 301-926-0647

233 MBR NCWM

Eric A. Vadelund

Senior Standards Specialist Natl Institute of Stds & Tech Admin Bldg A625

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301-975-4028

Fredric J. Violo Div of Prof Reg

Dept of Labor

220 Elmwood Ave

Providence, RI 02907

401-457-1867

Steve Vreeland

Design Engineer A. R. Technology, Inc. 16915 W Victor Road New Berlin, WI 53151

414-736-4280 FAX # 414-796-4287 Doug Walker Measurement Coordinator Marathon Petroleum Co

425 S 20th St Tampa, FL 33605

813-248-6730 Robert W. Walker

Retired IN W&M Director 964 High Street Charlestown, IN 47111

812-256-4287

Irene Warnlof

9705 Inaugural Way

Gaithersburg, MD 20879

301-926-8155

3388 MBR NCWM

10084 MBR NCWM

12689 MBR NCWM

11688 MBR NCWM

2407 MBR NCWM

7145 MBR NCWM

Harold G. Warp 9067 Warp Bros Plastics MBR NCWM

4647 West Augusta Blvd

Chicago, IL 60651

312-261-5200

Stanley I. Warshaw 4426 Assoc Dir For Indus & Stnd MBR NCWM

Natl Institute of Stds & Tech A603 Admin Bldg

Gaithersburg, MD 20899

301-975-4001 Bernard Wasko 12847

Product Manager MBR NCWM

HNU-Voland

160 Charlemont St Newton Highlands, MA 02161

617-964-6690 FAX # 617-965-5812 David Watson 2656 Consumer Products Supervi MBR NCWM

City of Fort Worth Texas

1800 University Room 208

Fort Worth, TX 76107

817-870-7572 Richard H. Weber 684 Metrology Lab MBR NCWM

3M Co

Bldg 544-1-02, 3M Center

St Paul, MN 55144-1000

612-733-2674 FAX # 612-736-5980 Donald J. Weick 3996 Consumer Protection MBR NCWM

Weights & Measures

215 E 7th Rm 353 Topeka, KS 66603

913-295-3883

258
Registration List

Raymond R. Wells

President - Sales

Sensitive Measurement Inc PO Box 72 Pemberton, NJ

609-894-2292

3484 Gerald Wojtala

MBR NCWM Inspector Michigan Dept of Agriculture 27800 Terrance

Livonia, MI 48154

313-443-0566

10243 MBR NCWM

Richard L. Whipple

Regulatory Engineer

Gilbarco Inc 7300 W Friendly Ave PO/22087

Greensboro, NC 27420

919-547-5150 FAX # 919-292-8871

3486 Richard E. Wolfe MBR NCWM Deputy Director Dept of Weights & Measures

1951 W North Lane

Phoenix, AZ 85021

602-255-5211 FAX # 602-255-1950

10136 MBR NCWM

Curtis Williams

Director Fuel Oil Laborat GA Dept of Agric

St Oil Lab/5235 Kennedy Rd

Forest Park, GA 30050

404-363-7597

4524 MBR NCWM

Joseph J. Wondoloski

Vice President Production

Sensitive Measurement Inc Box 72

Perberton, NJ 08068

609-894-2292

12805 MBR NCWM

Robert G. Williams

Standards Administrator

Division of Quality Standards PO Box 40627/Melrose Station

Nashville, TN 37204

615-360-0109 George Wilson American Meat Institute 2510 Shagbark SE

Grand Rapids, MI 49546

616-956-0507

8797 MBR NCWM

12814 MBR NCWM

Sheldon Woodle

Lodec Inc 20215 Cedar Valley Rd PO "D" Lynnwood, WA 98036

206-775-6471 Theodore O. Wright

Director American Natl Metric Council 4421-102 Lane NE

Kirkland, WA 98033

206-827-8190

11233 MBR NCWM

12832 MBR NCWM

Kenneth L. Wilson

Sr Field Engineer Arco Products Company

8601 S Garfield Ave

South Gate, CA 90280

213-806-4180 FAX # 213-806-4130

1966 MBR NCWM

Theodore H. Yaffe Program Manager US Postal Service 8403 Lee Highway

Merrifield, VA 22082-8101

703-641-7055 FAX # 703-280-4541

10872 MBR NCWM

Randall Wise

Weights & Measures

106 West 2nd St Frankfort, KY 40601

502-564-4870 Robert Wittenberger

Metrologist Weights & Measures Lab. PO Box 630

Jefferson City, MO 65102

314-751-3440

10293 MBR NCWM

91MBR NCWM

Harold Zorlen

Regional Supervisor Mich Dept of Agric Reg VII 65655 Campground Road

Romeo, MI 48065

313-443-0566

9009 MBR NCWM

1i US GOvER'-mEnT printing OFFCt. 261-986' 04100

259